What is the difference between passive and active rehearsal

The analyses presented here include data from seven time points in the longitudinal study. The reason for omitting the first measurement point from the current analyses is that material and amount of to-be remembered information in the task differed between the first and all following measurement points. The present analyses include three assessments 6, 8, and 9 that were not reported in previous analyses.

At each assessment, children were presented with three immediate free recall trials, each consisting of a list of 12 unrelated words. Each card was visible on a desk in front of the child for 8 s, after which the next item was acoustically presented and the card replaced by the next picture card.

After the presentation of the entire list, children were prompted to recall as many items as possible in any order they wished. The recall phase ended after a 1-min interval in which the child was not able to recall any more words.

In order to ensure that children were able to meet task requirements and to familiarize them with the thinking-aloud procedure, practice trials of six items were used. Children were tested individually and both their learning and recall behavior were videotaped. The few disagreements were resolved through reinspection of the recordings.

For scoring and coding of recall behavior, again audio and video recordings were used. Again, disagreements were resolved through reinspection of the recordings. In accordance with previous research Lehmann and Hasselhorn, , , two standard analyses for qualitative and quantitative development in verbal rehearsal were performed.

Firstly, development of the quality of rehearsal assessed by the rehearsal set size was investigated. In the longitudinal study, rehearsal set size steadily increased from the first to the penultimate assessment and slightly dropped thereafter. Respective mean values for measurement points 1—7 were: 1. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicated significant increases in rehearsal set size from assessments one to two and two to three, as well as a significant increase in rehearsal set size from assessment four to assessment six.

Thus, the results indicate that after assessment four end of grade 4 quality of rehearsal behavior stabilized in terms of active, cumulative rehearsal behavior. Analyses of qualitative rehearsal development have to be accompanied by analyses on how often a specific learning behavior is demonstrated by the children. Accordingly, each interstimulus interval was coded on the basis of a strategy perspective and five different strategies were identified: labeling, single word rehearsal, cumulative rehearsal, no overt strategic behavior, and association that is, coupling the presented list word with any additional self-generated information.

Consistent with the analysis on qualitative rehearsal behavior, the number of interstimulus intervals employed with cumulative rehearsal turned out to increase from assessment to assessment and to consolidate around assessment four and thereafter. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicated that cumulative rehearsal was more often used than any other strategy from assessment four onward. Before assessment four, however, it was equally often used as labeling.

Labeling was more often used than single word rehearsal during assessments one and two but not thereafter and was more often used than association at all assessments. In sum, with increasing age, qualitative, and quantitative changes in rehearsal behavior are apparent: firstly, throughout the elementary school years, children increasingly compile larger rehearsal sets of different items and secondly, children increasingly do so over the course of the list.

Their ability to integrate several items into a rehearsal set implies that previously presented items were recalled. The larger the rehearsal set, the greater the respective recall performance of previously presented items. As such, rehearsal behavior throughout a list may be considered an iterative recall process that results in the free recall phase. To provide a better understanding of this process, five detailed analyses were conducted. The analyses corresponded to similar analyses previously done in adults see, e.

The first analysis investigated the nominal serial position curves that describe the recall probability of the items according to their given position in the list nominal order. The second analysis examined where in the list, children began their recall.

The third analysis examined the recall probability of the items according to their position of their last rehearsal. That is, items were rank ordered according to their last verbalization by each child resulting in so-called functional serial position curves functional order. The final set of analyses investigated the nominal serial position curves and initial rehearsals of the rehearsal sets throughout the list.

In other words, rehearsal sets were analyzed under the assumption that rehearsal and recall processes correspond. Figure 1A displays the seven nominal serial position curves for assessments one to seven, respectively. Here, clear primacy and recency effects and two elevated peaks for items from serial positions 5 and 8 characterize the nominal serial position curves.

To improve interpretability of the results in this section, serial positions were divided into groups of two successive items resulting in a within-subjects factor for serial positions with six levels serial positions 1—2, 3—4, 5—6, 7—8, 9—10, and 11— Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed an age-related increase in recall performance at the primacy and the middle portion of the list: there were significant age-related increases in recall from serial positions 1—6 between assessments three and four and between assessments five and six, respectively.

