Psychology
2013. Vol.4, No.10A, 42-47
Published Online October 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.410A008
42
Profile Performance of Working Memory in Children of
Elementary Schools
Rita de Cássia Coutinho Vieira Fornasari, Tais Ferreira De Lima, Sylvia Maria Ciasca
Department of Neurology, Research Laboratory of Learning and Attention Disorders (DISAPRE), School of
Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP) Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Received July 25th, 2013; r evised August 28th, 2013; accepted September 27th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Rita de Cássia Coutinho Vieira Fornasari et al. This is an open access article distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original wor k is properly cited.
Objective: To compare the performance of working memory in children of 5 years and 1 month to 6 years
and 11 months of public and private Elementary Schools. Methods: 34 subjects were evaluated for both
genders composing the GI and GIII public education aged 5 - 6 years; GII and GIV private education
aged 5 - 6 years, with an average age of 6 years and 11 months. All subjects were submitted to the Work-
ing Memory Assessment Protocol. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the
public school and private school in tests of verbal span of serial repetition in direct order with words like
phonology and semantics and different words with different semantics and phonology. Between groups, a
statistically significant difference occurred between GIII and GIV in verbal span, free recall for polysyl-
labic words with different semantics and complex phonology; between GI and GII, GIII and GII, GIII and
GIV, the verbal span of words with phonology and different semantics, and between GIII and GIV in
verbal span of words with the same phonology and semantics. The variables in these groups are age and
type of school. Conclusion: With advancing age and grades, the developments of working memory and
best performance of working memory were for public school children aged 6 years.
Keywords: Working Memory; Language; Children; Elementary School
Introduction
The literacy process involves the phonological structure of
oral language, the conceptual organization, lexical representa-
tion and working memory, which accesses and retrieves the
graphical representations related to speech sounds (Mezzomo &
Mota Dias, 2010).
Working memory whose function is to maintain, for a short
period of time, the information that is being processed, and it
leaves no traces and does not produce files (Baddeley, Ander-
sen, & Eysenck, 2011) consisting of the conscious representa-
tion and temporal manipulation of the information necessary to
perform complex cognitive operations such as learning, lan-
guage comprehension and reasoning (Morgado, 2005).
The model of Baddeley (2000) suggests that working mem-
ory is a system composed of four components. The central ex-
ecutive handles tasks of higher cognitive demand and has four
functions: to coordinate performance on two tasks (e.g., simul-
taneously store and process information), choose a task, strat-
egy or operation; attend to relevant information and inhibit
irrelevant information, and enable and retrieve long-term mem-
ory (Anderson & Lyxell, 2007).
The phonological component (phonological loop) keeps the
information verbally coded for a short period of time and re-
feeding it through a subcomponent, the Articulatory loop (Bad-
deley & Hitch, 1974; Bueno & Oliveira, 2004).
The visual-spatial sketchpad performs the processing and
maintenance of visual and spatial information related to the
objects and spatial relationships between them. At the same
time, it plays an important role in the formation and manipula-
tion of mental images (Baddeley, 2006).
A fourth component recently included the model and the Epi-
sodic Buffer acted as a retainer responsible for the integration
of information from the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial
layout information from long-term memory (Baddeley, 2000).
During childhood, the phonological component of working
memory develops and is linked to the development of language,
being observed in everyday speech and the child’s vocabulary
that increase in size and complexity, thus underlining the role
that memory on language in their semantic and pragmatic as-
pects (Scheuer, 2009).
For acquisition and phonological development, the child
makes use of perception, production and organization of the
rules, i.e. the child to acquire the phoneme, also learns its dis-
tribution in syllables and words (Lamprecht, 2004).
Up to 6 years, it is expected that the child has established a
complete inventory phonological (Wertzner, Amaro, & Galea,
2007).
Mota-SoaresKeske and Linassi (2004) argue that changes in
phonological working memory can have flaws in the organiza-
tion and production of speech sounds and it has been associated
with phonological disorders and speech and language.
