There is much more going on in short-term memory than simply storing information. Today we know that it is part of a more complex system with a special and complex retention system, which is in close cooperation with long-term memory and consists of interacting subsystems. This system constitutes working memory, is involved in a large part of cognitive functions, and is responsible for the temporary retention of information, but also for its active manipulation. Numerous positive correlations have been recorded between comprehension tasks and working memory functions, and between tasks of phonological coding, central processing and auditory comprehension of language. This reinforces the position that emphasizes the function of language comprehension as a dynamic and active process of managing representations at multiple levels, in which limited spatiotemporal working memory plays a key role.

• Memory

• Comprehension

• Language

• Reading

Antonis T, Dimitra K (2026) Human Memory and Language. Ann Psychiatry Ment Health 14(1): 1211.

According to a general model, memory function consists of three functional components or systems: sensory recording, short-term memory, and long-term memory. There are two main views on the structure of short-term memory, namely that it belongs to the long-term memory system but with the main purpose of short-term retention, and the view that it is a special and complex retention system that is in close cooperation with the long-term memory system and consists of interacting subsystems [1]. Part of the research on short-term memory has focused on whether it concerns a separate distinct storage area and has examined its characteristics, structure, and priorities. Since the early 1970s, attention has been focused on the functionality of this type of memory, and on the dynamics of its interaction with long-term memory.

Working memory can be thought of as a system that involves the active manipulation of information in conscious memory. It allows us to retain meaning in long sentences, to perform mental arithmetic operations, to follow instructions given to us, as well as more specialized instructions, such as remembering the warning of road signs while driving, or even more specialized ones such as the parallel manipulation of signals by air traffic controllers. In all these cases, the information is needed only for a short period of time, once the activity is completed, most of it, or  even all of it, is likely to be lost, unless it is transferred to long-term memory, the main function of working memory being to simultaneously maintain a lot of information for immediate manipulation [1]. Baddeley [2], and his colleagues analyzed short-term memory in the information processing system, and after a lot of research evidence, they came to the hypothesis that it functions as working memory, which retains, correlates and processes information. Today we know that it is an essential factor in the functioning of basic cognitive processes, such as: comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, reading, arithmetic operations, reasoning, problem solving, etc. [3-5].

In contrast to the shift in research towards long-term memory, which was done with the theoretical model of levels of processing (Craik & Lockhart 1974), and the definition of memory as a system for retaining and reproducing verbal information (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968), the work of Baddeley & Hitch turned attention to short-term memory with the main difference that their proposal concerns its study and interpretation in a much broader context. In the model they propose, a key advantage is that the system is interested in both active access to information and its transient storage, thus being involved in all complex cognitive processes (e.g. language comprehension) [6]. Secondly, it can explain some dysfunctions in short-term memory in patients with brain damage [5]. If brain damage affects only one of the subsystems of working memory, then selective dysfunctions are observed. Third, the model refers to verbal recall and processing. This is closer to reality than the proposal of Atkinson & Shiffrin, but it does not clearly clarify the exact role of the central processor, which has limited capacity, and has proven quite difficult to measure accurately, while details of its function remain unknown [7].

The working memory model involves different independent but involved subsystems, the central system is called the central executive, and has a control-attention role, and is responsible for coordination, cognitive processing of information, the collection and processing of data from the subsystems (phonological-articulatory system, visual spatial notebook) and long-term memory [8]. It is the most important and most interesting element of the model, it is less studied and has become less understood compared to the other subsystems. The phonological-articulatory loop is specialized in the temporary retention and processing of verbal information based on its internal repetition, thanks to the operation of a retention subsystem and an articulatory processing subsystem. It is involved in a number of cognitive processes (vocabulary acquisition, text comprehension, etc.) [9-11], and has been researched more than the central processor and the visuospatial system. The visuo-spatial sketchpad enhances the function of the central processor, is specialized in the temporary retention and processing of visuo-spatial information as a kind of inner eye, and operates on the basis of the visuo-spatial code, that is, images (shape, size, color, etc.) [8]. In this system, an experimental visual information processing situation can be interfered with, where the intervening information is of the same nature, for example, the visuo-spatial information that we receive while driving can be interfered with by understanding the movements in a football match that we simultaneously listen to on the radio [12-14]. The evidence for the existence of the visuo spatial sketchpad is considerably fewer than those for the phonological circuit.

The original model of working memory was confirmed by a multitude of research and studies, but it itself created its revision since it was open and flexible from the beginning. A multitude of phenomena that emerged both from the normal population and from improved neuropsychological methods of imaging the brain function of individuals with damage, led to the partial revision of the model and the addition of an additional functional subsystem, the episodic buffer, a limited capacity system that stores information coming from both the other subsystems and from long-term memory in the form of episodes [14]. The basic principle for the retrieval of information from this subsystem is attention (conscious awareness). The revised model differs fundamentally from the original one in that it focuses on integrated information, rather than on the isolation and separation of subsystems, thus creating a better basis for the executive function of working memory.