In addition, recall from serial positions 7—10 increased significantly between assessments five and six. Regarding recall performance between nominal serial positions, recall from serial positions 1—2 was inferior to recall from serial positions 11—12 only at the first assessment but not thereafter.

Items from serial positions 1—2 were better recalled than items from all other serial positions at assessments two, three, five, six, and seven. Recall from serial positions 5—6 was better than recall from serial positions 3—4 at assessments one, two, three, six, and seven, and than recall from serial positions 7—8 at assessments three to seven.

In sum, there was an age-related increase of the primacy effect and an age-invariant recency effect. In addition, there was an age-related increase of recall of items from the middle of the list. Mean proportion of items recalled as a function of nominal serial position A , probability of first recall PFR B , mean proportion of items recalled as a function of functional serial position C , and mean number of redintegrations in later rehearsal sets of items as a function of nominal serial position D , for assessments t 1—7, respectively.

Taking into account that children were required to maintain and recall items from supraspan lists 12 items , the observed peaks in the middle of the list at serial positions 5 and 8 suggest that children might have grouped the list into subsequences. Such grouping is very likely to produce primacy and recency effects within each subsequence.

To test this interpretation, an additional set of post hoc analyses focusing on serial positions 5 and 8 was realized. Firstly, within each assessment Bonferroni corrected comparisons between serial position 5 and all other serial positions were conducted.

Secondly, within each assessment Bonferroni corrected comparisons between serial position 8 and all other serial positions were conducted. Recall from serial position 8 was consistently larger when compared to serial position 7 at assessments one to six.

Under the assumption that grouping of items into subsequences took place with primacy and recency within each subsequence , the formation of a first subsequence turned out to be fairly manifest especially at later assessments and the formation of a second subsequence turned out to be rather ambiguous. Figure 1B shows the PFR as a function of serial position and reveals a strong tendency for children to initiate recall with either the first or the final list item.

Especially the tendency to start with the first list item, however, seems to change with age. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed that there were age-related increases for initial responses from the first and the middle serial positions. Initial response from the first serial position was more frequently observed at assessments five to seven compared to assessment one and at assessment six compared to assessments three and four, respectively.

Initial response from the middle serial positions was more frequently observed at assessment six compared to assessments one and four.

Comparison between the different serial positions revealed for all assessments a clear tendency for initial responses to come either from the first or last serial position when compared to the middle serial positions.

At assessment one, recall initiated more frequently with items from the last compared to the first serial position. At the following assessments, initial responses had the same probability to come either from the first or last serial position. In this analysis, recall was replotted by functional order see, e. The first encounter of an item defined its functional position.

If this item was found again later namely earlier in the study phase it was ignored. If, in the course of the study phase, a child had not named a specific item at all, its functional serial position was defined by the moment in the list, when it was presented.

When stepping backward through the verbalizations, the resulting rank ordered series of items is: …, 7, 9, 11, 10, 1, 2, 8, 12, and is assigned to serial positions …, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, In a final step, recall of the respective serial positions is analyzed and recall probabilities are calculated see also, Ward and Tan, Figure 1C plots the recall probabilities for each functional serial position.

Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed an age-invariant recency effect functional serial positions 11—12 but an age-related increase in the primacy and middle portion of the functional serial position curves.

More precisely, items that had an early rank ordered position 1—2 were better recalled at later assessments than at earlier assessments assessment seven compared to assessments one to five, and assessment six compared to assessments one, three, and four, respectively.

Analyses regarding recall differences within the functional serial position curves revealed that items that were last rehearsed functional serial positions 11—12 were better recalled than items from functional serial positions 1—4 and 7—10 at all assessments and than items from functional serial positions 5—6 at assessments one to five.

Recall from functional serial positions 7—8 was better than recall from serial positions 3—4 at assessments two, three, five, and six. In sum, there was an age-invariant recency effect that was larger than recall from almost all earlier list portions, but from the middle list positions 5—6, at all assessments. In addition, recall of items that were dropped early increased toward the end of the longitudinal study. Figure 1D shows the number of positions that an item from each individual nominal serial position had been moved further down the list see, e.

In other words, a small number implies that the item had received only little rehearsal behavior and was redintegrated in very few, if at all, additional rehearsal sets besides the one at which it had been presented. In contrast, a large number implies that an item from a specific serial position shows several instantiations throughout the study phase.