Rodrigues and Befi-Lopes (2009) described and analyzed the
relationship between phonological working memory and lan-
guage development in children with normal language develop-
ment. The resulting figure shows the relationship between lexi-

R. DE C. C. V. FORNASARI ET AL.
cal and phonological structure and phonological working mem-
ory in children with normal development. Lobo, Acrani and
Avila (2008) state that the evaluation of the performance of
phonological working memory may provide us relevant data on
language ability and language development of children with
and without communication disorders. This study aimed to
compare the performance of working memory among children
5 years and 6 years of public and private elementary school.
Method
Context
The research was conducted inpreschool and elementary
schools (1st year) from the city of Capivari, state of São Paulo,
Brazil namely: Colegio EAC—Kindergarten and Elementary
Education—private, EMEI Professor Lenita Camargo Fi-
gueiredo and EEF José Benedito P. Antunes, both public
schools.
Participants
With the approval of the Research Ethics Committee (REC)
of the School of Medical Sciences, No. 08088112.4.0000.5404,
participated in this study 34 subjects aged 5 - 6 years, of both
genders, students from preschool and 1st grade of public and
private education in the city of Capivari, state of São Paulo,
Brazil, divided into 4 groups: GI (5 yrs 1 mth to 5 yrs 11 mths)
and GIII (6 yrs 1 mth to 6 yrs 11 mths) from the public, GII (5
yrs 1 mth to 5 yrs 11 mths) and GIV (6 yrs 1 mth to 6 yrs 11
mths) in private.
For the formation of groups was performed speech screening
with parents and/or guardians to clarify questions about the
development and overall health of the child and the designation,
made by teachers, good students without learning disabilities
and attention.
Inclusion criteria for the choice of research subjects were
signatures of the term of free and informed consent (IC); sub-
jects aged five to six years; provide speech and language de-
velopment within the normal range, and subjects who did not
complaints of visual and auditory acuity.
Were excluded from the study subjects presented: speech
complaints, such as language delay, articulation disorders and
phonological and/or phonetic; complaints of inattention; at-
tend or have attended speech therapy, and parents or guardians
did not authorize participation in research.
Materials
For the evaluation of the subjects using the Working Mem-
ory Protocol Assessment (WMPA) (Ferreira, 2011). This pro-
tocol evaluates auditory skills performance tests in serial repeti-
tion in direct order, evidence of free recall and verbal span tests.
Proofs of serial repetition have alternation between the number
of syllables of words and how to semantics and phonology of
the same, being linguistically balanced according to the com-
plexity of speech articulation, word length and degree of fa-
miliarity of the words in the English language. The visual abil-
ity is assessed with tests of visual span in the forward and re-
verse order. This protocol has a total of 6 trials, 5 trials subdi-
vided into up to 5 items. The time of application of the Protocol
was around 20 minutes.
Procedures
In the performance of the Working Memory Protocol As-
sessment (Ferreira, 2011) the evidence of auditory memory
were applied orally, in which the researcher guided the subject
to hear the order given and repeat according to the variations of
each test and subtest. In the visual memory tests, the subjects
were given colored cards, in which the researcher asked the
subjects to visualize the order presented, and they should play
in the forward and in reverse order. The maximum score of this
test is 144 points to be obtained in the correct performance of
100% of the words.
Data Analysis
For this study was performed by descriptive and inferential
statistics using SPSS for Windows (version 20.0). Descriptive
analyzes were performed to characterize the groups and infer-
ential analyzes to compare the performance between the groups
(Fisher’s Exact Test, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney), con-
sidered the significance level of 5%, i.e., p < 0.05.
The Mann-Whitney aims to investigate possible differences
in working memory performance between groups.
The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test is used to compare
three or more independent samples, indicating whether there is
a difference between at least two of them.
Fischer’s Exact Test comparing small samples in two inde-
pendent groups and determines the exact probability of occur-
rence of an observed frequency.
The results indicate that statistically significant differences
are marked in bold and asterisk (*).
In this study, we used a significance level of 5% (0.05), i.e.,
when the calculated significance value (p) is less than 5%,
meaning that the difference or relationship is statistically sig-
nificant, and when the value calculated significance (p) is equal
to or greater than 5%, meaning that the ratio or difference is not
statistically significant.
