Jeff and others -
Just a quick comment from yet another cognitive psychologist. The term
"chunk" was chosen to be deliberately vague because, at the time, noone
really knew exactly what one consisted of. Also, far from letting my
students go with just the mantra of "The Magical Number 7 +/- 2", I use a
demonstration that shows first that you *can* really remember more than
just 7 *items* (hence a chunk doesn't equal one number or one letter or one
syllable), and second that you can't just keep on stuffing information into
chunks; there *is* a limit and that limit seems to be related to
pronunciation time. (Note that this is probably the case, in part at least,
because we are dealing with verbal information!) Its a very effective
demonstration and really gets the two points across well. (It's also a very
robust demo, something that the social phobic in me appreciates :)
Johnna
>Hi
>
>Jeff seems determined to flush us cognitive psychologists out of
>the woodwork ...
>
>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >I have become aware through reading a book by Alan Baddeley (1993; _Your
>> >memory: A user's guide_. London: Prion) that the common view that ST memory
>> >holds about 7 items of information is not correct. Research on the related
>> >concept of working memory suggests that it is the amount of information
>>that
>> >one can repeat subvocally (when the info to be remembered is verbal) in
>>about
>> >1.5 seconds that tends to be recalled from working memory. Often, the word
>
>There are a number of phenomena consistent with the observations
>described by Jeff (word length and articulatory suppression
>effects). One is a robust individual differences correlation
>between pronunciation speed and size of STM. That is, people who
>can pronounce words quickly have larger STMs than those who
>pronounce words more slowly. I can find the reference at the
>office in the next few days if anyone is interested. I use a
>compelling plot of mean STM for people varying in pronunciation
>speed (partly as a function of developmental age).
>
>As to whether this violates 7 +/- 2, one needs to be somewhat
>cautious because the principle is stated in terms of _chunks_ of
>information (hence, multi-syllable words might constitute more
>chunks, if a chunk is a pronounceable unit), and the principle
>does allow for some variation across even adult participants.
>Admittedly it does seem to rely on a capacity view in which there
>are a set number of slots in STM, which might be viewed as
>incompatible with the idea that the number of chunks is
>determined by how quickly they can be reactivated before
>decaying or being otherwise reduced in strength.
>
>Now, will Jeff leave me alone to enjoy the end of our term?
>
>Best wishes
>Jim
>
jk shapiro "Don't worry about it, ok?
(GWing wannabe We're good at fighting losing battles,
and die-hard Duo fan) remember?"
- Duo Maxwell, Shinigami pilot
