chapter 2: memory Flashcards
1
Q
coding, capacity and duration of memory:
- separate memory stores
A
- Baddeley’s study identified a clear difference between memory stores
- the idea that STM uses mostly acoustic coding and LTM mostly semantic coding has stood the test of time
- important step in our understanding of the memory system, which led to the multi-store model
2
Q
coding, capacity and duration of memory:
- artificial stimuli
A
- Baddeley’s study used quite a bit of artificial stimuli rather than meaningful material
- Baddeley’s findings may not tell us much about coding in different kinds of memory tasks, especially not in everyday life
- suggests that the findings from this study have limited application
3
Q
coding, capacity and duration of memory:
- a valid study
A
- Jacobs’ study has been replicated
- some believed that there were too many confounding variables in his study
- however, his findings have been confirmed by other, better controlled studies
- suggests that Jacobs’ study is a valid test of digit span in STM
4
Q
coding, capacity and duration of memory:
- not so many chunks
A
- Miller’s research may have overestimated STM capacity
- psychologists reviewed other research and concluded that the STM is only about 4 plus or minus one chunks
- the lower end of Miller’s estimate is more appropriate than seven items
5
Q
coding, capacity and duration of memory:
- meaningless stimuli in STM study
A
- Peterson and Peterson’s study used stimulus material that was artificial
- recalling consonant syllables does not reflect most everyday memory activities where what we are trying to remember is meaningful
- the study lacked external validity
6
Q
coding, capacity and duration of memory:
- high external validity
A
- Bahrick’s study has high external validity
- because researchers investigated meaningful memories
- suggests that Bahrick’s findings reflect a more ‘real’ estimate of the duration of LTM
7
Q
multi-store model of memory:
- research support
A
- support from studies showing that STM and LTM are different
- Baddeley’s research, and studies of capacity and duration support this
- clearly show that STM and LTM are separate and independent memory stores
8
Q
multi-store model of memory:
- research support (counterpoint)
A
- MSM uses digits, letters and words but in real life we form memories on other things like people’s faces, their names, facts, places, etc.
- many of the studies that support the MSM used none of these materials
- MSM may not be a valid model of how memory works in our everyday lives
9
Q
multi-store model of memory:
- more than one STM support
A
- there is evidence of more than one STM store
- patient KF could recall better when he read digits to himself, rather than when they were read aloud
- MSM is wrong in claiming that there is just one STM store processing different types of information
10
Q
multi-store model of memory:
- elaborative rehearsal
A
- prolonged rehearsal is not needed for transfer to LTM, despite the fact that the MSM says it is
- elaborative rehearsal is more important for long term storage, (when you link new information to previously existing information
- MSM does not fully explain how long-term storage is achieved, because information can be transferred to LTM without prolonged rehearsal
11
Q
multi-store model of memory:
- bygone model
A
- MSM was based on research evidence available at the time that showed STM and LTM to be single memory stores, separate and independent from each other
- MSM is an oversimplified model of memory, as there is research showing there is more than one type of STM and more than one type of rehearsal
12
Q
types of long-term memory:
- clinical evidence
A
- evidence from the famous case studies of HM and Clive Wearing
- evidence supports Tulving’s view that there are different memory stores in LTM - one store can be damaged but other stores are unaffected
13
Q
types of long-term memory:
- clinical evidence (counterpoint)
A
- clinical studies are not perfect, and they lack control of variables
- lack of control limits what clinical studies can tell us about different types of LTM
14
Q
types of long-term memory:
- conflicting neuroimaging evidence
A
- conflicting research findings linking types of LTM to areas of the brain
- challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there is poor agreement on where each type might be located
15
Q
types of long-term memory:
- real-world application
A
- understanding types of LTM allows psychologists to help people with memory problems
- distinguishing between types of LTM enables specific treatments to be developed
16
Q
types of long-term memory:
- same or different?
