更改

奥伯奥尔 Oberauer 通过添加第三个组件扩展了考恩 Cowan 的模型，第三个组件是一个更窄的注意焦点，一次只能容纳一个块（chunk）。一元素焦点系统嵌入在四元素焦点系统中，用于选择要处理的单个块。例如，在考恩 Cowan 的“注意力焦点”中，四个数字可以同时出现在脑海中。当个人希望对每个数字进行处理时（例如，将数字2加到每个数字）就需要对每个数字进行独立处理，因为大多数个人不能同时进行多个数学处理。奥伯奥尔 Oberauer 的注意力组件选择其中一个数字进行处理，然后将注意力的焦点转移到下一个数字，直到所有数字都处理完毕。

奥伯奥尔 Oberauer 通过添加第三个组件扩展了考恩 Cowan 的模型，第三个组件是一个更窄的注意焦点，一次只能容纳一个块（chunk）。一元素焦点系统嵌入在四元素焦点系统中，用于选择要处理的单个块。例如，在考恩 Cowan 的“注意力焦点”中，四个数字可以同时出现在脑海中。当个人希望对每个数字进行处理时（例如，将数字2加到每个数字）就需要对每个数字进行独立处理，因为大多数个人不能同时进行多个数学处理。奥伯奥尔 Oberauer 的注意力组件选择其中一个数字进行处理，然后将注意力的焦点转移到下一个数字，直到所有数字都处理完毕。

== 容量 Capacity ==

== Capacity ==

Working memory is widely acknowledged as having limited capacity. An early quantification of the capacity limit associated with short-term memory was the "[[The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two|magical number seven]]" suggested by Miller in 1956.<ref name="miller">{{Cite journal|author=Miller GA |title=The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information |journal=Psychological Review |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=81–97 |date=March 1956 |pmid=13310704 |doi=10.1037/h0043158|citeseerx=10.1.1.308.8071 }} Republished: {{Cite journal|author=Miller GA |title=The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. 1956 |journal=Psychological Review |volume=101 |issue=2 |pages=343–52 |date=April 1994 |pmid=8022966 |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.343}}</ref> He claimed that the information-processing capacity of young adults is around seven elements, which he called "chunks", regardless of whether the elements are digits, letters, words, or other units. Later research revealed this number depends on the category of chunks used (e.g., span may be around seven for digits, six for letters, and five for words), and even on features of the [[chunking (psychology)|chunks]] within a category. For instance, span is lower for long than short words. In general, memory span for verbal contents (digits, letters, words, etc.) depends on the phonological complexity of the content (i.e., the number of phonemes, the number of syllables),<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Service|first=Elisabet|date=1998-05-01|title=The Effect of Word Length on Immediate Serial Recall Depends on Phonological Complexity, Not Articulatory Duration|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A|volume=51|issue=2|pages=283–304|doi=10.1080/713755759|issn=0272-4987}}</ref> and on the lexical status of the contents (whether the contents are words known to the person or not).<ref>{{Cite journal|first1=Charles |last1=Hulme |first2=Steven |last2=Roodenrys |first3=Gordon |last3=Brown |first4=Robin |last4=Mercer |date=November 1995 |title=The role of long-term memory mechanisms in memory span |journal=British Journal of Psychology |volume=86 |issue=4 |pages=527–36 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02570.x}}</ref> Several other factors affect a person's measured span, and therefore it is difficult to pin down the capacity of short-term or working memory to a number of chunks. Nonetheless, Cowan proposed that working memory has a capacity of about four chunks in young adults (and fewer in children and old adults).<ref>{{Cite journal|first1=Nelson |last1=Cowan |year=2001 |title=The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=87–185 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X01003922 |pmid=11515286|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Working memory is widely acknowledged as having limited capacity. An early quantification of the capacity limit associated with short-term memory was the "[[The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two|magical number seven]]" suggested by Miller in 1956.<ref name="miller">{{Cite journal|author=Miller GA |title=The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information |journal=Psychological Review |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=81–97 |date=March 1956 |pmid=13310704 |doi=10.1037/h0043158|citeseerx=10.1.1.308.8071 }} Republished: {{Cite journal|author=Miller GA |title=The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. 1956 |journal=Psychological Review |volume=101 |issue=2 |pages=343–52 |date=April 1994 |pmid=8022966 |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.343}}</ref> He claimed that the information-processing capacity of young adults is around seven elements, which he called "chunks", regardless of whether the elements are digits, letters, words, or other units. Later research revealed this number depends on the category of chunks used (e.g., span may be around seven for digits, six for letters, and five for words), and even on features of the [[chunking (psychology)|chunks]] within a category. For instance, span is lower for long than short words. In general, memory span for verbal contents (digits, letters, words, etc.) depends on the phonological complexity of the content (i.e., the number of phonemes, the number of syllables),<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Service|first=Elisabet|date=1998-05-01|title=The Effect of Word Length on Immediate Serial Recall Depends on Phonological Complexity, Not Articulatory Duration|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A|volume=51|issue=2|pages=283–304|doi=10.1080/713755759|issn=0272-4987}}</ref> and on the lexical status of the contents (whether the contents are words known to the person or not).<ref>{{Cite journal|first1=Charles |last1=Hulme |first2=Steven |last2=Roodenrys |first3=Gordon |last3=Brown |first4=Robin |last4=Mercer |date=November 1995 |title=The role of long-term memory mechanisms in memory span |journal=British Journal of Psychology |volume=86 |issue=4 |pages=527–36 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02570.x}}</ref> Several other factors affect a person's measured span, and therefore it is difficult to pin down the capacity of short-term or working memory to a number of chunks. Nonetheless, Cowan proposed that working memory has a capacity of about four chunks in young adults (and fewer in children and old adults).<ref>{{Cite journal|first1=Nelson |last1=Cowan |year=2001 |title=The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=87–185 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X01003922 |pmid=11515286|doi-access=free }}</ref>

