Why Does Writing Have a Higher Throughput Than Reading

Adv Cogn Psychol. 2015; 11(four): 147–155.

Writing, Reading, and Listening Differentially Overload Working Memory Performance Across the Serial Position Curve

Received 2015 Jun 5; Accustomed 2015 Oct 26.

Abstract

Previous research has causeless that writing is a cognitively circuitous task, but has not determined if writing overloads Working Retentiveness more than than reading and listening. To investigate this, participants completed three recollect tasks. These were reading lists of words earlier recalling them, hearing lists of words before recalling them, and hearing lists of words and writing them as they heard them, then recalling them. The experiment involved serial recall of lists of 6 words. The hypothesis that fewer words would exist recalled overall when writing was supported. Post-hoc assay revealed the same blueprint of results at individual serial positions (one to 3). Withal, there was no difference between the three weather at serial position 4, or between listening and writing at positions 5 and half-dozen which were both greater than recall in the reading status. This suggests writing overloads working retention more than reading and listening, particularly in the early on serial positions. The results prove that writing interferes with working retention processes and and then is not recommended when the goal is to immediately recall data.

Keywords: working memory, reading, listening, writing, serial recall

Introduction

Working Memory (WM) is a limited capacity system devoted to the temporary storage, retrieval, and manipulation of information during a variety of cognitive processes (Baddeley, 2000; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). WM likewise plays a significant part in our ability to procedure and perform complex cognitive tasks such as listening, reading, and writing (Olive, 2004; Tirre & Peńa, 1992). Baddeley (2003, 2012) maintains that WM is comprised of four systems: The primal executive is responsible for devoting attentional processes to three sub-systems. The start sub-system is the phonological loop, which is responsible for the temporary storage of verbal information (written or spoken). The visuo-spatial sketchpad is responsible for temporarily storing visual and spatial data such as colour, speed, shape, and motility. The final sub-organization is the episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2000), which is controlled past the central executive and is able to process and integrate multi-coded information (phonological, visual, spatial, and long-term memory).

The multi-coded nature of WM enables the integration of information from the phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, and long-term retentivity to assist in trouble-solving (Baddeley, 2000, 2001). Baddeley (2012) also explains that the key executive plays a prominent role in directing attentional resource to the phonological loop, suggesting both systems play a key role in learning verbal and written data. When processing verbal data, the phonological loop is able to store phonologically coded information directly into temporary storage. However, due to WM'southward limited available capacity it can become overloaded during cognitively complex tasks (McCutchen, 1996, 2000; Olive, 2004; Peverly, 2006; Schweppe & Rummer, 2013).

Attending is also a limited capacity resource that is integral to WM processes such every bit encoding and maintenance (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007; Chun, 2011). Chun investigated the relationship between visual WM and visual attending. Despite identifying that both of these operate independently and are limited in capacity, the performance of the tasks was determined by how well distractions could exist inhibited. The power to sustain and directly attending towards relevant items is important for successful WM operation when faced with both internal and external distractors. Furthermore, when performing WM tasks, we switch our attention and resource between the encoding and maintenance of to-be-remembered information, as explained by the time-based resource-sharing model (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007). According to this model, if attentional resource are diverted away from i process (east.g., encoding the words), they cannot be finer used for that procedure as they are now being used for the process they are diverted to (e.g., maintenance). Barrouillet and Camos also demonstrated that there is a greater reject in WM performance the longer a secondary procedure captures attention. This suggests that when attention is captured by a secondary task it tin prevent attention from being directed towards WM encoding and maintenance. If the secondary task can exist inhibited and/or does not substantially capture attention, WM performance will exist more than successful. The aim of the electric current study is to investigate how the relative complication and processing demands of listening, reading, and writing tasks affect our ability to retrieve information.

Listening is a relatively unproblematic task that places little strain on WM when required to process, rehearse, and retrieve information within the phonological loop (Christensen et al., 2012; Margolin, Griebel, & Wolford, 1982). When verbal information is heard (e.m., while listening to oral communication) it can be stored direct into the phonological loop as it is phonologically coded (Baddeley & Larsen, 2007; Haenggi & Perfetti, 1992). However, WM is still limited in its capacity to store data and not all verbal information enters the phonological loop (Chen & Cowan, 2009). This may occur when the central executive must divide attention betwixt two cognitive processes, for example, when there are dual tasks (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007; Unsworth & Engle, 2007). It tin can also occur if a lark interrupts sub-song rehearsal such equally when two exact tasks occur simultaneously (east.g., speaking while listening to a conversation), resulting in articulatory suppression (Chen & Cowan, 2009; Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2008). The improver of factors such as articulatory suppression and dividing attending may contribute to overloading WM chapters, resulting in poor exact WM performance. Given the above, listening by itself appears to exist a relatively elementary-task. Other verbal tasks such equally reading also use the phonological loop simply seem to exist relatively more circuitous.

