Skip Nav

George Armitage Miller

Navigation menu

❶For instance, a word is a single chunk for a speaker of the language but is many chunks for someone who is totally unfamiliar with the language and sees the word as a collection of phonetic segments.

Keep Exploring Britannica

The Subsistence and Revival of Chunk Capacity Limits

In the s Miller helped to develop WordNet, a sizable online database of English words that displayed semantic and lexical relationships between sets of synonymous terms. Designed to simulate the organization of human verbal memory, WordNet was a widely used linguistic research tool. Miller cofounded with Jerome S. Several of his books, such as Language and Communication and Plans and the Structure of Behavior , are considered influential.

We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles. You can make it easier for us to review and, hopefully, publish your contribution by keeping a few points in mind. Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval.

Unfortunately, our editorial approach may not be able to accommodate all contributions. Our editors will review what you've submitted, and if it meets our criteria, we'll add it to the article. Please note that our editors may make some formatting changes or correct spelling or grammatical errors, and may also contact you if any clarifications are needed.

Jul 18, See Article History. Franny went to the park with Zooey yesterday, and they played Frisbee, flew kites, and lain in the grass looking at birds. Then they went to a nearby diner and had grilled-cheese sandwiches with french fries. A girl and boy Zooey and Franny went to the park Frisbee, kites, birds and ate grilled cheese and fries at diner. Learn More in these related Britannica articles: Cognitive science , the interdisciplinary scientific investigation of the mind and intelligence.

It encompasses the ideas and methods of psychology, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, artificial intelligence AI , neuroscience see neurology , and anthropology. The term cognition , as used by cognitive scientists, refers to many kinds of thinking, including those involved in perception,….

Cognitive psychology , Branch of psychology devoted to the study of human cognition, particularly as it affects learning and behaviour. The field grew out of advances in Gestalt, developmental, and comparative psychology and in computer science, particularly information-processing research.

Cognitive psychology shares many research interests with cognitive science, and some experts…. Psycholinguistics , the study of psychological aspects of language. Experiments investigating such topics as short-term and long-term memory, perceptual strategies, and speech perception based on linguistic models are part of this discipline.

Most work in psycholinguistics has been done on the learning of language by children. For example, the letter string FBICIAUSA can be remembered without much difficulty if it is parsed into 3 chunks, each of which is an acronym representing an American agency if you know it: This idea about chunks, rather than the limit to about 7 items, may be the most important specific contribution of the article.

Miller concluded his grand review with a question as to why these limits are similar, and with the answer that the similarity is probably coincidental. The retrospective account offered by Miller indicates that the article was based on a public address that he had to be cajoled into giving to the Eastern Psychological Association. He did not think that his two lines of research, on absolute judgments and memory span, provided the basis for a coherent hour-long address, and initially declined the invitation.

To make the story even better, he threw in the newly-awakening subitizing literature. When writing in , Miller was unsure why the paper was so popular, compared to other work he had done. When my follow-up, article on item capacity limits Cowan, was accepted for publication, the editor, Stevan Harnad, invited Miller to write a preamble to the article, but Miller, having focused on other topics after , felt unwilling and unqualified to make a published statement.

He did, however, offer some striking observations in emails. On 10 January, he wrote:. Nice to hear from you and to learn that 7 is still of interest. As you know, I have not been working on short-term memory problems or absolute judgment for many years. I had rather dismissed the paper, assuming that its notoriety was attributable to the amusing idea of putting a confidence interval around a magical number. But on rereading I decided that, even after all these years, it was a good piece of work.

I think there is some art in it, as well as ideas. To my further surprise and delight, after reading my in-press target article, Miller on 11 January, magnanimously indicated that he liked it and, further, was not surprised by the discrepancy between my finding and his own in I have now had a chance to read your BBS article.

I think it is great! I never argue with Herb Simon. Since , of course, my attention has wandered off in many other directions. As I recall it now, my interest was in the use of chunking to surmount the limits of short-term memory, but everyone else wanted to fight about the size of the limit, or whether there was any limit at all—questions of little interest to me.

