On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:47:27 -0700, Carol DeVolder wrote:
I think one reason for the low response rate is that everyone is busy
getting ready for the start of classes.
I understand that but, c'mon, a simple response like "interesting"
or "you're out of your freakin' mind" can be made quickly enough.
Even a "I did not know that" would be useful. Given the effort I
put it into writing and getting the appropriate references, when
I get no response I have to wonder "did anybody read this?".
I read your post but was traveling
and didn't have time to follow the links. It is difficult for me to let
go
of the 7 plus or minus 2 concept, but I suppose that's because I am
relying
on my own experience (a bad idea, I know).
When Nelson Cowan first advocated for the "magical number 4"
I was resistant to it even though Herb Simon had suggested this
back in the early 1970s but he was focusing on subitizing which
he argued was somewhat separate from what Miller called
"immediate memory" (which in retrospect has become an
ambiguous construct and, as Cowen 2015's Psych Rev article
points out, Miller had not really thought this through and threw
stuff together in order to make a presentation at EPA --
though he made a similar presentation at a 1956 MIT symposium
on Information Theory which also had Noam Chomsky present
his theory of Syntax, Newell & Simon present the Logic
Theorist, Green [?] present on signal detection theory,
and other folks). The Atkinson & Shiffrin model accommodated
the magical number 7 STM nicely but this became trickier
with the rise of levels of processing theory (no structure to be
limited, it all depended on how one processed info which turns
out to much more important) and Baddeley's Working Memory
model which has been somewhat vague on limitations though
individual differences in capacity does appear to distinguish
different individuals *when they are left to their own devices*.
I am going to pursue the additional reading if and when I get time.
Okay, you're forgiven. ;-)
Thanks, Mike, Mike, and Jim.
Carol
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:53 AM, William Scott <wsc...@wooster.edu>
wrote:
Mike,
I read your reply and said to myself "thanks for clearing that up,
Mike.
Now I don't have to write anything." I should have replied, "thanks
for
clearing that up, Mike" but I didn't want to sound sarcastic and I
didn't
know which emojee to attach.
The point I want to emphasize is that thought Nelson Cowan has provided
support for the "magical number 4 (+/- 1)" this still raises issues
about
where this limitation actually applies -- Cowan is able to show it under
specific conditions but these can be strategically overcome. The lack
of
seriousness on George Miller's part is somewhat concerning but as he
pointed out to Cowan, he was not that invested in the number "7" (though
one would not get this from reading his article, at least I didn't).
Thanks for clearing that up, Mike[image: 👍]
You're very welcome. It's nice to know that I'm not just writing stuff
for
myself.
-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu
------------------------------
*From:* Mike Palij <m...@nyu.edu>
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:10:07 AM
*To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
*Cc:* Michael Palij
*Subject:* RE: [tips] on STM
So, two days have passed and there has been no response to
my post below. Now, I'm kind of curious as to why since the
original poster asked about the magical number 7. Cowan
and others have argued for the magical 4 (+/- 1) and one
can add in the process of subsidizing into the mix.
So, no opinions or responses, not even on the part of the
original poster? Enough time has passed for people to
read the sources that I've linked to, so folks should know
I'm not blowing smoke. So what is going on? An incredible
decrease in intellectual curiosity during the summer months?
Too busy binging TV watching? Just curious.
-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu
---------- Original Message -------------
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:22:53 -0700, Mike Palij wrote:
Many people in the field follow the research of Nelson Cowan
who has argued that the "Magical Number" is actually 4
(range 3-5) and not seven. This is hardly news as he laid
out his argument for this position in 2001. The reference
for this article is:
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory:
a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. The Behavioral
and brain sciences, 24(1), 87-114.
