Talk:Memory span

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnnaCat2, Jenn.reed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Race and reverse digit span test

I have read that while there is no statiscal differences between the races on digit span test but that there are on reverse digit span tests. Has anyone a link to a reliable source either way? Jjc2002 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Jjc2002

Biological sex?

Why is this section here? "Sex of the individual may be another intrinsic factor affecting the memory span; there is some disagreement on this point. Thus there is no conclusion as to the role of sex in memory span, but sex may be a factor."

It cites no references and states that there's no "conclusion" on this issue. Why does it get its own subheading? We might also add any other number of possible factors that have ever been studied but for which there is no consensus or sufficient evidence. In my opinion the section should be removed or else at least cite references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.1.50.254 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I felt the same way. I had just added a , but after seeing your comment, I went ahead and removed the Biological Sex section. Rlillywhite (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of anyone ...

.. giving values of digit span versus IQ? For something so tested and found to be highly correlated, this information seems to be surprisingly hard to find. 78.144.72.206 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Class Eval

I found the article to be neutral, and the page layout is clear and easy to navigate. One suggestion I would make to improve this article is to include more graphs or pictures. Currently, there is only one graph; the resulting wall of text may be harder to read for some people than it should be. Ken Lee (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Some things to note...

This article makes a number of claims that are not backed up with cited research and probably should be. Noting especially the section under "Intrinsic factors: Permanent Pathological Conditions" and "Extrinsic factors" 2, 3, and 6. Additionally, looking under the section "Digit span", the sentence "For example, it is difficult to understand a whole sentence without remembering the words at the beginning long enough to connect them with the words at the end" is un-cited and seems to be written in a very casual manner suggesting it may be something considered 'common sense,' but this can be dangerous as most everything else in this article is presented as research backed facts. Additionally, it may be worth switching the order of the "Factors" section and the "Digit Span" section for the sake of clarity and ease of navigation since 'Extrinsic factors' and 'Intrinsic factors' are both currently listed improperly under "Digit Span". AnnaCat2 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism & Bias

After reading the article, I have a few concerns about plagiarism and bias in the writing. As far as bias goes, I am concerned that some theories are being overrepresented. For example, in the Digit Span section, the theory of phonological loop is discussed, and it is introduced with the phrase, "According to one influential cognitive theory." This introduction suggests that the scientific community is not in agreement about phonological loops and their affect on memory span, and that their may be alternate theories that have been suggested. However, no other theories about digit span are discussed in the article, and no critiques of the phonological loop are mentioned, thus the theory presents as though it is fact. I am also concerned about plagiarism in the article. There are few citations in the article, with some long paragraphs having only one or zero citations. Additionally, almost the entire section on digit span is copied word-for-word from the few cited sources (namely References 4 and 5). I feel that this article needs to be both added to, supported more, and rewritten so as to avoid plagiarism. Jenn.reed (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources to Consider

I am working on editing/ refining the "Factors" section of this article. Currently, I am in the process of finding sources and wanted to post them here first to see if there are any other opinions on them. --First, addressing the section of Age under extrinsic factors, this article uses a meta-analysis of data to consider how verbal memory span works across multiple age groups. They highlight differences between working memory span and short term memory, the linear relationship of memory span that increases with age, and then discuss what this means. --The second article addresses the impact of interference on working memory span. They go on to find support for this claim saying that less interference improved greatly the participant's prose recall ability. Additionally, they highlight the impact this might have in comparing child and adult scores. This could add well to the section on distraction as an extrinsic factor, as well as the main section on Interference (which is missing a citation). --The third article: This article looks at the impact that the practice of music has on the verbal and visual memory spans. The results show that verbal memory span is improved, while visual memory span is not significantly better between those who were musically trained and those who were not. This information would, I think, be a neat addition to the Intrinsic Factors section, as it expands the scope that these factors can encompass. I would love any thoughts on these sources and their applicability! AnnaCat2 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC) →In addition to this third article, I found further support for music training improving verbal memory span with this article as well. AnnaCat2 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References