The phonological loop: Some answers and some questions

Abstract

Jones, Hughes, and Macken (2007) claim that their data and our own are inconsistent with a multicomponent working-memory model. We explain in greater detail how the model can account for the data and can address their more specific criticisms. Both sides accept that data relating to the presence of a phonological similarity effect throughout the list depend on list length. We accept that, at this point, all explanations of their interaction are speculative and require further empirical investigation. We examine J, H, & M's interpretation of their and our results in terms of an auditory modality effect, observing that their interpretation of this effect is not well supported by the literature. We suggest that their account assumes a very narrow basis for a general theory of short-term retention, in contrast to a phonological loop interpretation, which forms part of a well-developed and articulated model of working memory.

We are grateful to Susan Gathercole and Graham Hitch for comments on an earlier draught. The support of MRC Grant G9423916 to A.B. is gratefully acknowledged.