The cognitive processes involved during reading announced to be more complex than those occurring during a listening task (Margolin et al., 1982; Rayner, Pollatsek, Ashby, & Clifton, 2012). When reading, information must be converted into a phonological lawmaking before being temporarily stored in the phonological loop (Baddeley, 1997; Sadoski & Paivio, 2004). This is accomplished through the articulatory control process past sub-vocalising the written material (Lewandowsky & Farrell, 2006; Page & Norris, 1998; Tan & Ward, 2008). This creates an additional stride for the reading process earlier the words can be temporarily stored, which places greater strain on WM (Davidson, 1986). This increase in complexity may be due to the phonological loop's inability to transform written material into a phonological code efficiently during complex tasks (Besner & Davelaar, 1982; Folk, 1999). Research has shown that cerebral resources devoted to reading tin can overload WM's capacity to shop and immediately call back information (Linderholm, Xiaosi, & Qin, 2008; McCutchen, 2000; Olive, 2004; Peverly, 2006). In contrast to listening, the reading process appears to be relatively more than circuitous due to the additional transformation of the words into a phonological lawmaking. Complexity can also exist increased in other means, such equally when required to write downward information while listening, raising the demands on WM processes.

When listening to verbal information that nosotros might want to later call up (due east.g., during a lecture) it is common to write down key points as we hear them. However, the production of written material places significant cognitive demands on WM and can hinder the call up of to-be-remembered information (Bourdin & Fayol, 1994; Kellogg, 1996, 2001; Klein & Boals, 2001; McCutchen, 1996, 2000; Olive, 2004; Peverly, 2006). Our ability to shop information in WM seems to be impaired when an individual is asked to write down information while listening (due east.g., Bourdin & Fayol, 1994; McCutchen, 1996; Peverly, 2006). Peverly attributes this to the complexity of the writing process, equally information technology requires a high level of cognitive effort. This places extra strain on WM, inhibiting its processes and our ability to store information (McCutchen, 2000). Writing is a cognitively complex task requiring greater endeavour, overloading WM and its capacity to store exact information also as devote processes to writing. However, these studies have non identified if the relative complexity of writing reduces WM performance compared to just listening to information or reading information when data must be immediately recalled.

Kellogg (1996) produced a model of writing and WM showing the interrelation between the 2 processes to identify that they share a common resource. Kellogg suggested writing loads on WM processes because we must program, execute, and monitor written output. When planning to write, verbal WM is activated to plan the phonetics of the words (due east.thou., spelling, letters, sounds, and syllables). In addition to this, the movement requirements are planned within visuo-spatial WM to produce legible alphabetic character shapes and maintain the correct spatial sequence of letters. Afterward the planning stage, the written output is executed and is the responsibility of the central executive (Kellogg, 1996). During execution, abiding visual feedback is required to edit and maintain the written output to ensure what has been written and what comes next will be right (Kellogg, 1996). Any errors or perceived errors are rectified and adjustments in motor movements and/or the phonetics of the words are made. Recent research has further demonstrated that handwriting is a complex motor task that requires visual feedback to be executed efficiently (Tse, Thanapalan, & Chan, 2014). Kellogg's model showed that writing and WM share a mutual resource besides equally identifying how the different writing processes utilise verbal, visual, spatial, and executive processes inside WM.

The processes involved in writing announced to overload WM'south ability to devote resources to both writing and information storage (Kellogg, 1996; McCutchen, 2000; Peverly, 2006). McCutchen suggests that due to the cerebral complexity of the writing process and the limited capacity of WM, merchandise-offs exist between task fluency (east.g., speed of writing) and information storage and retrieval. For case, when participants devoted attentional resource to the writing movement (equally divers by the speed of letter production) their power to shop relevant information was adversely afflicted. However, when participants devoted attention to the storage of information, the fluency of their writing was hindered. This switching and trading off of resources is controlled by the fundamental executive. Kellogg suggested that the central executive also plays a meaning role in processing cerebral data during difficult tasks, such as writing.

Kellogg (1996) argues that the central executive may be impaired when higher-level cognitive demands are placed on it. For example, during complex tasks such as writing, it is unable to finer devote attentional resource to both the storage of data and maintenance of fluent writing processes. The fluency of an individuals' writing (e.g., as measured by speed of writing) appears to play a office in determining their capacity to recall information (Peverly, 2006). Peverly found that the fluency of participants writing was correlated with how well they recalled information, with fluent writers able to recall more information from WM than dysfluent writers. However, in Peverly's study, the information regarding fluency was gathered from ane task and the information regarding call up was from a carve up task. As such, it is unknown whether this design holds up when writing and WM tasks are completed simultaneously. To enable comparisons with previous studies that look at writing fluency and its effect on recollect (e.thou., Peverly, 2006), nosotros will provide statistics for the mean kinematics of the writing movements (average stroke duration, average stroke size, and average absolute velocity). Further to this, we volition investigate whether a relationship exists betwixt the fluency of writing and number of words recalled from a concurrent WM chore.