There is a wealth of research that deals with the role and existence of a correlation between working memory and language, especially for language comprehension. Baddeley & Gathercole concluded that the phonological circuit of working memory aims to maintain verbal elements that can be used during language processing [15]. The central processor is involved in the processing of semantic and syntactic information as well as in the storage of the information resulting from this processing [8,16], and in fact, the comprehension of language in text form, which involves the transfer and integration of information, seems to rely on semantic rather than verbal coding, as well as on functions of the central processor such as coordination and retrieval of information from long term memory [4,17]. Studies with infants conclude with positive correlations between auditory comprehension tasks of texts that require the creation of inferences, and tasks that assess the functioning of the phonological circuit [18,19]. Positive correlations have also been recorded between tasks of written text comprehension and tasks that assess the functioning of the central processor in school-age children [20,21]. 

Recent research highlights positive correlations between tasks of phonological encoding, central processor, auditory comprehension of words-sentences, and making inferences about pictures [22]. In 2003, Bamplekou examined the relationships between working memory and auditory comprehension in preschool and early school age and distinguished correlations between the phonological circuit, the central processor and auditory text comprehension, concluding that mnemonic performance is directly related to auditory comprehension, and that performance on comprehension questions is correlated with performance on most central processor tasks (Bamplekou, 2003).

Research has shown the obvious importance of the articulatory circuit for learning to read [23]. Children with difficulties in learning to read, but with normal intelligence, and the same supportive environment, have problems in the memory field [24]. Regarding the ability to read and comprehend, one of the initial hypotheses formulated is that of Clark & Clark [25], according to which the comprehension of sentences requires their temporary retention for processing, although the case of an Italian patient, P.V., showed that she could comprehend sentences much longer than those she could remember [5]. The hypothesis of Butterworth, Campbell and Howard [26], was quite the opposite, according to which, the comprehension of language is independent of the ability of short-term memory. This finding was reached from the study of a patient who, while reading words quite normally, had great difficulty reading simple pseudowords, that is, she had difficulty learning to read, and showed that she had learned by a verbal-visual method (look say method) [27]. This case established the hypothesis that normal short-term memory is necessary for learning to read, but it did not support the view that auditory comprehension depends on the normal mnemonic field. More recent research concludes that phonological input, and its temporary recording, play a decisive role in comprehension, but mainly for complex or specialized information material [9].

A study of working memory in a group of children with language problems, normal non-verbal intelligence, but delayed development in language skills, showed that there was a two-year delay in relation to the expected normal age-related vocabulary performance, and a four-year difference in the simple repetition of pseudowords test (a test with high demands on the phonological circuit), which varied in length and degree of difficulty, concluding that the phonological circuit and the difficulties it presents are clearly correlated with language problems [28]. That is, working memory and mainly the phonological circuit play a central role in the repetition of pseudowords, and the acquisition of language - its comprehension [28]. 

Daneman and Carpenter attempted to measure the overall capacity of working memory, with a test in which subjects were required to simultaneously store and manipulate information. This test, known as the working memory span, involved sentences in which the last words had to be held and recalled linearly. Several experimental variations were made, and the measurement of working memory span of a group of students correlated with reading comprehension, showing a high correlation [11].

The relationship between working memory and comprehension was studied more broadly in another study by Daneman & Carpenter [29], in which three groups of students with high, average, and low working memory spans had to read texts in which there were obvious inconsistencies based on word ambiguity. According to the results, the group with a high working memory span had a 75% accuracy in understanding the conclusion, and the group with a low working memory span had a 25% accuracy. In other words, individuals with a high working memory span had the ability to transfer information and manipulate it to achieve higher levels of understanding [29].

Hypotheses that led to conclusions about the role and function of working memory in comprehension also come from children aged 7-8 years with a normal vocabulary level for their age, and the ability to read simple words, but low performance in reading and understanding text, who constituted the sample of Oakhill’s research [16,30]. Oakhill examined the comprehension and recall of information in children to whom she gave stories and asked them to verify or not sentences, that is, whether or not they existed in the original text. The results showed that children with high comprehension ability showed better memory for the gist and the main part, but did not stand out in verbatim recall, which indicates that the differentiation is not primarily located in the articulatory circuit of working memory, but in the central processor [16].

Daneman & Carpenter [29], also studied the processing and responses to ambiguous stories by two groups of children (high – low comprehension), who read texts with inconsistency content, concluding that clear differences in comprehension are found in the capacity of working memory, and primarily not in the capacity of the articulatory circuit or the visuospatial notebook, but in the central processor.