Applied Tests
To better understand the following tables the names of each
test and subtest were transformed into acronyms applied as
shown in the table below (Figure 1).
Results
Characteri zation of Gr oup s
This study was conducted with the participation of 34 sub-
jects divided into four groups, with group GI consists of 8 sub-
jects of both sexes with ages ranging from 5 years and 1 month
to 5 years and 11 months from the public school the GII con-
sists of 8 subjects of both sexes with ages ranging from 5 years
and 1 month to 5 years and 11 months from the private schools,
the GIII group consisting of 9 subjects of both sexes with age
ranging from 6 years and 1 month to 6 years and 11 months
from the public school system and GIV group consisting of 9
subjects of both sexes with ages ranging from 6 years and 1
month to 6 years and 11 months from private schools.
Table 1 presents the frequency of the number of subjects in
each group per grade, and GIII and GIV a higher number of
subjects.
The average age among the subjects in grades is shown in

R. DE C. C. V. FORNASARI ET AL.
A1 Serial repetition in direct ord er - 3 syllable words with
different semantic s an d equal phon o logy.
A2 Serial repetition in direct ord er - 5 syllable words with
different semantic s an d equal phon o logy.
A3 Serial repetition in direct order - 3 three syllable words
with different semantics and equal phonol o g y.
B1 Serial repetition in direct ord er - 3 syllable words with
different phonology and equal s emantics.
B2 Serial repetition in direct ord er - 5 syllable words with
different phonology and equal s emantics.
C1 Serial repetition in direct ord er - 3 syllable words with
different semantics a nd p honology.
C2 Serial repetition in direct ord er - 5 syllable words with
different semantics a nd p honology.
C3 Serial repetition in direct ord er - 7 syllable words with
different semantics a nd p honology.
2A Free recall - polysyllabic words with different
semantics and complex phonology.
2B Free recall - words with different phonological and
equal sem antics (color).
2C Free recall - two-syllable words with different
semantics and equal phonology.
2D Free recall - words with different sem antics and phonology.
2E Free recall - polysyllabic words with different
semantics and phonolo gy.
3A Verbal span - syllable words with different
semantics and phonolo gy.
3B Verbal span - syllable words with different
semantics and equal phonology.
4A Visual sp an - direct order.
4B Visual span - reverse order.
5A Repeat no words - two syllables.
5B Repeat no words - three syllables
6 Recall in reverse order.
Figure 1.
Abbreviation of the subtests of the evaluation protocol of working
memory.
Table 1.
Frequency of subjects per gr ou p a nd grade.
Grade Total
Pre-School First Year
f 8 0 8
G I % 50 0 24
f 8 0 8
G II % 50 0 24
f 0 9 9
G III % 0 50 26
f 0 9 9
G IV % 0 50 26
f 16 18 34
Total % 100 100 100
Notes: (f) frequency, (%) percentage; (GI) Public School: 5.1 - 5.11 years; (GII)
Private School: 5.1 - 5.11 years; (GIII) Public School: 6.1 - 6.11 years; (GIV)
Private School : 6.1 - 6.11 years.
Table 2, which is 6.11 years in pre-school and first year (p =
0.00), analysis of the Mann-Whitney test.
Table 3 shows the performance of working memory among
groups. Note statistically significant difference in the subtest
(A2) of serial repetition in direct order for five syllable words
with equal phonology and semantics different (p < 0.02*), in the
verbal span test (3A) of two-syllable words with phonology and
different Semantics (p < 0.00*) and the verbal span (3B) for
two-syllable words with the same phonology and different se-
mantics (p < 0.02*). In the other tests and subtests, there were
no statistically significant differences between schools.
Table 2.
Comparison between the age and grade.
Grade Average N SD
Pre-School 5.64 16 0.26
First Year 6.53 18 0.31
Total 6.11 34 0.53
Notes: (N) no. of subjects; (SD) Standard Deviation, p = 0.00, Mann-Whitney
test.
Table 3.
Comparison of working memory among schools.