The in a higher place research proposes that both reading and writing may overload WM processes resulting in poor storage and retrieval of information while listening places minimal strain on WM. Even so, previous studies accept failed to investigate whether writing, reading, and listening place different levels of strain on WM and if any of them places significantly more strain than the others. Specific to the current study, Bourdin and Fayol (1994, 2002) constitute that participants recalled fewer words in a serial recall chore when they wrote downwards words compared to if they verbalised their responses by proverb them aloud. While this supports other findings on the complexity of writing, it fails to determine if writing during encoding (i.e., when the words were initially presented) overloads WM'southward ability to immediately call up information more reading or listening during encoding. Writing appears to be more than cognitively circuitous than reading and listening. We would therefore expect it to overload WM to a greater extent. Nevertheless, this proposal has and so far not been investigated.

To investigate whether reading, writing, and listening impact on call up to different degrees the electric current study asked participants to complete a series recall task after they read, listened, and wrote downward lists of words. It is expected that series call up volition differ between all three conditions, with recall being best in the listening condition, moderate in the reading condition and poorest in the writing condition. Further post hoc analysis will be conducted for the series position curve to investigate whether this blueprint holds between all the weather condition at individual serial positions. This volition provide more fine-grained data nearly how the WM processes are affected by the tasks.

As we will exist employing a serial recall task it is likely that mistakes volition occur in the class of order errors (Acheson & MacDonald, 2009; Henson, 1998)—that is, when an item is recalled correctly but in the incorrect serial position (Gathercole, 2008). Order errors will therefore be reported as they provide insight into how each task is affecting the underlying processes of WM (Acheson & MacDonald, 2009). For example, if the writing status produces a higher proportion of order errors, this would provide evidence that the secondary writing job is preventing accurate phonological encoding (Acheson & MacDonald, 2009).

Method

Participants

Sixteen academy students participated in this experiment. After checking for outliers, one of these participants was rejected from farther analysis. This left fifteen participants, seven male person and viii female; with a mean age of 34.67 years (SD = 12.45). All participants were required to take normal or corrected to normal vision and hearing with English language as their first language. Participants provided informed consent and the study was approved by the Southern Cross University Human Research Ethics Committee.

Pattern

The experiment employed a repeated measures design. At that place were two independent variables: experimental condition, with iii levels (reading, listening, and writing), and serial position, with six levels (position i to half dozen). The dependent variables were the proportion of words recalled, and the proportion of order errors. Participant recall was measured by right responses post-obit strict serial recall criteria (Acheson, Postle, & MacDonald, 2010; Conway et al., 2005). That is, a correct response was recorded if a give-and-take was recalled in the correct serial position. Mean accuracy for each serial position for each participant was used for further assay. Club errors were analysed equally the proportion of errors individuals made per condition. This was calculated past dividing the total number of guild errors by the number of words recalled correctly in any position (Miller & Roodenrys, 2012).

Apparatus

The experiment was conducted in a lab with a personal figurer (screen resolution, i,920×1,080) and a Wacom (Intuos3, 12"×19", model PTZ-1231W) digitizer and stylus to record the words written by the participants. MovAlyzeR (Neuroscript LLC, The states) displayed the writing on a figurer screen and recorded the pen movements. The participants used headphones to listen to a pre-recorded listing of words spoken by the researcher, presented via E-prime on a 2nd computer.

3 hundred and fifty words were obtained from the MRC psycholinguistics database (Coltheart, 1981). The parameters set for the words were the corporeality of messages (4-viii), syllables (2), word familiarity (300-500), concreteness (200-500), and the Kucera and Francis (1967) frequency calibration (1-75). The words were randomised using excel and the outset 270 words were chosen. The words were portioned into three blocks of 15 lists, with six words per list. All three conditions contained every word block, the word blocks were organised and balanced ensuring the same word block was not presented in the same experimental condition. The counterbalancing of the condition/block society was then randomised then every version of the presentation had an equal take a chance of being used. The atmospheric condition were balanced so no participant had the aforementioned combination of word lists/condition. As the experiment was repeated measures, participants completed all three weather condition.

The full general structure of each status was the same (i.e., words were presented then recalled). What changed was the chore the participants performed. At the kickoff of each condition a "START" icon appeared. To start a list of words participants needed to make a single stroke movement through the "START" icon using the stylus. This would trigger the starting time of a word listing, between hitting the "START" icon and the presentation of the first give-and-take was a 1.5 s gap, then the first word was presented (auditory or visual). All the words were recorded by the researcher using Audacity and the files were saved as .wav files. The mean elapsing (presentation) of each private word in the listening and writing condition was 916 ms (SD = 102 ms). The words in the reading condition were presented for 1 south before disappearing from the screen. For each condition, the side by side five words were presented at iii southward intervals, measured from the beginning of each word presentation. Subsequently the terminal discussion had been presented, there was a concluding 3 southward gap and a beep to signal to the participants to end the task they were doing. The total length of each word list was xviii s, after which the screen was cleared of any writing to prevent participants from gaining feedback to assistance in recall. At this bespeak, think was prompted past a new screen that had "Recall" written on the middle of the screen. This lasted for 30 southward earlier a new "Start" icon was displayed until the participant was set to continue (participants could continue to recall after the 30 s if they needed to).

