The article on the episodic buffer was the most intriguing part of this week’s readings, specifically the concept of amnesic patients being able to recall certain events that one would expect them to not be able to (in this case, to play a good game of bridge, which involves keeping track of the contract as well as which cards have already been played). Previous readings have described two main types of amnesia: anterograde, where new information cannot be remembered, and retrograde, where previous memories are lost. This example of being able to play a good game of bridges seems to fall in some unidentified middle ground, for previous memories must, essentially, be used to play the game correctly, and a new memory must be formed to continue to play the game. This makes the concept of working memory, especially the idea of an episodic buffer proposed in this article, particularly interesting for it makes one wonder what exactly constitutes working memory. It seems to exceed the previous notions of what working memory is but falls short of the capabilities that we typically think an amnesic patient possesses.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
September 26th--Episodic Buffer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I found the example of the man playing golf to be far more interesting, probably because of how easily the man functioned on the course, but between rounds, he forgot everything.
I liked the difference made between semantic memories and episodic memories made in "Memories are made of this." It definately explains the behavior of amnesiac patients.
I want to add to my earlier comment that I think it's more important to study the borders between semantic and episodic memory in order to get a better view of working memory.
Working memory, as a concept, seems to continually evolve, while semantic and episodic memory seem to be relatively accepted concepts. I think by studying these two types further, we might draw new conclusions about 'working memory.' After all, the magic number seven rule has many concepts added on to it (chunking and the like) making it seem more like a working definition. (If you forgive my play on words.)
I think this is why the golf example struck me. It's important to consider working memory in the process of episodic and semantic, but it is only a small part.
Short term memories are only that, fleeting, unimportant. I think that it might be better to focus on the conversion into long term rather than just short term.
I may be wrong in my ideas, and if I am, please do correct me. These are conclusion I have drawn.
Post a Comment