I have nothing more to add to what you have said so well. The field thus gravitated toward time limits and away from item or chunk limits for many years after Miller Simon was one of very few early articles illustrating the limit in working memory to just several chunks regardless of their size. Simon later served as one of about 8 peer reviewers of my article Cowan, when it was first evaluated, and signed his review. Now, publication in Behavioral and Brain Sciences requires that the thesis be controversial enough to serve as a good basis for many following commentaries and my work met that criterion, I believe, because the reviewers radically differed.

Whereas several reviewers thought that my conclusion was not newsworthy because it was already known, several others, including Simon, thought that I was wrong and that there was no clearly identifiable item limit.

I was surprised that Simon seemed to be departing from the view in his article that favored fixed limits. Therefore, it was not clear that there was any fixed limit to be examined. Instead, what mattered for humans was the number of coherent, meaningful units in mind, or what has become known as chunks.

This observation was clear and practically self-evident, with few researchers disputing it, so the case seemed settled. Each of the reasons why not much research was done on the specific topics Miller described leads me to a response about how vital that endeavor actually is. Absolute judgment is one of the simplest tasks imaginable and seems like a process that is often carried out in ordinary life.

A single stimulus is delivered to the research participant, who only needs to decide to which of several pre-taught categories the stimulus belongs. The apparent simplicity of the task does not, however, ensure that the mental processes are in fact that simple. Holland and Lockhead offered evidence on the absolute judgment of tone loudness indicating that these judgments are made with respect to previous trials.

To judge the tone on Trial N, the tones presented on Trial N-1 had an assimilative effect: The previous few tones instead had a small contrast effect: Similarly, Siegel and Siegel , Figure 2 showed that when feedback was given, there was a large effect of the number of trials intervening between the stimulus on Trial N and the trial in which that same stimulus was last presented, again in the range of several items.

Recent research also has finally overcome the notion that absolute identification of objects on a simple continuum cannot be improved through training; it can if participants can find a way to link the judgment to some stable frame of reference, somewhat analogous to how immediate memory can be improved through the application of knowledge for chunk formation.

Rapid enumeration of small clusters of items, the third topic described by Miller , also may rely on similar working-memory mechanisms. In one version of working memory theory, the item capacity limit is identified with the capacity of the human focus of attention and how many objects can be attended at once Cowan, The hallmark of small-set enumeration, or subitizing, is that the items must be attended and individuated — perceived as separate objects — within a short period.

As an analogy, although behaviorism had an inhibiting effect on research on mental mechanisms, such research did not totally cease during that era. There were, likewise, important studies involving item or chunk capacity limits in the years following Miller e. As I Cowan, have previously pointed out, there were also a number of other works that assumed a limited capacity as part of a larger model of cognitive processes, just without a primary focus on the assumed capacity limit and without an independent, direct evaluation of it e.

Indeed, my recollection is that for many years, sophisticated researchers tended to hold the opinion that, although the number of items in working memory is somehow limited, the limit just depends on the circumstances in a complex way that cannot easily be pinned down.

That is clearly a view that was held by a number of the initial critical reviewers of Cowan , and by some of the published commentaries included in that work. Beginning with my graduate training starting in , I, too, focused mostly on time limits, but my reading in the field led me to a nagging sense that different people were saying things that badly conflicted with one another, given the stark difference between item- and time- limited effects. The question for me was whether both kinds of limits could have validity.

I thought they could, suggesting Cowan, , p. To obtain pure estimates of short-term storage, some investigators e. The resulting estimate for adults is two or three items in short-term storage. When the list contains no organizing cues and rote rehearsal must he used, subjects appear able to recall as much as they can rehearse in 1. This duration does not necessarily estimate simple memory decay, because the process of rehearsing or recalling one part of a sequence could interfere with memory for another part.

Thus, there appear to be constraints in both the number of items and the duration of pronounceable sequences in short-term storage. Although it is not clear how these two constraints work together, it might be possible to retain up to two or three chunks nonverbally while rehearsing other information cf. At least, some studies Brooks, ; Scarborough, suggest that there are separate verbal and nonverbal components of short-term memory that can be used together.

