2 Memory Flashcards

Question

Episodic memory

Answer 1

* Stores events (episodes) from our lives * Time-stamped: remember when they happened * Involve people, places, object + behaviours * Conscious effort to recall * Eg birthday party, what you had for breakfast * Declarative

Answer 2

* Stores knowledge of world * Own encyclopaedia + dictionary * Not time-stamped * Less personal than episodic * Involves Facts + Knowledge * Eg Big Ben is in London, meaning of words * Declarative

Answer 3

* Memories for how we do things (actions + skills) * Skills/actions become automatic with practice * Explaining step by step procedure is hard as it occurs without conscious recall * Eg driving a car or walking * Non-decllarative

Answer 4

**Case study evidence of different types of memory** * Clinical studies of amnesia (Clive Wearing + HM) showed both have difficulty recalling events that had happened to them in their pasts (episodic memories) * But semantic memories = uneffected * HM did not need concept of dog explained * Procedureal memories = uneffected * Clive Wearing could still play piano * Different types of LTM as one store can be damaged and the others uneffected * ***Counterpoint*** * Lack control in clinical case studies * No understanding of memory before brain damage * Limited in what they tell us about LTM **Helps people with memory problems** * Old age memory loss is specific to episodic memory: past memories are intact but new experiences are hard to recall * Belleville et al devised invention for old people targeting episodic memory * Memory was improved over control group * Distinguishing types of LTM allows specific treatments to be developed **Episodic + semantic are different types** * Tulving said episodic memory is a specialised sub category of semantic * An intact semantic can function with a damaged episodic but not vice versa * But Hodges + Patterson found some Alzhiemer's patients can form new episodic memories but not semantic * Episodic =/= semantic but are linked

Answer 5

**Conflicting findings about types of LTM and brain areas** * Buckner and Peterson reviewed findings + concluded semantic memory is located in prefrontal cortex and episodic with the right prefrontal cortex * But other studies found semantic was associated with right prefrontal cortex and reverse for episodic memory * Challenges neurophysiological evidence to support types of LTM as poor agreement of where each type is

Answer 6

* Central executive * Phonological loop * Visuo-spatial sketchpad * Episodic Buffer

Answer 7

* Supervisory role- monitores date, directs attention and allocates subsytems to tasks * Capacity= very limited * Coding= flexible

Answer 8

* PL deals with auditory info + preserves order in which info arrives. * Containts two sections 1. Phonological store- stores words you hear 2. Articulatory process- allows maintenance rehearsal (repeating sounds to keep them in WM whilst needed) * Coding= acoustic * Capacity= what can be said in 2 seconds

Answer 9

* Stores visual and/or spatial info when required * Eg recalling how many windows your house has * Logie subdivided VSS into: 1. Visual Cache- stores visual data 2. Inner scribe- records arrangement of objects in visual field * Coding= visual and spatial * Capacity= 3 or 4 objects

Answer 10

* Added in 2000 * Temporary store for info * Intergrates visual, spatial + verbal info from other stores * Maintains sense of time sequencing- recording events (episodes) that are happening * Links to LTM

Answer 11

**Support from clinical evidence** * Shallice and Warrington studied patient, KF, with brain injury * His STM auditory info was poor (damaged PL) but could process visual info normally (intact VSS) * Supports WMM w/ seoerate visual and acoustic stores * ***Counterpoint*** * KF may have had other impairments which explained poor memory apart from PL damage * Challenges evidence from clinical studies of brain injury **Dual task performance studies support the VSS** * Baddeley et al's pps found it harder to carry out 2 visual taks at same time than do a verbal and visual task together (same for 2 verbal tasks) * Both visual tasks compete for VSS * No competition with verbal and visual task * Must be seperate sub systems that process visual and verbal info- VSS and PL

Answer 12

**Lack of clarity over central executive** * Baddeley said CE was most important but least understood component of WMM * CE must be more clearly defined instead of just being 'attention' * May be made of seperate subcomponents * CE is an unsatisfactory compenent challenging model integrity **Challenge over validity** * Dual-task studies support WMM as they show there must be seperate visual and verbal processing components * But studies are highly controlled using artificial taks eg recalling random letters * Not certain WMM works this way in everyday life so low validity

Answer 13

* Interference occurs when two pieces of info disrupt each other * Forgetting occurs was we cannot access memories in LTM

Answer 14

**Proactive interference (PI)** * Occurs when an older memory disrupts a newer one * Eg a teacher learns many names in past so cannot remember new names **Retroactive interference (RI)** * Occurs when a newer memory disrupts an older one * Eg cannot remember old phone number as you can only remember your new one

Answer 15

Interference is worse when memories are similar because: * In PI previously stored info makes new info more difficult to store * In RI new info overwrites previous memories which are similar

Answer 16

* Pps asked to learn a list of words so recall is perfect * Given word list then asked to remember a new list: 1. Synonyms 2. Antonyms 3. Unrelated 4. Consonant syllables 5. Three-digit numbers 6. No new list (control) * New list dictated performance: * Synonyms= worst recall * Interference is strongest when memories are similar