Schools
Public Private
Test A SD A SD p-value
A1 2.68 0.50 2.32 0.81 0.13
A2 1.56 0.30 1.26 0.36 0.02*
A3 1.91 0.57 1.53 0.84 0.22
B1 3.00 0.00 2.94 0.24 0.32
B2 1.74 0.75 1.76 0.59 0.96
C1 2.53 0.74 2.06 0.91 0.12
C2 1.32 0.77 0.79 0.64 0.05
C3 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.17 0.55
2A 2.35 0.86 1.76 0.97 0.06
2B 4.06 1.52 3.12 1.50 0.09
2C 2.65 1.06 2.29 0.92 0.30
2D 2.59 1.12 2.06 1.14 0.14
2E 2.29 0.92 2.35 1.46 0.99
3A 3.65 0.61 2.71 0.85 0.00*
3B 3.18 0.64 2.53 0.80 0.02*
4A 3.65 1.00 3.59 1.12 0.84
4B 2.76 1.09 2.82 1.07 0.79
5A 1.47 1.07 1.65 0.93 0.55
5B 1.76 0.75 1.29 0.92 0.09
6 1.82 0.88 2.18 1.24 0.53
Total 47.00 7.56 41.12 8.38 0.05
Notes: (A) Average, (SD) Standard Deviation; (*) Statistically significant di ffer-
ence (p < .05).
44

R. DE C. C. V. FORNASARI ET AL.
Table 4 shows the comparison of the performance of work-
ing memory among groups. Table 5, p < 0.05, shows statisti-
cally significant results for the test of free recall of two-syllable
words with different semantics and complex phonology (2A),
resulting in a statistically significant difference in GIII and GIV
(p = 0.01*), the subtest (3A) of the verbal span for two-syllable
words with different semantics and phonology resulting statis-
tically significant difference in GI and GII (p = 0.03*), GIII and
GIV groups (p = 0.04*) and in GII and GIII (p = 0.04*), this
group is no different between the ages, in the subtest (3B) of
the verbal span for two-syllable words with different semantics
and phonology equal no statistically significant difference in
GIII and GIV (p = 0.02*). In the other tests and subtests is no
significant difference between groups.
Discussion
The development of children’s oral language and communi-
cation are related to the development of working memory, as
Table 4.
Comparison of working memory among groups.
Groups
GI GII GIII GIV
Test A SD A SD A SD A SD
A1 2.62 0.44 2.31 1.002.72 0.57 2.330.66
A2 1.50 0.27 1.38 0.351.61 0.33 1.170.35
A3 2.06 0.68 1.25 1.041.78 0.44 1.780.57
B1 3.00 0.00 2.87 0.353.00 0.00 3.000.00
B2 1.31 0.70 1.69 0.702.11 0.60 1.830.50
C1 2.25 0.96 1.88 1.092.78 0.36 2.280.71
C2 1.25 0.65 0.75 0.651.39 0.89 0.830.66
C3 0.06 0.18 0.06 0.180.00 0.00 0.060.17
2A 2.25 1.04 2.25 1.042.44 0.73 1.330.71
2B 4.00 1.69 3.38 1.304.11 1.45 2.891.69
2C 2.50 0.93 2.38 0.742.78 1.20 2.221.09
2D 2.50 1.20 2.00 1.412.67 1.12 2.110.93
2E 2.13 0.99 2.38 1.772.44 0.88 2.331.22
3A 3.63 0.52 2.63 0.923.67 0.71 2.780.83
3B 2.88 0.35 2.50 0.933.44 0.73 2.560.73
4A 3.38 0.92 3.87 0.993.89 1.05 3.331.22
4B 2.50 0.93 2.63 1.193.00 1.22 3.001.00
5A 1.50 1.20 1.88 0.991.44 1.01 1.440.88
5B 1.88 0.83 1.25 0.891.67 0.71 1.331.00
6 1.88 0.64 1.87 1.461.78 1.09 2.441.01
Total 45.06 7.35 41.19 10.5048.72 7.75 41.066.62
Notes: (A) Average, (SD) Standard Deviation.
Table 5.