Visual inspection of the functions in Figure 1D suggests a decrease of number of additional rehearsals as a function of the nominal serial position at all assessments. In addition, with increasing age, the amount of additional rehearsal increased. Because recency items serial positions 11—12 had either one or no occasion to be redintegrated in later rehearsal sets, this list portion was omitted from the analyses.

This tendency was stronger at later assessments compared to earlier assessments. The final set of analyses was based on the assumption that rehearsal processes during list learning rely on continuous recall. Ward , p.

Accordingly, within these rehearsal sets i. In the following sections, the distribution of rehearsals was analyzed within several distinct rehearsal sets throughout the list. More precisely, the probability of items rehearsed at rehearsal sets four, six, eight, and ten in the list were analyzed.

Accordingly, the distribution of rehearsals within each of these rehearsal sets was considered to be the end-product of previous behavior analogous to the distribution of recalled items during the recall phase see, e.

Figures 2A—D plot rehearsal probabilities of previously presented items at four different rehearsal sets during the study phase. More precisely, it displays the rehearsal probability of items within rehearsal sets 4, 6, 8, and The item that signaled the beginning of a new rehearsal set was excluded from the analyses namely items 4, 6, 8, and 10 from the correspondent rehearsal sets.

The reason for this procedure was to differentiate recall of previously presented items and mere repetition of the just presented item. As such, the analyses examined the serial position curves for: i the probability that items from serial positions 1—3 were rehearsed at rehearsal set 4, ii the probability that items from serial positions 1—5 were rehearsed at rehearsal set 6, iii the probability that items from serial positions 1—7 were rehearsed at rehearsal set 8, and iv the probability that items from serial positions 1—9 were rehearsed at rehearsal set For each of the distributions of rehearsals at rehearsal sets 4, 6, 8, and 10, two-way repeated measures ANOVAs with assessments and serial positions as within-subject factors and rehearsal probability as the dependent measure were conducted.

Mean proportion of items rehearsed as a function of nominal serial position during rehearsal sets 4 A , 6 B , 8 C , and 10 D , for assessments t 1—7, respectively. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed significant age-related increases in rehearsal behavior between assessments one and two to seven, and between assessments two and five to six. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed significant age-related increases in rehearsal behavior between assessments one and two to seven, between assessments two and five to six, and between assessments four and six, respectively.

Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed that in this rehearsal set there was an age-related increase in rehearsal activity between assessment one and all subsequent assessments, between assessment two and assessments five to seven, and between assessment three and assessment six.

In addition, rehearsal behavior in this rehearsal set was characterized by a primacy, an elevated middle-list effect, and a recency effect. Regarding primacy, comparisons revealed significant differences between serial positions 1 and 3—4, and 2 and 3—4. Elevated rehearsal for items from the middle was substantiated by significant comparisons between serial position 5 and 3—4. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed age-related increases between assessments one and two to seven, and between assessment two and assessments five to seven.

Again, there was a primacy effect, including the first two items, a tendency for a middle-list effect, and a recency effect. Comparisons revealed higher rehearsal probabilities for the first serial position compared to all other but the last two serial positions, and significant higher rehearsal probabilities for serial position 2 compared to serial positions 4 and 7.

Thus far, PFR had primarily been analyzed in the context of the recall phase. Under the assumption that rehearsal sets constitute a specific kind of recall during study, the final analyses examine PFR for four points in time during study, that is, for rehearsal sets 4, 6, 8, and Similar to the previous analyses, the item that defined simultaneously the end of the precedent and the beginning of the current rehearsal set was excluded from the examinations.

The reason behind this exclusion was to distinguish recall of items from the precedent rehearsal set and repetition of the currently presented item, respectively. Consequently, analyses of rehearsal set 4 included items from serial positions 1—3, analyses of rehearsal set 6 included items from serial positions 1—5, and so on. Previous analyses of PFR in adults had demonstrated that with increasing list length PFR changes from high values for the primacy item to elevated values for recency items e.

Accordingly, analyses in this section focus on items from the first and last serial position of the list thus far presented. Figures 3A,B show the probabilities of first recall for rehearsal sets 4, 6, 8, and 10, for the first item from the list and the last item from the list section until then presented. Whereas the first item remained the same throughout all rehearsal sets, the last item was item from position n -1 of the respective rehearsal set.

Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed higher PFRs for assessments two to seven compared to assessment one. Independent of age, there was a strong primacy and a weaker recency effect. There was a significant tendency to start rehearsal in this rehearsal set with the first list item compared to items from the second and third serial position.

Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed higher PFRs for assessments three, five, six, and seven compared to assessment one and for assessment six compared to assessment two. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed higher PFRs for assessments three, five, six, and seven compared to assessment one. Independent of age, there was a strong primacy and an even stronger recency effect. That is, the tendency to start rehearsal in this rehearsal set was strongest for items from the last serial position here, serial position 7 compared to all other serial positions.

Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed higher PFRs for assessment five, six, and seven compared to assessment one. In addition, there was again a strong primacy and an even stronger recency effect. Furthermore, items from the first serial position showed higher PFRs than items from the middle list positions.

In sum, there were strong tendencies to start rehearsal in the respective rehearsal sets with items from the first and the last serial position. There was, however, a change with increasing list length: PFR was highest for the primacy item in the early section of the list and was highest for the recency item in the later sections of the list.

Probability of first recall data as a function of rehearsal sets 4, 6, 8, and 10, for assessments t 1—7, respectively: for items from the first serial position A , for items from the last serial position of the respective rehearsal set B. It has been demonstrated over and over again that active rehearsal of several items together is a critical determinant of recall performance in children.

Likewise, many studies highlighted the developmental changes from passive rehearsal in younger children to active rehearsal in older children. The question, however, why this active rehearsal process in older children should facilitate recall performance remained mostly unexplored. Because the serial position curve is only the result of previous rehearsal behavior the current analyses additionally examined linkages between study and recall.

To identify how rehearsal behavior and its recall consequences in free recall unfold, the rehearsal process was decomposed into single rehearsal events. The basic idea behind these analyses was that both rehearsals and recalls appear to consist of sequences of previously presented items and rehearsals of these items Laming, , Consequently, at each rehearsal opportunity the compilation of rehearsal sets and the resulting rehearsal patterns were assumed to be analogous to recall patterns.

Accordingly, the free recall performance should be the end product of a cumulative iterative recall process. In the present longitudinal study, recall performance increased with age. Further, serial position analyses clearly indicated age-related changes in the prerecency sections of the curves.

When recall was plotted according to nominal serial positions, there was virtually no primacy effect at the first assessment while it increased with increasing age. According to the traditional view of developing rehearsal-recall linkages e. Active rehearsal should result in the selective transfer of these early items into a LTS. Active rehearsal is thought to result in more varied interitem connections than passive rehearsal. Accordingly, items that are actively rehearsed should have stronger linkages to other items in LTS than do passively rehearsed items.

Recency is, from this perspective, the consequence of emptying a STS first. Items in this STS are assumed to be recently added and therefore to come from the end of the list. These curves showed elevated probabilities for items from the end and from the beginning of the list to be recalled first.

Whereas the effect for items from the end of the list proved to be age-invariant, the effect for items from the first list position turned out to increase with age.

This latter increase suggests that increasing selective rehearsal behavior contributed to the tendency to start free recall with the first item. This is supported by analyses in adults by Grenfell-Essam et al.

Under the impeded rehearsal condition, participants demonstrated a reduction in the proportion of trials in which they initiated recall with the first item and under the active rehearsal condition participants demonstrated an elevated tendency to initiate recall with the first item.

In addition to the discussed primacy and recency effects, serial position curves revealed elevated recall probabilities for list positions 5 and 8 in the middle portion of the list. The occurrence of those peaks proves the interpretation of distinct attributions of primacy and recency to LTS and STS, respectively, less straightforward. It rather points to rehearsal as a mechanism that assembles and organizes to-be-learned material into several groups of items.

This interpretation is reviewed in more detail below. Considering the findings on PFR, it seems obvious that rehearsal behavior is a key mechanism in ordering and reordering material from a list. Taking into account rehearsal behavior and linking this behavior to free recall, allows for a better understanding of study-recall processes.