The abstract for the above is:
|Abstract:
|Miller (1956) summarized evidence that people can remember
|about seven chunks in short-term memory (STM) tasks. However,
|that number was meant more as a rough estimate and a rhetorical
|device than as a real capacity limit. Others have since suggested
|that there is a more precise capacity limit, but that it is only
three
|to five chunks. The present target article brings together a wide
variety
|of data on capacity limits suggesting that the smaller capacity
|limit is real. Capacity limits will be useful in analyses of
information
|processing only if the boundary conditions for observing them
|can be carefully described. Four basic conditions in which chunks
|can be identified and capacity limits can accordingly be observed
|are: (1) when information overload limits chunks to individual
stimulus
|items, (2) when other steps are taken specifically to block the
|recoding of stimulus items into larger chunks, (3) in performance
|discontinuities caused by the capacity limit, and (4) in various
|indirect effects of the capacity limit. Under these conditions,
|rehearsal and long-term memory cannot be used to combine
|stimulus items into chunks of an unknown size; nor can storage
|mechanisms that are not capacity limited, such as sensory memory,
|allow the capacity-limited storage mechanism to be refilled
|during recall. A single, central capacity limit averaging about four
|chunks is implicated along with other, noncapacity-limited sources.
|The pure STM capacity limit expressed in chunks is distinguished
|from compound STM limits obtained when the number of separately
|held chunks is unclear. Reasons why pure capacity estimates fall
|within a narrow range are discussed and a capacity limit for the
|focus of attention is proposed.
A copy of the article and responses may be obtained from:
http://langint.pri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ai/intra_data/
NobuyukiKawai/Kawai-Matsuzawa-Magical_number_5_in_a_chimpanzee.pdf
One might also want to read the following:
Cowan, N., Morey, C., & Chen, Z. (2007). The legend of the magical
number seven. Tall tales about the brain: Things we think we know
about the mind, but ain't so, ed. S. Della Sala, 45-59.
A copy of the manuscript is available on ResearchGate; see:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Candice_Morey/
publication/255060875_The_Legend_of_the_Magical_Number_Seven/links/
00b495386e10a6be21000000.pdf
Cowan also published a book titled "Working Memory Capacity" that
originally has a 2005 copyright date but Google Books has it as 2012.
One can preview parts of the book at:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4nx5AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=
%22nelson+cowan%22+%22magic+number%22&ots=Vs9WTm5zjw&sig=
sozwsn8kBmMprA9zfKuyKKByXyY
Finally, one might also want to take a look at the following:
Cowan, N. (2015). George Miller's magical number of immediate
memory in retrospect: Observations on the faltering progression of
science. Psychological review, 122(3), 536.
A copy of this can be read (in HTML) on the following website:
http://europepmc.org/articles/pmc4486516
The original purpose of the Miller's "Magical Number 7" paper was
to determine whether "immediate memory" or "short-term memory"
could be measured in the Information Theory measure of "bits"
(yep, binary digits, like used in computers and communications).
The first part of Miller's Psych Review paper shows that one *can*
use bits to measure the amount of information in bits that is
processed on "absoluted identification tasks" (i.e., a person has
to make a specific response like a button push to a specific
stimulus; as the number of stimuli increases, the number of responses
increases and accuracy breaks down at a certain number of bits,
implying a limited channel capacity). Miller argued that the process
of "recoding" or "chunking" made the use of bits irrelevant because
the size of the chunk appears to be unlimited (not entirely clear in
1956 but it is clear that this is pretty much true today -- just ask
anyone who has participated in the "memory Olympics" or read
Joshua Foer's "Moonwalking with Einstein"). Miller chose the
number 7 (+/- 2) as one possible memory limit for ordinary folks
(which is comparable to the forward digit span of "normal" people).
Cowen has tried to show that if you control for recoding and
other factors, the number of chunks appears to be 4 (+/- 1).
Again, this is for certain types of materials that are processed
in certain ways -- many factors can either reduce or increase
it to (naively) unbelievable amounts. The Atkinson-Shiffrin model
helped to reinforce the magic number 7 but Baddeley's working
memory model mucked things up because of the availability of
different storage areas (i.e., phonological loop, visual spatial
sketchpad, etc.) and how the central executive manages the
flow of information and its processing. Cowan tries to make
all of this clear but the memory models we learned long ago
might be difficult for some to given up. YMMV.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=49293
or send a blank email to
leave-49293-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