Answer 17

**Support for interference in real world** * Baddeley + Hitch asked rugby players to recall names of teams they played in a season * Players who played most in that season has poorest recall * They had most interference * Interference can operate in everyday situations- higher validity * **Counterpoint** * Interference irl is unusual as necessartt conditions are rare * eg memories are not super similar * Most irl situation forgetting may occur due to other reasons **Support from drug studies** * Material learned before taking diazepam (a sedative) recalled better than placebo group 1 week later * This is retrograde facilitation * Drug stopped new info reaching brain areas that process memories * So retroactive interference= prevented * Reducing interference, reduced forgetting so forgeting is due to interference

Answer 18

**Interference effects may be overcome using cues** * Tulving and Psotka gave pps lists of words * These were in categories but pps were naive to this * Recall= 70% but fell with each new list (interference) * Recall rose back to 70% in cued recall test using category names * Interference causes temporary loss of access to material- not in theory **Issues with validity** * Lab studies of interference have high control of confounding variables eg time * So clear link between interfernce and forgetting * Research unlike irl forgetting where recall is much after learning * eg exams * And artificial materials used * Lab based research may overestimate importance of interference as a cause of forgetting

Answer 19

* A cue is placed in the memory store at the same time as the information to be remembered * If there are not enough cues a person may forget certain memories, this is called retrieval failure * Tulving 1983 proposed that if a cue is to be helpful, in remembering information, then it must be: 1. present during encoding 2. present during retrieval

Answer 20

* Many cues have a meaningful link to the information forming the memory * Other cues can be encoded at the time of learning but are not meaningful: 1. Context-dependent forgetting- recall depends on an external cue, e.g. the environment/surroundings 2. State-dependent forgetting recall depends on an internal cue ef feeling upset, being drunk

Answer 21

Deep-sea divers learned wordlists and later asked to recall them: 1) learning words on land/recalling on land 2) learning words on land/recalling underwater 3) learning underwater/recalling underwater 4) learning underwater/recalling on land * Accurate recall = 40% lower in unmatched conditions * Retrieval failure due to absence of encoded context cues at time of recall

Answer 22

Pps learned lists of words/orise and later recalled them 1. Learn on drug- recall on drug 2. Learn on drug- recall not on drug 3. Learn not on drug- recall on drug 4. Learn not on drug- recall not on drug * Recall worse in 2 + 3 compared to 1 + 4 * Cues at encoding (eg drowsy) are absent at retrieval (eg alert) so more forgetting

Answer 23

**Retrieval cues have real-world application** * People go into a room but forget what they came in for but remember when they go back to OG room * Worth making effort to recall OG environment when having issues remembering * Research reminds us of useful strategies to improve recall **Range of supporting evidence** * Eg divers + drugs studies show lack of cues at recall leads to forgetting * Researchers argue retrieval failue is main reason for forgetting in LTM * Occurs irl as well as labs * **Counterpoint** * Baddeley (1977:effect of context is not very strong in real-world situations * difficult to find such extremely contrasting contexts as land and water irl * A lack of contextual cues may not be a good model to explain forgetting

Answer 24

**Context effects vary in recall and recognition** * Godden and Baddeley replicated their experiment using recognition test instead of recall * No context-dependent effect * Findings same in all conditions * Retrieval failure only applies to free recall not recognition **Problems with internal validity of research** * Evidence for forgetting occuring when there is a mismatch or absence of encoding and retrieval cues * Not possible to establish if cue has been encoded * Reasoning based on assumption of cue formation * We assume a cue has been formed if recall succeeds or that it has not if recall failed * Low Internal validity of supporting research causes theory to lack evidence

Answer 25

1. Misleading information 2. Anxiety

Answer 26

1. Leading Questions 2. Post-Event discussion

Answer 27

**Loftus + Palmer (1974)** * 45 students watched clips of car accidents * About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? * Verbs: Hit, contacted, bumped, collided or smashed * Contacted= 31.8 mph mean estimate * Smashed= 40.5 mph mean estimate * Leading question biased recall: smashed --> higher speed

Answer 28

1. **Response-bias explanation**: no effect of EWT memory but influences answer 2. **Substitution explanation**: Wording affects memory, distorting accuracy of original memory

Answer 29

**Gabbert et al (2003)** * Pps paired and watched the same crime but different videos (could see different elements) * Ppps discussed what they saw * Individually completed recall test * 71% recalled aspects they did not see but heard * Control= no discussion nor errors * Memory conformity occured

Answer 30

1. **Memory contamination**: Witnesses mix misinformation into own memories. Memory altered 2. **Memory conformity**: Go along together for social approval or belief the other is right. Memory unaltered

Answer 31

**Real-world application** * Loftus argues police officers need to be careful in phrasing questions --> distorting effects * Psychologists= expert witnesses --> explain limits of EWT * Psychologists --> improve legal system --> protect innocent based on unreliable EWT ***Counterpoint*** * Loftus + Palmer: showed film clips to pps not real events (lower ecological validity as less stress than irl) * Pps= less concerned about responses in lab than irl * Researchers= pessimistic about misleading information affect

