4 edited body
source | link

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind". I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) few papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017). Working memory is:

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nicean overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicelyalready exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

Having said that, in general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind". I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017)

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nice overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicely exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

Having said that, in general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind". I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very) few papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017). Working memory is:

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In an overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you already exemplify, often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

Having said that, in general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

3 added 18 characters in body
source | link

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind*mind". I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017)

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nice overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicely exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

InHaving said that, in general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind*. I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017)

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nice overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicely exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

In general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind". I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017)

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nice overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicely exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

Having said that, in general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

2 added 594 characters in body
source | link

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind*. I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017)

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nice overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicely exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

In general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind*. I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017)

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nice overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicely exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers. In general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled .

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

You already seem to be making the difference between a point of focus, versus "things in the back of ones mind*. I think that's quite apt.

Different authors have come up with different theories about this subject. I think it's a difficult question but I'll just give my hunch, supported by a (very few) papers that supports that view. Note, that there's a large body of literature on the topic, particularly on Working memory (Burmester, 2017)

[T]he ability to hold and manipulate information in mind, over brief intervals.

In a nice overview article, Oberauer (2013) claims that working memory is, as you nicely exemplify, is often explained in terms of physical metaphors such as information flow or information containers.

A popular scientific blog gives a nice list of problems with the computer versus brain metaphor, most notably:

  • Brains are analogue; computers are digital
  • The brain uses content-addressable memory (memories lead to recall of related memories, called association)
  • The brain is a parallel machine; computers are modular and serial
  • Short-term memory is not like RAM
  • Unlike computers, processing and memory are performed by the same components in the brain

In general, it is thought that focused attention can hold up to about four independent chunks, or as little as a single chunk, dependent on the theory as well as on the task at hand. You can imagine that more complex tasks 'consume' more 'processing power'. Indeed, a simple 2-digit recall task seems to rely on the two digits being reproduced in parallel (Oberauer, 2013).

In sentence reproduction during active listening, it seems that attention focus switching is necessary, as subjects need to switch their focus of attention momentarily away from ongoing language processing to memory retrieval. In other words, more complex tasks seem to be more serially controlled (Finney et al., 2014).

References
- Oberauer, Front Hum Neurosci (2013); 7: 673
- Burmester, Sci Am, June 2017 issue
- Finney et al., Child Developm Res (2014); 20734

1
source | link