这些假说都不能完全解释实验数据。例如，资源假说旨在解释维护和加工之间的权衡: 工作记忆中必须保存的信息越多，并发过程就变得越慢、越容易出错，同时对并发加工记忆的要求也越高。这种权衡已经通过上面描述的阅读跨度任务等任务进行了研究。研究发现，权衡的数量取决于要记忆的信息和要处理的信息的相似性。例如，在处理空间信息时记忆数字，或者在处理数字时记忆空间信息，这些都比同类材料必须记忆和处理时相互影响小得多。此外，记忆单词和处理数字，或者记忆数字和处理单词，比记忆和处理同一类别的材料更容易。这些发现对于衰退假说也很难解释，因为记忆表征的衰退只取决于加工任务延迟复述或回忆的时间，而不取决于加工任务的内容。衰退假说的另一个问题来自于延迟回忆一个字母列表的实验，要么是指示参与者以较慢的速度回忆，要么是指示他们在回忆每个字母之间说一个不相关的单词一次或三次。延迟回忆对回忆准确率几乎没有影响。干扰理论似乎最好地解释了为什么内存内容和同时处理的任务内容之间的相似性会影响它们彼此之间的损害程度。越多的相似材料越容易混淆，导致检索竞争。

这些假说都不能完全解释实验数据。例如，资源假说旨在解释维护和加工之间的权衡: 工作记忆中必须保存的信息越多，并发过程就变得越慢、越容易出错，同时对并发加工记忆的要求也越高。这种权衡已经通过上面描述的阅读跨度任务等任务进行了研究。研究发现，权衡的数量取决于要记忆的信息和要处理的信息的相似性。例如，在处理空间信息时记忆数字，或者在处理数字时记忆空间信息，这些都比同类材料必须记忆和处理时相互影响小得多。此外，记忆单词和处理数字，或者记忆数字和处理单词，比记忆和处理同一类别的材料更容易。这些发现对于衰退假说也很难解释，因为记忆表征的衰退只取决于加工任务延迟复述或回忆的时间，而不取决于加工任务的内容。衰退假说的另一个问题来自于延迟回忆一个字母列表的实验，要么是指示参与者以较慢的速度回忆，要么是指示他们在回忆每个字母之间说一个不相关的单词一次或三次。延迟回忆对回忆准确率几乎没有影响。干扰理论似乎最好地解释了为什么内存内容和同时处理的任务内容之间的相似性会影响它们彼此之间的损害程度。越多的相似材料越容易混淆，导致检索竞争。

== Development ==

== Development ==