This kind of dual, item-plus-time-limit approach seems to have some validity e. In the s through the s, personally it felt all right to have item capacity limits in the background, but I sometimes felt ridiculed if these capacity limits were foregrounded in conversation. The conference also gave me encouragement, though, as I could see that 1 views on working memory were quite disparate, 2 some researchers agreed with me about the existence of chunk capacity limits, and 3 I was able to make some headway in convincing others and refining my own views.

The conference helped in the formulation of the article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences , though I felt scorn from a number of reviewers.

The feeling subsided when the paper was accepted, albeit by a journal that thrived upon controversy. Baddeley correctly pointed out that Miller did have the profound effect of ending a general quest, in the early formative years of cognitive psychology: Miller argued that bits were not the basic units of immediate memory; meaningful chunks were.

While disproving bit limits, however, item and chunk limits were not explored and pinned down nearly as much as I would have expected and hoped, until the recent research boom in that area. In a one-dimensional absolute-judgment task, a person is presented with a number of stimuli that vary on one dimension e.

Performance is nearly perfect up to five or six different stimuli but declines as the number of different stimuli is increased. The task can be described as one of information transmission: The input consists of one out of n possible stimuli, and the output consists of one out of n responses. The information contained in the input can be determined by the number of binary decisions that need to be made to arrive at the selected stimulus, and the same holds for the response.

Therefore, people's maximum performance on one-dimensional absolute judgement can be characterized as an information channel capacity with approximately 2 to 3 bits of information , which corresponds to the ability to distinguish between four and eight alternatives.

The second cognitive limitation Miller discusses is memory span. Memory span refers to the longest list of items e. Miller observed that memory span of young adults is approximately seven items. He noticed that memory span is approximately the same for stimuli with vastly different amount of information—for instance, binary digits have 1 bit each; decimal digits have 3.

Miller concluded that memory span is not limited in terms of bits but rather in terms of chunks. A chunk is the largest meaningful unit in the presented material that the person recognizes—thus, what counts as a chunk depends on the knowledge of the person being tested. For instance, a word is a single chunk for a speaker of the language but is many chunks for someone who is totally unfamiliar with the language and sees the word as a collection of phonetic segments.

Miller recognized that the correspondence between the limits of one-dimensional absolute judgment and of short-term memory span was only a coincidence, because only the first limit, not the second, can be characterized in information-theoretic terms i.

Therefore, there is nothing "magical" about the number seven, and Miller used the expression only rhetorically. Nevertheless, the idea of a "magical number 7" inspired much theorizing, rigorous and less rigorous, about the capacity limits of human cognition.

The number seven constitutes a useful heuristic, reminding us that lists that are much longer than that become significantly harder to remember and process simultaneously. Later research on short-term memory and working memory revealed that memory span is not a constant even when measured in a number of chunks.

The number of chunks a human can recall immediately after presentation depends on the category of chunks used e. These chunks must store the information in such a way that they can be disassembled into the necessary data.

For instance, span is lower for long words than it is for short words.

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

George Miller was a psychologist who theorized that short-term memory can hold between five and nine pieces of information. This information can be stored in single units called bits or in.

Privacy FAQs

He though that short term memory could hold 7 (plus or minus 2 items) because it only had a certain number of “slots” in which items could be stored. However, Miller didn’t specify the amount of information that can be held in each Saul Mcleod.

About Our Ads

George Miller’s Magical Number of Immediate Memory in Retrospect: Observations on the Faltering Progression of Science. Nelson Cowan One of the key concepts in the field of cognitive science is that of working memory, often called short-term memory or immediate memory, terms that all refer to the temporarily heightened availability of. George A. Miller: George A. Miller, American psychologist who was one of the founders of cognitive psychology and of cognitive neuroscience (see cognitive science). He also made significant contributions to psycholinguistics and the study of human communication. One of Miller’s most famous discoveries was that human.

Cookie Info

Results of George Miller's study on short term memory Effect of using the principle of chunking How presentation of material affects our ability to remember it. The Magical Number Seven plus or minus Two One of the best-documented characteristics of working memory is its limited capacity. The short-term storage process of working memory can hold only about seven items at a time.