Answer 32

**Evidence against substitution explanation** * Sutherland + Hayne: pps recall central details better than peripheral ones even when asked misleading questions * Attention on central features --> resistant to misleading info * Memory not distorted unlike prediction **Evidence against memory conformity** * Skaberg + Wright: pps discussed clips (1= mugger has dark brown hair. 2= mugger has light brown hair) * Pps recal= blend of seen + heard rather than one or the other * Memory= distorted not conformed **Demand Characteristics: low vs high internal validity** * Lab= high control + high internal validity * Demonstrate effect of misleading info * But pps want to help researcher so guess when cannot answer question --> demand characteristics * So low internal validity * Reduce demand characteristics= remove cues so pps cannot work out hypothesis

Answer 33

1. Anxiety has a negative effect 2. Anixety has a positive effect

Answer 34

**Johnson and Scott (1976)** * Pps in waiting room- thought they were waiting for lab study * Low anxiety condiyion: hear casual convo in other room, man walks through carrying pen with grease on hands * High-anxiety condition: heated argument + breaking glass. Man walked through holding bloody knife * Asked to pick man from 50 photos * Low= 49% * High= 22% **Tunnel theory:** pps have enhanced memory of central events. Weapon focus as a result of anxiety

Answer 35

**Yuille and Cutshall (1986)** * Actual crime: gun-shop owner shot thief. * 13/21 witness pps in study * Interviewed 4-5mths after incident * Recall compared to police interview at time * Rated stress levels at time * Accurate recall. Less acccurate= weight, age, height * High stress= 88% accurate * Low stress= 75% accurate

Answer 36

1. **Inverted U theory** (Yerkes-Dodson): relationship of performance and stress is inverted U 2. Review of 21 studies on EWT with contradictions. Yerkes-Dodson effect explains low and high= poor recall. Optimum= good recall

Answer 37

**Supporting evidence for negative effects** * Heart rate (objective) monitors on London Dungeon labyrinth visitors * Split into low + high anxiety based on bpm * High anxiety= poorer accuracy in identifying target person **Supporting evidence for positive effects** * Interviewed bank robbery witnesses * High anxiety= direct victims * Low anxiety= bystanders * All= More than 75% accurate recall * High= most accurate ***Counterpoint*** * Interviewed witnesses long after event * Variables couldn't be controlled ie post event discussion * Lack of control --> innacurate recall (not from anxiety)

Answer 38

**Anxiety not relevant to weapon focus** * Johnson + Scott: pps focused on weapon --> surprise not anxiety * Pickel: accuracy in identifying criminal= poorest when object= unexpected * Eg, raw chicken + gun in hairdresses= unusual vs scissors **Problems with inverted U theory** * Focuses on physical anxiety, ignoring cognitive (how we think of stressful event affects recall) * Too simplistic to be useful * Anxious thoughts may not lead to symptoms of anxiety but still block memory

Answer 39

* Fisher and Geiselman claimed EWT improved by cognitive interview * Builds a rapport using four main techniques

Answer 40

1.** Report everything-** include all details even if irrelevant or unsure. Details --> trigger memories 2.**Reinstate context-** return to crime scene in mind, image environment + emotions. Cues from context --> trigger recall 3.**Reverse the order-** Events recalled in different orders eg end to start. Prevents descriptions based on assumption of order of events vs actual event. Prevents dishonesty 4.**Change perspective-** Witnesses recall from anothers perspective eg witness or perpetrator. Prevents influence of expectation + schema on recall

Answer 41

Schemas are packages of information developed through experience. They generate a mental framework for interpreting information.

Answer 42

* Developed by Fischer et al * Included: 1. focus on social dynamics of interaction eg knowing when to establish and relinquish eye contact 2. Reducing eyewitness anxiety 3. Minimising distractions 4. Getting witness to speak slowly 5. Asking open-ended questions

Answer 43

**Research support of effectiveness** * Meta-analysis by Kohnken et al: data of 55 studies comparing CI (and ECI) with standard police interview * CI= 41% average more correct info than standard * 4 studies showed no difference * Improves recall of available but unaccessible info * ***Counterpoint*** * Increase in inaccurate info, especially ECI * Quality > quantity * CI/ECIs treated with caution **Pick + Mix approach: Good or bad?** * Pick + mix approach --> hard to compare effectiveness in studies * But more flecible as police chppse own approaches depending on which works best * Variation is benefit as CI can be adapted to different situations increasing credivility for officers * But reduces credibility of empirical research

Answer 44

**Different elements are more useful** * Each individual technique of CI produced more info than standard police interview * But combining report everything + reinstate context= better recall than any other technique individually or combined * Doubts on credibility of CI overall as techniques are less effective than others **Time-consuming** * CI takes more time eg to establish rapport + get witness to relax * Requires special training but forces do not have resources to provide more than a few hrs training * Not realistic for police to use * May be better to focus on key elements Also, police may like old method + not want to change. Prefer to maintain what they're used to as they don't see an issue with it.

2 Memory Flashcards

(69 cards)