Comparison of the performance of working memory among groups
with p < 0.05.
Groups
GI GII GIII GIV
Test A SD A SD A SD A SDp-value
2A 2.44 0.73 1.33 0.710.01*
3A3.63 0.522.63 0.92 0.03*
3A 3.67 0.71 2.78 0.830.04*
3A 2.630.923.67 0.71 0.04*
3B 3.44 0.73 2.56 0.730.02*
Notes: (A) Average, (SD) Standard Deviation; (*) Statistically significant di ffer-
ence (p < 0.05).
this allows the formal and informal learning, acquire new
knowledge and integration of information. Thus the language
and working memory develop with age (Befi Rodrigues-Lopes,
2009).
The overall results of this study demonstrated better per-
formance of the subjects of public schools for all tests of
WMPA (Ferreira, 2011) with data with significant differences
between groups GIII and GIV, which are formed by subjects
aged 6 years in first grade, with the variable type of school.
The hypothesis raised by the authors, which further supports
these results is that the subjects of public schools showed more
interest and attention during the implementation of the protocol
and the environment of this school was more favorable, with
respect to the noise level, compared to private school.
This is corroborated by studies Gindri et al. (2005) stating
that the educational process is important for the development of
the child, taking into consideration the importance of learning
processes in the development of higher mental functions, which
explains the better performance in this range age.
In relation to GI and GII, the result was significant for verbal
span test, being the age of 5 years subject to the variable type of
school, and GI and GII public school private school. In a study
of Brazilian children aged 4 - 10 years the authors observed the
effects of age, extension, educatio n and lexically, and th e length
effect was observed with the decrease in the repetition of words
with 2 - 5 syllables, all ages. The effect of education was only
observed in children from 5 years. This is due to the influence
of reading and writing that can make phonological processing
and phonological awareness child. (Santos & Bueno, 2003).
Regarding the type of school a study in Bahia does not cor-
roborate with the finding of this research, it shows that children
3 - 12 years attending public and private schools when they
were evaluated in sequential memory of syllables, the results
indicated that the Children are capable of repeating 2 of 3 se-
quences of 3 syllables, children aged 6 years repeated 2 of the
sequences of 4 syllables and 9 years old were able to repeat the
3 sequences, concluding that there is progress in the perform-
ance of working memory (the respect to phonological loop)
according to increasing age (Corona, Pereira, Ferrite, & Rossi,
2005).
In the study by Ferreira (2011) compared the performance of
working memory in children with Attention Deficit Disorder
and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and children without

R. DE C. C. V. FORNASARI ET AL.
complaints learning and attention, 7 - 11 years enrolled in pub-
lic education, the results concluded that children with ADHD
had worse performance on all memory tests compared to chil-
dren without learning complaints and attention, which may be
related to the performance of attention and executive functions,
leading to a loss of all cognitive abilities.
Analyzing the data in Table 3, the results show a statisti-
cally significant difference in retesting serial two-syllable
words with different semantics and phonology equal to public
school with an average of 1.56, and in contrast to private school
had an average of 1.26. According to a study of Rodrigues and
Befi-Lopes (2009) changes the phonological working memory
in relation to phonological storage are related to the similarity
of the effect of phonological word length, since word sequence
are less similar reminded of the word sequences are not similar
showing that it is verbal information represented by a specific
phonological system rather than another system such as visual
or semantics. Andrade (2002) shows that the effect of phono-
logical similarity with words with similar sounds final hinder
access to meaning, thus impairing their memory. This research
corroborates the result of the study Mousinho, Correa (2009)
showed that the school can contribute to the skills of phono-
logical processing, since the children have good oral and as-
sessed a storage system adequate information because they
have no changes.
