- PDF (73 kb)
- Full Text with Thumbnail Figures
- Full Text with Large Figures
- Cited by in Scopus (6)
- Request permission
- What is the relationship between phonological short-term memory and speech processing?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 10, Issue 11, 1 November 2006, Pages 480-486
Charlotte Jacquemot and Sophie K. Scott
AbstractTraditionally, models of speech comprehension and production do not depend on concepts and processes from the phonological short-term memory (pSTM) literature. Likewise, in working memory research, pSTM is considered to be a language-independent system that facilitates language acquisition rather than speech processing per se. We discuss couplings between pSTM, speech perception and speech production, and we propose that pSTM arises from the cycling of information between two phonological buffers, one involved in speech perception and one in speech production. We discuss the specific role of these processes in speech processing, and argue that models of speech perception and production, and our understanding of their neural bases, will benefit from incorporating them.
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (459 kb)
- Cognitive approaches to the development of short-term memory
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 3, Issue 11, 1 November 1999, Pages 410-419
Susan E. Gathercole
AbstractThe capacity to retain information for brief periods of time increases dramatically during the childhood years. The increases in temporary storage of speech-based material that take place in the period spanning the pre-school years and adolescence reflect complex changes in many of the different component processes, including perceptual analysis, construction and maintenance of a memory trace, retention of order information, rehearsal, retrieval and redintegration. Another crucial capacity that undergoes a similar striking development is complex working memory, the ability to manipulate and store material simultaneously. Possible sources of age-related changes in working memory include increases in processing efficiency and attentional capacity, and task-switching. These two short-term memory systems might play significant but distinct roles in supporting the acquisition of knowledge and skills during childhood. Whereas phonological short-term memory is linked specifically with the learning of the phonological structures of new words, complex working memory appears to support processing and learning in a wide range of contexts, in both childhood and adulthood.
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (283 kb)
- The signing brain: the neurobiology of sign language
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 12, Issue 11, 1 November 2008, Pages 432-440
Mairéad MacSweeney, Cheryl M. Capek, Ruth Campbell and Bencie Woll
AbstractMost of our knowledge about the neurobiological bases of language comes from studies of spoken languages. By studying signed languages, we can determine whether what we have learnt so far is characteristic of language per se or whether it is specific to languages that are spoken and heard. Overwhelmingly, lesion and neuroimaging studies indicate that the neural systems supporting signed and spoken language are very similar: both involve a predominantly left-lateralised perisylvian network. Recent studies have also highlighted processing differences between languages in these different modalities. These studies provide rich insights into language and communication processes in deaf and hearing people.
Abstract | Full Text | PDF (1005 kb)
Copyright © 2004 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 8, Issue 12, 521-523, 1 December 2004
Research FocusAdd/View Comments (0)
The puzzle of working memory for sign language
a Laboratory for Cognitive Neuroscience, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
b Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
Why is immediate-serial-recall (short-term memory) span consistently shorter for sign language than it is for speech? A new study by Boutla et al. shows that neither the length of signs, nor the formational similarity of signed digits, can account for the difference. Their results suggest instead that the answer lies in differences between the auditory and visual systems. At the same time, however, their results show that sign language and spoken language yield equivalent processing spans, suggesting that reliance on immediate-serial-recall measures in clinical and educational testing is misplaced.