A
- Tulving said that episodic memory is a ‘specialised subcategory’ of semantic memory
- conflicting evidence, other studies found that some people with Alzheimer’s disease could form new episodic but not semantic memories
- begs the question, whether or not semantic and episodic memories are the same or different
17
Q
the working memory model:
- clinical evidence
A
- support from patient KF
- KF had poor STM ability for auditory information but could process visual information normally
- finding strongly supports the existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores
18
Q
the working memory model:
- clinical evidence (counterpoint)
A
- it is unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairments which may have affected his performance on memory tasks
- trauma involved may have affected his cognitive performance
- challenges evidence that comes from clinical studies of people with brain injuries
19
Q
the working memory model:
- dual-task performance
A
- studies of dual-task performance support the separate existence of the visuo-spatial sketchpad
- Baddeley’s participants carried out dual-tasks, their performance on each was similar
- when tasks were both either visual or verbal, performance was significantly worse
- shows that there must be separate subsystems for visual and verbal.
20
Q
the working memory model:
- nature of the central executive
A
- lack of clarity over the nature of the central executive
- the CE needs to be more clearly specified than just being for ‘attention’
- means that the CE is an unsatisfactory component which challenges the integrity of the WMM
21
Q
the working memory model:
- validity of the model
A
- studies use tasks that are very unlike the tasks we perform in our everyday lives
- carried out in highly-controlled lab conditions
- means high internal validity but low external validity, results cannot be generalised
22
Q
explanations for forgetting - interference:
- real-world interference
A
- there is evidence of interference effects in more everyday situations
- Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they had played against
- players who played the most games had the worst recall
- shows that interference can operate in some real-world situations, increasing the validity of the theory
23
Q
explanations for forgetting - interference:
- real-world interference (counterpoint)
A
- interference may cause forgetting but it is highly unusual
- conditions necessary for interference to occur are rare, lab studies can create ideal conditions mostly
- suggests that most forgetting may be better explained by other theories, like retrieval failure theory
24
Q
explanations for forgetting - interference:
- interference and cues
A
- interference is temporary and can be overcome by giving cues
- Tulving and Psotka gave participants lists of words, recall worsened as additional lists were given
- at the end however, participants were given a cue and recall rose back to 70%
- shows that interference causes a temporary loss, which is a finding not predicted by the interference theory
25
explanations for forgetting - interference:
- support from drug studies
- evidence of retrograde facilitation
- when a list of words were learned under the influence of diazepam, recall one week later was poor
- when a list was learned before the drug was taken, later recall was better
- drug improved recall of material learned beforehand
- drug prevents new information to be stored, so it can't interfere with previously stored data
- shows that forgetting can be due to interference, reduce the interference reduces the forgetting
26
explanations for forgetting - interference:
- validity issues
- most studies supporting interference are lab based
- highly controlled conditions, does mean that there is a clear link between interference and forgetting
- however, studies use artificial stimuli and unrealistic procedures, decreasing the external validity
- findings may not be able to be generalised
27
explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure:
- real-world application
- retrieval failure can help to overcome some forgetting in everyday situations
- Baddeley suggests that cues are worth paying attention to, so when we have trouble remembering something, it is worth recalling the environment in which you learned it first.
- shows how research can remind us of strategies we use in the real world to improve our recall
28
explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure:
- research support
- impressive range of research that supports the retrieval failure explanation
- studies by Godden and Baddeley, etc. show that a lack of relevant cues at recall can lead to context-dependent and state-dependent forgetting
- it is argued that retrieval failure is perhaps the main reason for forgetting from LTM
- evidence shows that retrieval failure occurs in real-world situations as well as highly controlled lab conditions
29
explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure:
- research support (counterpoint)
- Baddeley argues that context effects are actually not very strong
- for example, it would be hard to find an environment as different as land and underwater
- learning something in one room and recalling it in another is unlikely to result in much forgetting because the environments aren't too different
- retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues may not actually explain much everyday forgetting
30
explanations for forgetting - retrieval failure:
- recall versus recognition
- context effects may depend substantially on the type of memory being tested
- Godden and Baddeley replicated their underwater test but tested for recognition instead
- for recognition, there was no context-dependent effect, performance was the same in all four conditions
- suggests that retrieval failure is a limited explanation for forgetting because it only applies for recall and not recognition
31