In tests of verbal span for words phonology and equal se-
mantics the results were statistically significant for the public
school with an average of 3.65. In contrast to private school had
an average 2.71 (p = 0.00), in the verbal span of two-syllable
words with different semantics and equal phonology public
school had an average 3.18 and private school had an average
2.53 (p = 0.02). These results correlate with the effect of pho-
nological similarity, which has been cited above. Ferreira and
Sagrilo (2012) assessed children male and female and observed
better performance on verbal span in both genders in the repeti-
tion of two-syllable words with different phonology and se-
mantics than in two-syllable words with equal phonology and
different semantics. According to Andrade (2002) subjects with
ADHD showed better recall of words with semantic similarity,
since it compensates for the difficulty caused by phonological
similarity and that access to the meaning of each word can also
facilitate your recall. These data corroborate the findings of this
research in relation to semantic similarity. With regard to
schooling there has been previous reference to its importance
for the performance of working memory.
Table 5 is a comparison between the groups, which have a
variable age and type of school. The results show statistically
significant differences in tests of free recall of polysyllabic
words with complex phonology and different semantics be-
tween GIII and GIV, noting that the age of the subjects is the
same for the two groups (six years) and the variable type of
school is different. In verbal span test 3A, the results indicate a
statistically significant difference in GI (average 3.63) and GII
(average 2.63) with p = 0.03. The age variable is different in
verbal 3A span between GII and GIII, and GIII presents sub-
jects with higher age (6 years) correlating again that age helps
the development of language and memory (GINGRICH et al.,
2005).
In the test of verbal span 3B, two-syllable words with differ-
ent semantics and equal phonology, the difference was statistic-
cally significant between groups GIII (average 3.44) and GIV
(average 2.56), p = 0.02, and the variable type of school.
Other studies correlate the sound information in working
memory with school performance, reading level and age. The
maturation of working memory skills improved significantly in
children from 1st grade compared to children from preschool
(GINGRICH et al., 2005, 2007).
The effect of word length, in a study conducted by Rodrigues
and Befi-Lopes (2009) shows that the best performance in the
repetition of sequences of words whose time articulating to
pronounce phonemes, syllables, words or pseudowords is less.
This effect would occur because items that are pronounced
more quickly are less likely to decline in phonological working
memory before your total repetition is performed, easing the
process of reverberation. According to Cunha and Capellini
(2010) the performance of working memory in children from 1st
to 5th grade in public school is better over school grades, influ-
encing the reading. These studies corroborate the findings of
this research.
Repeat testing of non-words and visual span showed no sta-
tistically significant differences in this study, but several studies
have demonstrated the importance of words not in the devel-
opment of language and working memory. According to Rod-
rigues and Befi-Lopes (2009), the ability to not words facili-
tates the acquisition of new vocabulary and sentence compre-
hension with higher syntactic complexity and working memory
allows the acquisition of metalinguistic skills such as gram-
matical sentences judgment tasks and conscience phonological.
Ferreira (2011) in comparative studies of children with ADHD
and children without complaints learning and attention shows
that the recall tests no words there was no statistically signifi-
cant difference, but the performance was higher for children
without learning. In this type of task the children do not use
support semantic or lexical aspects to remember. Probably
make use of phonological aspect for memory, suggesting that
working memory depend not only attention, but also of phono-
logical processing.
Regarding visual span Barbosa et al (2010) in studies with
children from 2nd and 3rd grade of elementary school investi-
gated the relationship between the skills of visual memory and
spelling and concluded that the acquisition of spelling rules is
related to good memory ability visual.
The recall test in reverse order not statistically significant in
this study. According to the study by Ferreira (2011) among
children with ADHD and children without complaints learning
and attention differences were observed between these groups
with better performance for children without learning com-
plaints and attention corroborating Andrade (2002), as is not an
everyday task, requiring greater use of attention.
Conclusion
Data from this study showed that the subjects of the public
had superior performance in all tests that assessed working
memory compared to subjects in private and that performance
was higher for subjects aged 6 years since the school age, and
assisted in the development of language and memory.
REFERENCES
Anderson, U., & Lyxell, B. (2007). Working memory deficit in children
with mathematical difficulties: A general or specific deficit? Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 9 6 , 197-228.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.10.001
46

R. DE C. C. V. FORNASARI ET AL.
Andrade, E. R. (2002). Memória de trabalho verbal e visual em crianças
com transtorno do déficit de atenção/hiperatividade. Ph.D. Thesis,
São Paulo (SP): Universid a de d e S ã o P au l o .