Recall was recorded using a response sheet with positions one to six. During the recollect phase of the experiment participants were required to write downwards their responses by filling in the spaces provided with the give-and-take that corresponded with that series position. Kinematic measures were calculated for each movement stroke. A stroke is the move between points of aught velocity or local minima of absolute velocity. The writing kinematics were used as measures of writing fluency and calculated by the average stroke duration—that is, the boilerplate elapsing of a single movement (stroke) in seconds; average stroke size—that is, the average size of a unmarried stroke (cm); and average absolute velocity—that is, the speed of movement (cm/due south).

Procedure

Participants completed the experiment individually. Upon inbound the room, participants were greeted past the experimenter and were asked to take a seat in the cubicle where the experiment was to take identify. Participants were asked to read the data sheet that outlined the purpose of the experiment, what would exist required of them equally well equally instructing them of their rights to participate and withdraw. Participants then completed a consent form, which was signed and dated. The participants were so instructed on how the plan worked and what they needed to do during the experiment.

Once this was completed, the experimenter instructed the participants that they were going to complete a WM task. Firstly, the participants were asked to place the headphones on and then a practice example was opened on MovAlyzeR and the experimenter walked the participant through the procedure. Participants were told they were going to complete a serial remember chore. They were instructed that they would hear a list of words (listening and writing conditions) or read a list of words (reading condition). At the end of each list of six words in that location was a screen displaying "Recall". In one case this appeared, participants were told to recall the word lists by writing them down on the response sheet provided. They were given the example, if you were to hear/read the words dog, cat, bat, elephant, rabbit, and spider you are to recall them by writing them down in the same order y'all just heard or read, in the blank spaces provided. If you lot do not remember a give-and-take in a certain position, y'all are to leave that space "BLANK". For example, if you do not remember the tertiary discussion, yous are to write, "Dog, cat, ______, elephant, rabbit, and spider". Participants were told that each list had exactly six words and that there were fifteen lists in each condition. The procedure for recollect was the same for all weather condition.

Next, the participants were shown the "START" icon and told that throughout the experiment to start a new list they must motility the stylus through the "Get-go" icon. Afterward doing this, they would hear/read a new listing of words. Participants practiced earlier the start of each condition until they and the experimenter were comfy with the program. At this betoken, the experimenter started the experimental condition and left the room. Participants were asked to contact the experimenter in one case the condition had been completed (this would be noticeable every bit the program close after completion).

When completing the listening job, participants were asked to focus on an "X" that appeared at the middle of the screen after placing a stroke through the "Beginning" icon (to control for individual variability during the task). One time the discussion list had ended, the give-and-take "RECALL" appeared on the screen and participants were told that this was where they were to begin recalling the words in the order they were presented. It was emphasised that all they needed to do was listen to the word lists and once recall appeared on the screen to brainstorm to write down their responses on the provided response canvas.

During the reading condition participants were instructed to silently read the words that appeared on the screen in front of them later on hit the "START" icon. Participants continued to read until the discussion "Think" appeared at the middle of the screen; this was to prompt them to finish and begin to write downwards their responses on the response sheet.

In the writing condition, participants were instructed to move the stylus through the "Beginning" icon to initiate each trial. They were and so instructed to write downwards the words they were listening to, beginning immediately as the outset word was presented. Participants were told to write in their natural writing and attempt to write down each give-and-take even if they were unsure of the correct spelling. It was emphasised that they must attempt to write down each word. Participants continued writing until the finish of the listing (i.e., 3 s afterwards the concluding word was initially presented). At this bespeak, the screen went bare and "Recall" appeared on the heart of the screen. Participants could and so brainstorm to call up the words on the provided response canvas.

Results

Recall was compared for all three experimental conditions (reading, writing, and listening) and serial positions through a repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The proportion of order errors were analysed with a repeated measures ANOVA to identify if in that location were significant differences between conditions. The descriptive statistics for the average number of words recalled (out of six) in the listening, reading, and writing conditions are provided in Table 1.

Tabular array ane.

Hateful Number and Standard Departure (SD) of Words Recalled per Listing in the Listening, Reading, and Writing Atmospheric condition

	Mean	SD
Listening	3.76	1.04
Reading	three.51	one.06
Writing	2.82	0.74

Word Recall

Shapiro-Wilk's and F _max assay was used to test the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, respectively. Shapiro-Wilk'due south was not met for 4 variables, recall at serial position one in the reading condition, position 1 and six in the listening status and position 6 in the writing condition. As there were few deviations from normality, they were considered non to exist of concern (Allen & Bennett, 2010). F _max was non violated and homogeneity was causeless.