Corresponding to similar analyses previously done by Tan and Ward and Ward in adults, recall was replotted in terms of the functional ordering of the items. These age-related differences may, however, essentially be ascribed to the general age-related increase in recall performance.

In line with previous findings see, e. There was a clear age-related increase in the amount of redintegrations in later rehearsal sets. These two measures, however, seem to be particularly intertwined. The initial repetition of early list items may lead to the repetition of a rehearsal sequence which leads in turn to a perpetuated recency of this sequence.

Due to this recency, accessibility of this sequence is increased and consequently further repetition is facilitated. In the present study, items from the first five serial positions were potentially more often repeated than items from later list portions and were accordingly more likely rehearsed toward the end of the list, that is, in later rehearsal sets as will be discussed below. Consequently, the frequent repetition of a sequence and the recency of that sequence seem to be inseparable.

In developing a predictive algorithm, Laming , demonstrated in adults that there is a strong relationship between previous sequences of items, rehearsals of these items, and free recall.

During presentation of the list, items and rehearsals of these items generate an internal sequence. Each newly presented or rehearsed item is added or, respectively, readded to the head of this sequence.

Consequently, Laming observed that rehearsals consisted of instantiations of runs and re-runs of previously presented and rehearsed items and suggested that these sequences are stored in memory. Accordingly, rehearsals and recalls should both be based on previous mnemonic records resulting in a cumulative mnemonic record. It follows that both should share some common memory mechanisms. Tracing the rehearsal process throughout the list should give some information about how rehearsal unfolds and how later patterns of rehearsal are based on previous patterns.

In line with findings by Tan and Ward and Grenfell-Essam et al. In addition, the early rehearsal sets were characterized by a one-item primacy effect whereas the later rehearsal sets showed a two-item primacy effect. Finally, a peak at serial position 5 also marked later serial position rehearsal patterns. This finding is particularly interesting because this peak clearly resembles the nominal serial position curves during recall. The stability of this peak throughout the study phase and recall phase suggests that recall was built on rehearsal patterns established through repeated rehearsal.

The assumption that rehearsal at each rehearsal opportunity equates to some extent to recall of the thus far presented material see also, Ward et al.

At rehearsal opportunities early in the list few thus far presented items the tendency to initiate rehearsal with the first list item was larger than the respective tendency to start with the lastly presented item. In the course of the list and therefore with increasing number of to-be-memorized items, PFR shifted to a tendency to initiate rehearsal with the lastly presented item note that lastly presented item refers to the item that initiated the last interstimulus interval before PFR was examined; as such, PFR examined rehearsal of previously presented items but not mere repetition of the currently presented item.

These findings have to be evaluated with a certain degree of caution because at later rehearsal opportunities there were age-related rehearsal differences: children demonstrated more active rehearsal behavior with larger rehearsal sets when they were older than when they were younger for more detailed analyses, see Lehmann and Hasselhorn, However, due to the lack of any age-related interaction in the analyses, these findings seem to be in line with findings from a set of experiments with adult participants by Grenfell-Essam et al.

They demonstrated that participants mainly initiated recall with the first item from the list on short lists and that participants mainly initiated recall with one of the last four items on longer lists, respectively. They concluded, however, that rehearsal was not the sole explanation for initial recall coming from the first serial position when lists were short. Under the condition in which rehearsal was disrupted by articulatory suppression, participants still tended to initiate recall with the first list item, albeit to a lesser degree.

The latter finding matches well the findings from the present study. When children were younger they used active rehearsal behavior to a lesser extent. Nevertheless, they tended to initiate rehearsal behavior within rehearsal sets with the first list item, especially early in the list. With increasing list length, age-related differences increased and children were less likely to start rehearsal with the first list item when they were younger compared to when they were older.

Most evident was the age-related, and therefore supposedly rehearsal based difference, in initiating recall with the first list item. Accordingly, under conditions of slow presentation rate, as was the case in the present study, rehearsal seems to contribute largely to this tendency in children when they are older. The observation that rather passively rehearsing younger children initiated rehearsal at early rehearsal opportunities with the first list item may point to the involvement of a primacy gradient with the first list item given more encoding than subsequently presented items.

This assumption will be discussed briefly below. The central executive connects the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad and coordinates their activities.