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of
wor kin g memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. D., Anderson, M., & Eysenck, M. (2011). Memória. Porto
Alegre: Artmed.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A.
Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation. New York:
Academic Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2006). Working memory: An overview. In Working
memory and education, Amsterdan: Elsevier Pre ss.
Barbosa, P. M. F., Bernardes, N. G . B., Misorelli, M. I., & Chiappetta,
A. L. M. L. (2010). Relação da memória visual com o desempenho
ortográfico de crianças de 2a e 3a séries do ensino fundamental.
Revista CEFAC, 12, 598- 607.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-18462010000400009
Bueno, O. A. (2004). Memória e amnésia. In Neuropsicologia hoje, São
Paulo: Artes Médicas.
Corona, A. P., Pereira, L. D., Ferrite, S., & Rossi, A. G. (2005). Me-
mória sequencial verbal de 3 e 4 sílabas em escolares. Revista Pró-
Fono, 17, 27-36.
Cunha, V. L. O., & Capellini, S. A. (2010). Análise psicolinguística e
cognitivo-linguística das provas de habilidades metalinguísticas e lei-
tura realizadas em escolares de 2a a 5a série. Revista CEFAC, 12,
772-783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-18462010005000017
Gindri, G., Keske-Soares. M., & Mota, H. B. (2005). Comparação do
desempenho de crianças pré-escolares e de 1a série em tarefas en-
volvendo a memória de trabalho. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de
Fonoaudiologia, 10, 201-206.
Gindri, G., Keske-Soares. M., & Mota, H. B. (2007). Memória de tra-
balho, consciência fonológica e hipótese de escrita. Revista Pró-
Fono, 19, 313-322.
Ferreira, T. L. (2011). A avaliação da memória de trabalho auditiva e
visual em crianças com o déficit de atenção e hiperatividade. Thesis,
Campinas (SP): Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Lamprecht, R. R. (2004). Aquisição fonológica do Português: Perfil de
desenvolvimento e subsídios para terapia. Porto Alegre (RS): Ar tmed.
Lobo, F. S., Acrani, O. I., & Ávila, C. R. B. (2008). Tipo de estímulo e
memória de trabalho fonológica. Revista CEFAC,10.
Mezzomo, C. L., Mota, H. B., & Dias, R. F. (2010). Desvio fonológico:
Aspectos sobre a produção, percepção e escrita. Revista Sociedade
Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia, 15.
Morgado, I. (2005). Psicologia delaprendizaje y la memoria: Funda-
mentos y avances recientes.Revista de Neurologia. Barcelona, 40,
289-297.
Mota, H. B., Keske-Soares, M., & Li nassi, L. Z. (2004). Habilidades de
memória de trabalho e o grau de severidade do desvio fonológico.
Revista Pró-Fono, 1, 75- 82.
Mousinho, R., & Correa, J. (2009). Habilidades linguístico-cognitiva
em leitores e não leitores. Revista Pró-Fono, 21, 113-118.
Rodrigues, A., & Befi-Lopes, D. M. (2009). Memória operacional fo-
nológica e suasrelações com o desenvolvimento da linguagem in-
fantil. Revista Pró-Fono, 21, 63-69.
Sagrilo, M. C. P., & Ferreira, T. L. (2012). Diferença entre span verbal
e visual nos gêneros. Revista CEFAC, 15.
Santos, F. H., & Bueno, O. F. (2003). Validation of the Brazilian chil-
dren’s test of Pseudowords repetition in Portuguese speakers aged 4
to 10 years. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research,
36, 1533-1547.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2003001100012
Scheuer, C. I. (2005). Memória e linguagem. In L. P. Ferreira, D. M.
Befi-Lopes, & S. C. O. Limongi (Eds.), Tratado de fonoaudiologia
(2nd ed.). Sã o P a ul o : R o ca .
Wertzner, H. F., Amaro, L., & Galea, D. E. (2007). Phonological Per-
formance measured by speech severity indices compared with corre-
lated factors. São P au lo Medical Journal, 125, 309-314.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802007000600002