Mauchley'south test was significant for serial item retrieve indicating assumptions of sphericity were not met, thus the Huynh-Feldt adjusted assay was employed. Mauchley'south examination was not-significant for the experimental conditions indicating assumptions of sphericity were met. Figure ane summarises the mean words recalled in the writing, reading, and listening atmospheric condition at each series position. On boilerplate, participants recalled fewer words in the writing condition at serial positions 1 to three compared to the reading and listening conditions. However, recall in the reading condition at series positions five and six was less than the writing and listening weather.

Mean word recall at each serial position as a proportion of right responses for participants during the listening, reading, and writing conditions. Error bars represent standard errors. Points are outset horizontally and then that mistake bars are visible.

The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a main result for experimental condition, F(ii, 28) = 14.59, p < .001, ƞ² _p = .51 and serial position, F(1.90, 26.56) = viii.16, p = .002, ƞ^two _p = .38. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed that participants recalled significantly fewer words overall in the writing condition compared to the reading, Thou _Diff = .115, Bonferroni 95% CI [.19, .04], and listening conditions, 1000 _Diff = .156, Bonferroni 95% CI [.24, .07]. There was no significant difference between the reading and listening atmospheric condition.

The ANOVA also revealed a significant interaction between experimental condition and serial position, F(10, 140) = 20.62, p < .001, ƞ² _p = .60. Further postal service hoc comparisons were conducted to determine at which serial position the differences occurred. A series of linear contrasts revealed a pregnant difference between the writing condition and the listening condition at series positions ane, M _Diff = .33, Bonferroni 95% CI [.fifty, .17], ii, K _Unequal = .31, Bonferroni 95% CI: [.44, .18], and 3, M _Unequal = .26, Bonferroni 95% CI [.41 ,.i]. This pattern was repeated for comparisons between the writing and reading weather condition. Recall was worse for the writing condition at serial positions one, M _Diff= .44, Bonferroni 95% CI [.56, .32], 2, K _Unequal= .33, Bonferroni 95% CI [.47, .xx], and three, M _Diff = .thirty, Bonferroni 95% CI [.48, .12].

A significant reduction in detail recall for the reading condition compared to writing occurred at serial positions five, Grand _Diff = .20, Bonferroni 95% CI [.36, .04], and vi, Yard _Diff = .31, Bonferroni 95% CI [.44, .17]. A reduction in the proportion of items recalled betwixt the writing and the listening atmospheric condition was found at serial positions 5, Thousand _Diff= .18, Bonferroni 95% CI [.29, .08], and half-dozen, 1000 _Diff = .31, Bonferroni 95% CI [.48, .15]. In that location was no significant difference between reading and listening conditions at serial positions one, two, or iii, or betwixt the listening and writing conditions at series positions five and six. In that location were no significant differences between whatever conditions at serial position four.

Gild errors

Social club errors were analysed as the proportion of errors individuals made per condition. Effigy 2 summarises the hateful proportion of order errors in the writing, reading, and listening weather. The repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant deviation in the proportion of order errors between conditions, F(2, 28) = thirteen.51, p < .001, ƞ² _p = .49. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed that there were significantly more society errors in the writing condition compared to the listening condition, M _Diff= .12, Bonferroni 95% CI [.04, .2], and the reading status, Thousand _Diff = .ten, Bonferroni 95% CI [.03, .17]. The listening and reading conditions did not differ.

The mean proportion of order errors for the listening, reading, and writing weather condition. Fault bars correspond the standard error of the mean.

Writing Fluency

Descriptive statistics for writing fluency as measured by the boilerplate stroke duration, average stroke size, and boilerplate absolute velocity are reported in Table 2. Table 3 displays the results from a bivariate Pearson correlation for the proportion of words recalled in the writing condition and the kinematic measures of writing fluency. None of the correlations between the proportion of words recalled and kinematic measures of writing fluency reached significance. This indicates that no significant relationship exists betwixt kinematic measures of writing fluency and performance on a concurrent WM task.

Tabular array 2.

Descriptive Statistics for the Measures of Writing Fluency

Kinematic	Mean	SD
Duration (ms)	116.51	66.75
Size (cm)	1.06	0.77
Absolute velocity (cm/s)	10.72	5.82

Tabular array 3.

Bivariate Pearson Correlations Between the Proportion of Words Recalled and the Mean Stroke Duration, Size and Absolute Velocity in the Writing Status

		Duation	Size	Absolute velocity
Recall	r	.282	-.324	-.380
	p	.309	.239	.162

Note. r - Pearson correlation coefficient, p - obtained probability

Discussion

This experiment investigated how the relative complexity of listening, reading, and writing during encoding of verbal data affects WM functioning on a serial recall chore. The results propose that the writing procedure overloaded WM significantly more than than just reading or listening when trying to encode words in memory. This pattern was besides found betwixt conditions at individual serial positions. However, differences just occurred at serial positions one to three between writing and both reading and listening. At position four, there was no difference, and at position v and six, there was no difference between writing and listening, but a pregnant deviation between writing and reading, with more than words recalled in the writing condition. This finding supports previous literature indicating that the writing process is cognitively complex. The results did non testify a relationship between the kinematic measures of writing and serial recall performance. Therefore, the relationship observed by Peverly (2006) between a WM and writing task when performed independently of one some other does not hold up when the ii tasks are performed simultaneously. However, due to the small sample size a lack of ability could have prevented the detection of a relationship between the two variables. Taken together, the results support the hypothesis that writing overloads WM and reduces think performance compared to a listening and reading task.

