However, this way of thinking about it makes it tempting to think that the memory athlete is able to store a set number of bits into memory per second studying; a linear relationship between study time and the length of sequences which can be recalled. I doubt the relationship is that simple.
Yeah this website implies that it’s sublinear—something like 50% more content when they get twice as long to study? Just from quickly eyeballing it.
In order to keep a set of information “in working memory” in this paradigm is to keep rehearsing it at a spaced-repetition schedule such that you recall each fact before you forget it.
I still feel like you’re using the term “working memory” in a different way from how I would use it. Suppose you have 30 minutes to study a list of numbers. You first see Item X and try to memorize it in minute 3. Then you revisit it in minute 9, and it turns out that you’ve already “forgotten it” (in the sense that you would have failed a quiz) but it “rings a bell” when you see it, and you try again to memorize it. I think you’re still benefitting from the longer forgetting curve associated with the second revisit of Item X. But Item X wasn’t “in working memory” in minute 8, by my definitions.
(Note that I don’t know the details of how memory athletes spend their 30 minutes and didn’t check. For all I know they do a single pass.)
You first see Item X and try to memorize it in minute 3. Then you revisit it in minute 9, and it turns out that you’ve already “forgotten it” (in the sense that you would have failed a quiz) but it “rings a bell” when you see it, and you try again to memorize it. I think you’re still benefitting from the longer forgetting curve associated with the second revisit of Item X. But Item X wasn’t “in working memory” in minute 8, by my definitions.
One way to parameterize recall tasks is x,y,z = time you get to study the sequence, time between in which you must maintain the memory, time you get to try and recall the sequence.
During “x”, you get the case you described. I presume it makes sense to do the standard spaced-rep study schedule, where you re-study information at a time when you have some probability of having already forgotten it. (I also have not looked into what memory champions do.)
During “y”, you have to maintain. You still want to rehearse things, but you don’t want to wait until you have some probability of having forgotten, at this point, because the study material is no longer in front of you; if you forget something, it is lost. This is what I was referring to when I described “keeping something in working memory”.
During “z”, you need to try and recall all of the stored information and report it in the correct sequence. I suppose having longer z helps, but the amount it helps probably drops off pretty sharply as z increases. So x and y are in some sense the more important variables.
I still feel like you’re using the term “working memory” in a different way from how I would use it.
So how do you want to use it?
I think my usage is mainly weird because I’m going hard on the operationalization angle, using performance on memory experiments as a definition. I think this way of defining things is particularly practical, but does warp things a lot if we try to derive causal models from it.
I think it’s cool what you’re trying to do, I just wish you had made up your own original term instead of using the existing term “working memory”. To be honest I’m not an expert on exactly how “working memory” is defined, but I’m pretty sure it has some definition, and that this definition is widely accepted (at least in broad outline; probably people argue around the edges), and that this accepted definition is pretty distant from the thing you’re talking about. I’m open to being corrected; like I said, I’m not an expert on memory terminology. :)
The term “working memory” was coined by Miller, and I’m here using his definition. In this sense, I think what I’m doing is about as terminologically legit as one can get. But Miller’s work is old; possibly I should be using newer concepts instead.
Yeah this website implies that it’s sublinear—something like 50% more content when they get twice as long to study? Just from quickly eyeballing it.
I still feel like you’re using the term “working memory” in a different way from how I would use it. Suppose you have 30 minutes to study a list of numbers. You first see Item X and try to memorize it in minute 3. Then you revisit it in minute 9, and it turns out that you’ve already “forgotten it” (in the sense that you would have failed a quiz) but it “rings a bell” when you see it, and you try again to memorize it. I think you’re still benefitting from the longer forgetting curve associated with the second revisit of Item X. But Item X wasn’t “in working memory” in minute 8, by my definitions.
(Note that I don’t know the details of how memory athletes spend their 30 minutes and didn’t check. For all I know they do a single pass.)
One way to parameterize recall tasks is x,y,z = time you get to study the sequence, time between in which you must maintain the memory, time you get to try and recall the sequence.
During “x”, you get the case you described. I presume it makes sense to do the standard spaced-rep study schedule, where you re-study information at a time when you have some probability of having already forgotten it. (I also have not looked into what memory champions do.)
During “y”, you have to maintain. You still want to rehearse things, but you don’t want to wait until you have some probability of having forgotten, at this point, because the study material is no longer in front of you; if you forget something, it is lost. This is what I was referring to when I described “keeping something in working memory”.
During “z”, you need to try and recall all of the stored information and report it in the correct sequence. I suppose having longer z helps, but the amount it helps probably drops off pretty sharply as z increases. So x and y are in some sense the more important variables.
So how do you want to use it?
I think my usage is mainly weird because I’m going hard on the operationalization angle, using performance on memory experiments as a definition. I think this way of defining things is particularly practical, but does warp things a lot if we try to derive causal models from it.
I think it’s cool what you’re trying to do, I just wish you had made up your own original term instead of using the existing term “working memory”. To be honest I’m not an expert on exactly how “working memory” is defined, but I’m pretty sure it has some definition, and that this definition is widely accepted (at least in broad outline; probably people argue around the edges), and that this accepted definition is pretty distant from the thing you’re talking about. I’m open to being corrected; like I said, I’m not an expert on memory terminology. :)
The term “working memory” was coined by Miller, and I’m here using his definition. In this sense, I think what I’m doing is about as terminologically legit as one can get. But Miller’s work is old; possibly I should be using newer concepts instead.