The implications and direct correlation of working memory with basic cognitive processes such as comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, reading, etc. is evident from the multitude of research and data that have emerged in recent years. What we must not forget, however, is that even high correlations do not imply absolute proof. There is a strong case that a number of factors such as attention, motivation, interests, pre-existing vocabulary level, etc. are largely involved. A full understanding of the model and all its parameters has not yet been achieved, but is in progress. Working memory is a broad field of research and while the proponents of the model [31], believe that it plays a key role in most cognitive functions, other researchers [32-34], are more reserved and emphasize the points of the model that have not yet been clarified, such as the full function of the central processor, which - as I personally believe - will be investigated more in the near future. The clear correlation of working memory with language comprehension through the multitude of research is clear, although we must always be ready for new revisions, under the weight of the data that arise daily. The model is characterized by its flexibility, research continues .....

1. Baddeley AD. Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove, UK: Erlbaum. 1990.
2. Baddeley A, Hitch G. Working Memory. in G.A. Bower (Ed.), Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation (Vol.8). New York: Academic Press. 1974.
3. Baddeley AD. Working memory and reading. In P.A. Kolers, M.E. Wrolstad, &H. Bouma (Eds). Processing of Visible Language. N. York: Plenum. 1979.
4. Baddeley AD. Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Psychology Press. 1997.
5. Vallar G, Baddeley AD. Phonological short-term store, phonological processing and sentence comprehension: A neuropsychological case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1984B; 1: 121-141.
6. Oakhill JV, Yuill N, Parkin AJ. On the nature of the difference between skilled and less – skilled comprehenders. J Res Reading. 1986; 9: 80- 91.
7. Kimberg DY, D’Esposito M, Farah MJ. Effects of bromocriptine on human subjects depend on working memory capacity. Neuroreport. 1988; 8: 3581- 3585
8. Baddeley AD. Working memory. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 1986.
9. Vallar G, Baddeley AD. Phonological short-term store and sentence processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1987; 4: 417-438.
10. Logie RH, Baddeley AD. Cognitive processes in counting. J Experimental Psychol: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1987; 13: 310-326.
11. Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior. 1980; 19: 450-466.
12. Baddeley AD, Hitch G. Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 8. New York: Academic Press. 1974.
13. Baddeley AD, Lieberman K. Spatial working memory. In R. Nickerson (Ed), Attention and performance VIII Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates inc. 1980; 521-539.
14. Alan Baddeley: The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4. 2000; 11: 417-423
15. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD. The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning new names. British J Psychol. 1983; 81: 439-454.
16. Oakhill JV. Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. Br J Educational Psychol. 1984; 54: 31-39.
17. Gathercole S. The development of memory. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 1988; 39: 3-27.
18. Daneman M, Blennerhassett A. How to assess the listening comprehension skills of prereaders. J Educational Psychology. 1984; 76: 1372-1381.
19. Dufva M, Niemi P, Voeten MJM. The role of phonological memory, word recognition, and comprehension skills in reading development: from preschool to grade 2. Reading and Writing. 2001; 14: 91-117
20. Leather CV, Henry LA. Working memory span and phonological awareness tasks as predictors of early reading ability. J Exp Child Psychol. 1994; 58: 88-11.
21. Seigneuric A, Ehrlich MF, Oakhill JV, Yuill NM. Working memory resources and children‘s reading comprehension. Reading and Writing. 2000; 13: 81-103.
22. Adams AM, Bourke L, Willis CS. Working memory and spoken language comprehension in young children. Int J Psychol, 1999; 34: 364-373
23. Jorm AF. Specific reading retardation and working memory: a review.Br J Psychol. 1983; 74: 311-342.
24. Miles TR, Ellis NC. A lexical encoding difficulty II: Clinical observations. I: G.T. Pavlidis og T.R. Miles (red.), Dyslexia in research and its applications. Chichester: Wiley. 1981.
25. Clark HH, Clark EV. Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1977.
26. Butterworth B, Campbell R, Howard D. The uses of short-term memory: a case study. Quarterly J Exper Psychol. 1986; 38A: 705-737.
27. Campbell R, Butterworth B. Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia in a highly literate subject: A developmental case with associated deficits of phonemic processing and awareness. Quarterly J Exp Psychol. 1985; 37A: 435-476.
28. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD. Evaluation the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. J Memory Language. 1989; 28: 200-213.
29. Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. J Exp Psychol: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1983; 9: 561-584.
30. Oakhill JV. Constructive processes in skilled and less skilled comprehenders memory for sentences. Br J Psychol. 1982; 73: 13-20.
31. Baddeley AD. Working Memory, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1986.
32. Richardson – Klavehn A, Bjork RA. Measures of memory. Ann Rev Psychol. 1993; 39: 475-543.
33. Gathercole SE, Baddeley AD. Working Memory and Language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1993.
34. Graesser Ar., Britton. Models of Understanding Text, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey. 1996.