The in a higher place results could exist explained past the capacity of WM that is available for the call back task. The current written report suggests listening places significantly less strain on WM (is less complex) than writing. This is consistent with previous inquiry on the simplicity of listening tasks (Margolin et al., 1982) and the processing of phonologically coded textile in WM (Baddeley, 2001). The listening condition besides displayed a typical primacy and recency effect. As such, listening does not overload WM more reading and writing. It appears that during the listening job participants were able to think more than words as they were able to devote more than cognitive resources to sub-vocal rehearsal, as information was phonologically coded and could be directly stored in the phonological loop. Additionally, during the listening task, participants could direct attention towards processing and maintenance because no secondary process was existence performed (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007). This allowed attention to exist sustained on the to-be-remembered items without the need to inhibit distractors (Chun, 2011).

At that place was no difference for overall recall betwixt the reading and listening tasks. Yet, the expected difference did occur at series positions five and vi, with more words recalled in the listening task. Our results demonstrate a typical primacy effect and a weaker recency effect for reading. The difference betwixt the reading status compared to the listening and writing conditions at these serial positions provides prove that there are differences in the processing of the two types of verbal information (i.e., written and auditory). The results suggest that the processing of words in the reading job is less effective at the afterward stages of series recall than listening and writing tasks. This could exist due to a reduction in the efficiency of transforming the nigh recently presented items into a phonological lawmaking then storing and rehearsing them in memory earlier immediate recall begins. Conversely, we tin run into that auditory words (i.e., the listening and writing conditions) are being processed automatically every bit they are phonologically coded (Baddeley & Larsen, 2007; Haenggi & Perfetti, 1992). Farther to this, the pattern of order errors proposes that the reading condition allowed efficient encoding of words (with no difference in order errors compared to listening). This suggests that the underlying processes involved in reading do not disrupt WM every bit much equally a concurrent writing task.

Based on overall recall, the most cognitively complex task is writing, where there is the additional process of converting the phonological data to its written form and programming and performing the writing movements (Kellogg, 1996). The pattern of the experiment is such that the simply divergence betwixt the listening and writing tasks was writing words as the participants listened to them. This takes up more of the express WM resource, leaving less bachelor for encoding and storage (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007; Chun, 2011). Previous research has indicated that the writing process utilises WM (Benton, Kraft, Glover, & Plake, 1984; Kellogg, 1996; McCutchen, 2000; Olive, 2004; Tse et al., 2014), which explains why writing places significantly more strain on WM than reading and listening.

The observed pattern for remember in the writing status suggests some level of interference during the encoding, rehearsal, or maintenance of words while the words are being written. The rehearsal/maintenance of the first items presented is inhibited by the writing during encoding and recall. The ability to recall the most recently presented items is indistinguishable between the writing and listening atmospheric condition, possibly because the concurrent writing pauses once the final word has been presented. This could allow the participants directing their attention towards maintaining the nigh recently presented items before recall begins (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007).

The results in our experiment show that writing is more cognitively demanding equally identified past the reduction in recollect and increment in guild errors compared to the reading and listening conditions. The increment in order errors implies that the words are not being encoded efficiently within the phonological loop while writing (Acheson & MacDonald, 2009), as resource are divided between processes (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007). This prevents items from beingness stored and retrieved at the correct serial position (Acheson & MacDonald, 2009). Conversely, no differences in social club errors occurred between the listening and reading conditions, which corresponds to the main effect for remember in the repeated measures analysis. This reinforces that writing is a cognitively complex and enervating process that disrupts encoding and prevents accurate recall of to-be-remembered words, compared to reading and listening.

The increase in recall at serial position five and six in the writing status is consistent with what is expected for serial recall of verbally presented stimuli (Hurlstone, Hitch, & Baddeley, 2014; Logie, Della Sala, Wynn, & Baddeley, 2000; Saito, Logie, Morita, & Police force, 2008; Tan & Ward, 2008). We argue that the writing condition did not elicit poorer recall at these serial positions every bit the methodology allowed firsthand call up. Equally shown in previous series recall tasks of verbally presented stimuli (Pattamadilok, Lafontaine, Morais, & Kolinsky, 2010; Saito et al., 2008; Spurgeon, Ward, & Matthews, 2014), the recency effect is due to curt term memory'southward ability to hold those items relatively well and sustain them for firsthand think.

