General. Notes Flashcards
(48 cards)
Brandimonte visual coding
Ppts given six line drawings of familiar objects and asked to memorise
Asked to form mental image and subtract specific part.
Asked to name resulting image
On average remembered half images, after distraction task, remember d better as it suppress d acoustic coding
Millers magic 7
Capacity 5-9 items
Chunk method used to take up lesser capacity
Peterson and Peterson trigrams
Recall series of trigrams (varied time interval) counted backwards whilst rehearsing, 90% after 3sec interval and 5% after 18sec
Show info is kept through rehearsal and stm has limited capacity when prevented
- low ecological validity and lack of mundane realism
Different types of memory proof
Clive Wearing
Lack of episodic but procedural still in place
Suggest separate stores
Bahrick et al duration of LTM
392 graduates shown HS yearbook photos
Recognition group given group of names and photos and recall just given photos
Recognition group 90% accurate after 14yrs and 60% after 47
Recall 60% after 14 and 20% after 47
Serial position effect Glanzer and Cunitz
20word list one at a time and asked to free recall any words
Primary and decency effect
With distraction task: recent words affected (in STM)
Evaluation of MSM
+ evidence of Clive Wearing supports existence of Sep stores
+ Glanzer and Cunitz only words in STM effected by distraction task
- criticised as reductionist and inflexible
- processes involved in encoding not explained
- Baddeley and Hitch WMM may be more comprehensive and detailed
Working memory model
Episodic buffer- links pieces of info together
Central executive- drives whole system and allocates info to PL and VSS , cognitive and problem solving tasks
Visuo spatial scratchpad- stores visual and spatial info, visual cache- form and colour info, inner scribe- space and movement info
Phonological loop- speech based info, and speech perception, articulatory control processes (inner scribe): speech production
End LTM
Coding throughout WMM
Central executive: processes info in all sensory forms
Phonological loop: auditory info and order of
VSS: temporary store for visual and spatial items
Episodic buffer: stores info combined together from CE, PL, VSS, LTM
Capacity of WMM
Central executive: limited and only deals with 1 piece, baddeley- hard for ppts to generate list of numbers whilst switching keyboard of nos and letters
PL: baddeley and the word length effect, recalled more short words in serial order, how long to say rather than no
VSS: limited
Episodic buffer: biological evidence
Evaluation of WMM
+More detailed than MSM, can explain dual processing
+ brain scanning- different parts of the brain active when processing different types of info
- can’t rely too heavily on case studies- may not be representative
-central executive is main part but least known about
Baddeley evidence of WMM
Word length effect disappears with articulatory suppr Saigon task- evidence of articulatory process
Visuo spatial scratch pad- difficult to follow moving spot of light with a pointer whilst envisaging an ‘F’ and each angle- ok with verbal task- demonstrates VSS ability to multitask
Tulving long term memory
Injected with radioactive gold and asked to perform 8 successive trials of half semantic and half episodic
Lie face up and indulge in episodic or semantic LTM retrieval
3 ppts produced inconclusive data, 3 others consistent differences in blood flow patterns between semantic and episodic thinking
Evaluation of episodic memory
- extent to which episodic and semantic memory differ is unclear
+ support from tulving
+ uses objective scientific techniques
Clive Wearing
Demonstrates Sep stores: episodic and semantic still able to function yet maintained procedural memory of playing piano
Evaluation of procedural memory
+ case study of HM- unable to form explicit memories yet could learn and remember perceptual and motor skills
- general lack of research, only through brain damaged sufferers
+ Clive wearing
STM study baddeley
75 ppts presented with 1 of 4 word lists repeated 4 times:
Acoustically or semantically similar or dissimilar
Asked to present list in the original order when given list of in incorrect order
Did the same but with 20min interval before recall- performed another task to prevent recall
STM, confused acoustic- coded acoustically
LTM, coded semantically
Describe interference theory
Assumes forgetting is due to info in LTM becoming confused with or disrupted by other info
Proactive interference- works forward in time, info previously stored interferes
Retroactive interference- works backwards in time, new info disrupts old
Research of retroactive interference
Schmidt et al
Gave map of old neighbourhood in which ppts went to school and replaced roads with numbers, asked to recall, amount of retroactive interference assessed by no. Of times moved
Results: positive association between no of times moved and no of name remembered, learning new pattern of street names when moving makes recalling old ones harder
- no of extraneous variables such as if they walked to school
+ real life setting
Evaluation of the interference explanation of forgetting
- only explains forgetting when two pieces of info are similar
+ research evidence such as Schmidt et al - low ecological validity- can’t generalise to real world
+ research conducted under controlled conditions, est cause and effect, increase validity, more replicable - studies suggest effect yet do not and cannot identify cognitive processes at work
- more evidence for cue dependent forgetting
Cue dependent forgetting
Either context or state dependent
Info in LTM but cannot be accessed
Dependent on retrieval cues
Tulving cue dependent
Encoding specificity principle- recall likely to be poorer if context of recall is different to how it was at coding
Suggested effectiveness of a cue is now deep processing was and how well the cue fits with the info associated
Context dependent failure research
External environment different @ recall from where info was originally learnt
Abernathy: ppts recalled less well when tested by unfamiliar teacher in unfam room than familiar, worse with lack of context dependent cues
Godden + Baddeley: scuba diver learnt material on either dry land or underwater- recall poorer when tested in diff context to coding- context cause of forgetting
State dependent failure research
Internal retrieval cues (phys or emo state) are different
Overton: ppts learned in drunk or sober state, asked to learn material and then recall (half in same half in diff state), found those learned and recalled in same state were better
Darley et al: ppts given marijuana and asked to hide money, less able to recall where they had hidden when not high
Tulving and Pearlstone: headings of words acted as retrieval cues