It also links the working memory to the long-term memory, controls the storage of long-term memory, and manages memory retrieval from storage. The process of storage is influenced by the duration in which information is held in working memory and the amount that the information is manipulated. Information is stored for a longer time if it is semantically interpreted and viewed with relation to other information already stored in long-term memory.

The process of transferring information from short-term to long-term memory involves encoding and consolidation of information.

This is a function of time; that is, the longer the memory stays in the short-term memory the more likely it is to be placed in the long-term memory.

In this process, the meaningfulness or emotional content of an item may play a greater role in its retention in the long-term memory. This greater retention is owed to an enhanced synaptic response within the hippocampus, which is essential for memory storage.

The limbic system of the brain including the hippocampus and amygdala is not necessarily directly involved in long-term memory, but it selects particular information from short-term memory and consolidates these memories by playing them like a continuous tape.

Long-term memory is used for the storage of information over long periods of time, ranging from a few hours to a lifetime. If we want to remember something tomorrow, we have to consolidate it into long-term memory today.

Long-term memory is the final, semi-permanent stage of memory. Unlike sensory and short-term memory, long-term memory has a theoretically infinite capacity, and information can remain there indefinitely. Long-term memory has also been called reference memory, because an individual must refer to the information in long-term memory when performing almost any task.

Long-term memory can be broken down into two categories: explicit and implicit memory. Explicit memory, also known as conscious or declarative memory, involves memory of facts, concepts, and events that require conscious recall of the information. In other words, the individual must actively think about retrieving the information from memory. This type of information is explicitly stored and retrieved—hence its name. Explicit memory can be further subdivided into semantic memory, which concerns facts, and episodic memory, which concerns primarily personal or autobiographical information.

You use semantic memory when you take a test. Another type of semantic memory is called a script. Scripts are like blueprints of what tends to happen in certain situations. For example, what usually happens if you visit a restaurant? You get the menu, you order your meal, you eat it, and then you pay the bill. Through practice, you learn these scripts and encode them into semantic memory.

Episodic memory is used for more contextualized memories. As such, they include sensations and emotions associated with the event, in addition to the who, what, where, and when of what happened. For example, many people remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard of the terrorist attacks on September 11, This is because it is a flashbulb memory.

Semantic and episodic memory are closely related; memory for facts can be enhanced with episodic memories associated with the fact, and vice versa. Likewise, semantic memories about certain topics, such as football, can contribute to more detailed episodic memories of a particular personal event, like watching a football game. A person that barely knows the rules of football will remember the various plays and outcomes of the game in much less detail than a football expert.

These actions develop with practice over time. Athletic skills are one example of implicit memory. You learn the fundamentals of a sport, practice them over and over, and then they flow naturally during a game. Rehearsing for a dance or musical performance is another example of implicit memory. Everyday examples include remembering how to tie your shoes, drive a car, or ride a bicycle.

These memories are accessed without conscious awareness—they are automatically translated into actions without us even realizing it.

As such, they can often be difficult to teach or explain to other people. Implicit memories differ from the semantic scripts described above in that they are usually actions that involve movement and motor coordination, whereas scripts tend to emphasize social norms or behaviors. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Search for:. Types of Memory. Sensory Memory Sensory memory allows an individual to remember an input in great detail but for only a few milliseconds.

Learning Objectives Describe the different types of sensory memory. Key Takeaways Key Points Sensory memory allows individuals to recall great detail about a complex stimulus immediately following its presentation. There are different types of sensory memory, including iconic memory, echoic memory, and haptic memory. In sensory memory, no manipulation of the incoming information occurs, and the input is quickly transferred to the working memory. Key Terms sensory memory : The brief storage in memory of information experienced by the senses; typically only lasts up to a few seconds.

Short-Term and Working Memory Short-term memory, which includes working memory, stores information for a brief period of recall for things that happened recently. Learning Objectives Compare short-term memory and working memory.

Key Takeaways Key Points Short-term memory acts as a scratchpad for temporary recall of information being processed. It decays rapidly and has a limited capacity.

Rehearsal and chunking are two ways to make information more likely to be held in short-term memory. Working memory is related to short-term memory. It contains a phonological loop that preserves verbal and auditory data, a visuospatial scratchpad that preserves visual data, and a central manager that controls attention to the data.