In light of this, our findings can be interpreted as follows. The writing pauses after the presentation of the final give-and-take, allowing attentional resource to be switched back to encoding and maintenance. The items can therefore be rehearsed/maintained much more than efficiently. In contrast, later on encoding each of the early on words, the writing chore continues as participants write downward subsequent words, leading to a weaker memory trace for the before words. The memory trace for the most recently presented item is stronger equally it remains activated in short term memory for immediate retrieval (Pattamadilok et al., 2010). While this caption is consequent with our results, farther research will be required for confirmation. The novel result of poor recall during the beginning of the serial position list (in the writing condition) is worth being investigated further and may help explain the cognitive effects of writing on WM.

Conclusion

The current study fills a void in the literature demonstrating that writing overloads WM more than reading and listening, leading to worse recall of concurrently presented words. This indicates that writing is more cognitively complex and places a greater strain on WM processes than reading and listening. The cerebral requirements associated with writing (Kellogg, 1996) could be preventing attending from switching back to processing and maintaining items within WM (Barrouillet & Camos, 2007). Further to this, we accept identified some of the ways the writing and reading processes interfere with WM processes, equally revealed in the blueprint beyond series recall. The results suggest that a trade-off exists between task complexity, and retaining data in WM. That is, the more than circuitous a task or the more than difficult it is to perform by an individual, the fewer words are recalled in a concurrent exact WM job. Furthermore, this has a differential impact on earlier or afterwards words in a list depending on the WM processes afflicted. On a practical notation, these findings have implications for situations such every bit lectures and meetings where there is a requirement that data is retained during and immediately following its presentation. We propose that under these circumstances, writing while listening will not pb to the highest degree of overall recollect and that information technology may be better to simply pay attending and listen.

References

• Acheson D. J., MacDonald Thou. C. Exact working memory and language production: Mutual approaches to the series ordering of exact information. Psychological Message. 2009;135:50–68. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Acheson D. J., Postle B. R., MacDonald M. C. The interaction of concreteness and phonological similarity in verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Retention, and Cognition. 2010;36:17–36. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Allen P. J., Bennett K. PASW statistics by SPSS: A practical guide: Version 18.0. Southward Melbourne, Commonwealth of australia : Cengage Learning ; 2010. [Google Scholar]
• Baddeley A. Human retentivity: Theory and exercise. Hove, United kingdom : Psychology Press ; 1997. [Google Scholar]
• Baddeley A. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cerebral Sciences. 2000;4:417–423. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Baddeley A. Is working retentivity still working? American Psychologist. 2001;56:851–864. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Baddeley A. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2003;4:829–839. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Baddeley A. Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Almanac Review of Psychology. 2012;63:ane–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Baddeley A, Hitch One thousand. Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. viii, pp. 47-xc). New York, USA : Bookish Press ; 1974. [Google Scholar]
• Baddeley A., Larsen J. D. The phonological loop: Some answers and some questions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2007;60:512–518. [Google Scholar]
• Barrouillet P., Camos V. The fourth dimension-based resource-sharing model of working memory. In: Osaka N., Logie R. H., D'Esposito M., editors. The cerebral neuroscience of working memory. Oxford, United kingdom : Oxford Academy Press ; 2007. pp. 59–80. [Google Scholar]
• Benton S. L., Kraft R. G., Glover J. A., Plake B. Due south. Cognitive capacity differences amid writers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1984;76:820–834. [Google Scholar]
• Besner D., Davelaar E. Basic processes in reading: 2 phonological codes. Revue Canadienne de Psychologie. 1982;36:701–711. [Google Scholar]
• Bourdin B., Fayol Thou. Is written linguistic communication production more hard than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology. 1994;29:591–620. [Google Scholar]
• Bourdin B., Fayol Thou. Even in adults, written production is yet more costly than oral production. International Journal of Psychology. 2002;37:219–227. [Google Scholar]
• Chen Z., Cowan N. Cadre verbal working-retentivity chapters: The limit in words retained without covert joint. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2009;62:1420–1429. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Christensen T. A., Almryde K. R., Fidler L. J., Lockwood J. L., Antonucci S. M., Plante Due east. Modulating the focus of attending for spoken words at encoding affects frontoparietal activation for incidental verbal memory. International Journal of Biomedical Imaging. 2012:579786–579786. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chun M. G. Visual working memory equally visual attention sustained internally over time. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49:1407–1409. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Coltheart One thousand. The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1981;33A:497–505. [Google Scholar]
• Conway A. R. A., Kane M. J., Bunting M. F., Hambrick D. Z., Wilhelm O., Engle R. West. Working retentiveness span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2005;12:769–786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Davidson B. J. Activation of semantic and phonological codes during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Retentiveness, and Cognition. 1986;12:201–207. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Folk J. R. Phonological codes are used to access the dictionary during silent reading. Periodical of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Retentiveness, and Cognition. 1999;25:892–906. [Google Scholar]
• Gathercole Southward. Working memory. In J. Byrne (Series Ed.) & H. L. Roediger, Iii (Vol. Ed.), Learning and retentivity: A comprehensive reference: Vol. 2 Cognitive psychology of memory (pp. 33-52). Oxford, Britain : Elsevier ; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Haenggi D., Perfetti C. A. Private differences in reprocessing of text. Periodical of Educational Psychology. 1992;84:182–192. [Google Scholar]
• Henson R. Due north. Short-term retentivity for serial society: The start-end model. Cognitive Psychology. 1998;36:73–137. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hurlstone Grand. J., Hitch G. J., Baddeley A. D. Retentivity for serial order across domains: An overview of the literature and directions for future enquiry. Psychological Bulletin. 2014;140:339–373. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kellogg R. T. A model of working memory in writing. In: Levy C. Thousand., Ransdell S. East., editors. The science of writing. Theories, methods, private differences and applications. Mahwah, Usa : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ; 1996. pp. 57–71. [Google Scholar]
• Kellogg R. T. Presentation modality and mode of recall in verbal imitation memory. Periodical of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2001;27:913–919. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Klein Thousand., Boals A. Expressive writing can increase working retentivity capacity. Periodical of Experimental Psychology: Full general. 2001;130:520–533. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kucera H., Francis W. N. Computational analysis of present-24-hour interval American English language. Providence, USA : Brown University Press. ; 1967. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/126389. [Google Scholar]
• Lewandowsky Southward., Farrell Due south. Computational models of working retention. In: Nadel L., editor. Encyclopedia of cerebral science. Nedlands, WA, Commonwealth of australia: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2006. pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
• Linderholm T., Xiaosi C., Qin Z. Differences in low and loftier working-retentiveness capacity readers' cognitive and metacognitive processing patterns every bit a function of reading for different purposes. Reading Psychology. 2008;29:61–85. [Google Scholar]
• Logie R. H., Della Sala S., Wynn V., Baddeley A. Visual similarity furnishings in immediate verbal serial call back. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Department A, Human Experimental Psychology. 2000;53:626–646. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Margolin C. G., Griebel B., Wolford G. Consequence of distraction on reading versus listening. Periodical of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1982;eight:613–618. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McCutchen D. A capacity theory of writing: Working retention in composition. Educational Psychology Review. 1996;viii:299–299. [Google Scholar]
• McCutchen D. Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist. 2000;35:13–23. [Google Scholar]
• Miller L. Thou., Roodenrys S. Serial think, give-and-take frequency, and mixed lists: The influence of detail arrangement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Retention, and Cognition. 2012;38:1731–1740. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Oberauer M., Lewandowsky South. Forgetting in immediate series remember: Disuse, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? Psychological Review. 2008;115:544–576. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Olive T. Working retention in writing: Empirical testify from the dual-task technique. European Psychologist. 2004;nine:32–42. [Google Scholar]
• Page One thousand. P. A., Norris D. The primacy model: A new model of immediate serial recall. Psychological Review. 1998;105:761–781. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pattamadilok C., Lafontaine H., Morais J., Kolinsky R. Auditory give-and-take serial recall benefits from orthographic dissimilarity. Language and Oral communication. 2010;53:321–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Peverly S. T. The importance of handwriting speed in developed writing. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2006;29:197–216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rayner K., Pollatsek A., Ashby J., Clifton C. Jr. Psychology of reading. New York, USA : Psychology Press ; 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Sadoski M., Paivio A. A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In: Ruddell R. B., Unrau N. J., editors. Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.) Newark, USA : International Reading Associatio ; 2004. pp. 1329–1362. [Google Scholar]
• Saito S., Logie R. H., Morita A., Law A. Visual and phonological similarity effects in exact immediate series recall: A exam with kanji materials. Journal of Retention and Linguistic communication. 2008;59:one–17. [Google Scholar]
• Schweppe J., Rummer R. Attention, working memory, and long-term retention in multimedia learning: An integrated perspective based on process models of working memory. Educational Psychology Review. 2013;26:285–306. [Google Scholar]
• Spurgeon J., Ward Chiliad., Matthews W. J. Examining the relationship between immediate serial recall and immediate free recollect: Common furnishings of phonological loop variables but only limited evidence for the phonological loop. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2014;forty:1110–1141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tan L., Ward G. Rehearsal in immediate serial call back. Psychonomic Message & Review. 2008;xv:535–542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tirre W. C., Peńa C. Grand. Investigation of functional working retentiveness in the reading span examination. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1992;84:462–472. [Google Scholar]
• Tse L. F. L., Thanapalan G. C., Chan C. C. H. Visual-perceptual-kinesthetic inputs on influencing writing performances in children with handwriting difficulties. Enquiry in Developmental Disabilities. 2014;35:340–347. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Unsworth N., Engle R. W. The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in principal retentivity and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review. 2007;114:104–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Why Does Writing Have a Higher Throughput Than Reading

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4710969/