Lecture 2 Flashcards

1
Q

What does it mean by representation limits in terms of WM?

A

Limits on input and output, only so much you can take in -in terms of sensory inputs (touch, feel hear)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the Phonological Loop?

A

It represents a brief store of mainly verbal information together with a rehearsal mechanism.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the main evidence for the phonological loop?

A
  • Phonological Similarity Effect

- Articulate Suppression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What factors influence capacity of WM?

A

Information: variety, input modality, familiarity

Sensory-specific memories, long term memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the phonological similarity effect?

A
  • Give a sequence of letters sounding similar or different to eachother - easier to remember dissimilar sounding sequence
  • Memory code is phonological (based on the sound of the letters
  • Due to ability to rehearse speech inside your head, more confused rehearsing similar sounding letters
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is articulatory suppression?

A

Asks people to repeat an irrelevant word over again whilst trying to remember a sequence of words

  • Generating irrelevant speech leads to poorer results
  • Moreover linked with speech output
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did Conrad (1964) Evidence?

A

Acoustic Coding:

  • Made a table looking at combinations and pairs of letters
  • Made a confusion matrix, how likely pairing letters will be confusing
  • Higher number more likely to make an error
  • If they sound similar they don’t remember them as well
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What did Baddeley (1966) evidence?

A

Phonological similarity effects at short delays, semantic similarity effects at long delays

Long delay don’t get sound based evidence, you get semantic effects - words with similar meanings you get confusions at long delays

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is Crowder’s (1972) suffix effect?

A

Presented a sequence of words then heard a buzzer or word they had to ignore

  • Heard a buzzer performance was unaffected
  • Speech suffix (irrelevant word) - massively impaired as few items in the list
  • NOT just any sound but a speech sound effects performance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Word Length Effect

A

Short word list is easier than the list of long words even though there is the same number of words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What does speech rate correlate with

A

memory span

Faster speech means larger memory capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How is the phonological loop required for learning vocabulary?

A

If you learn a new word you had to remember the sound sequence

You need the ability to rehearse verbal sequences to like with the ability to repeat new words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does the word length effect tell us about how
information is lost from the phonological store and
how it is maintained in the store?

A

Memory system relies on subvocal rehearsal and can retain about 2 seconds of speech

Faster you rehearse the more you can remember

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How does Articulatory suppression affect visual and verbal presentation of sequences differently?

A

For visual presentation: (repeating an irrelevant word) removes word length and phonological similarity effects

For auditory: removes word length effect but not phonological similarity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How is verbal short-term memory affected by visual presentation compared with auditory presentation of word sequences to remember?

A

Visual: Subvocal rehearsal is used to translate visual input into a phonological code

Auditory: Auditory input is direct to phonological store, but subvocal
rehearsal is needed for the word length effect

Dumb version: Because you are hearing them there is no need for sound base code as this is already done, but because the word length effect is about rehearsal inside your head you can’t do that under auditory suppression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Explain in simple terms the relationship between sound , the phonological store and inner speech

A

Sound goes directly into the system as it is a sound based code

Inner speech process able to hold 2 seconds of speech

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Who first investigated the effect of irrelevant speech on the phonological loop?

A

Salamé and Baddeley (1982)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the irrelevant speech effect?

A
  • Immediate, verbal serial recall is disrupted by Irrelevant Speech
  • Irrelevant Speech effect is greater for phonologically similar speech

E.g. remember visual digit sequence 3-9-6-5-1-8-4
while hearing: sore tee thrive heaven fix wine gate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

*Under what condition is the irrelevant speech effect not apparent at all?

20 What could influence it to disappear?

A

1) Effect does not appear with continuous white noise
- Speech specific effect with direct access to phonological store

2) Effect disappears with articulatory suppression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What concepts does the irrelevant speech effect back?

A

The phonological store plus speech based

rehearsal system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Discuss briefly the concept of the phonological loop

A
  • Thought to hold about 2 seconds worth of speech
  • Thought to be affected by decay over time unless prevented by rehearsal
  • Is disrupted by articulatory suppression and by irrelevant speech
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the role of the phonological loop in learning a language?

A

Short-term verbal memory impairments -impairments in vocabulary learning. If you can remember things in the correct order you wont be able to remember words.

Articulatory suppression impairs vocabulary learning

Non-word repetition predicts vocabulary in young children

Poor functioning of phonological loop in
children with language difficulties

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

In healthy adults articulatory suppression and irrelevant speech ……

A

reduce recall for visually and aurally presented material – do not wipe it out (e.g. Chen & Cowan, 2009)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Where are items stored in the articulatory suppression condition if not in the phonological loop?

A
  • Possible of semantic loop and visual codes

- Activated long term memory with focus of attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

*How would Cowan explain the effects of Articulatory Suppression?

A

Part of Cowan’s (2001) argument that WM capacity

capacity of focused attention) is 4 items, supplemented by a ‘peripheral store’ (Cowan et al, 2014

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How could you test whether people remember the visual appearance of letters and words that are visually presented? (Logie, Della Sala, Wynn and Baddeley (2000))

A

Visual codes for Verbal Materials

Present 2 lists of words:
- Difference between the 2 lists, one sounds and looks similar one just sounds similar.

OR

People remember the order and which case letters were in
- Upper case and lower case either look the same or very different

  • Idea was the case that visual similarity may cause confusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What results have been found for visual codes for verbal materials?

A

Upper and lower case contrast is the visual similarity

  • Dissimilar items remembered better
  • Articulated suppression - overall performance drops but the effect of similarity is much bigger
  • Stops the phonological code, has to rely on a visual code so visual similarity effect is much bigger
28
Q

How did Logie (2000) study and evidence with regard to the visual similarity effect

A

Upper and lower case contrast is the visual similarity

Or similar looking and sounding words fly dry vs guy sigh

  • Dissimilar items remembered better
29
Q

What was the effect of articulatory suppression on visual similarity effect?

A

overall performance drops but the effect of similarity is much bigger:

Stops the phonological code, has to rely on a visual code so visual similarity effect is much bigger

30
Q

Why did studies look at using Japanese language instead of english?

A

Cannot manipulate both phonological and visual with English materials - can do so in Japanese

31
Q

Saito and Logie et al (2008) explain the design of their Japanese experiment

A

Orthogonally vary phonological and visual similarity. Four sets of materials:

  1. PhonDis/VisDis
  2. PhonDis/VisSim
  3. PhonSim/VisDis
  4. PhonSim/VisSim
32
Q

What did Saito and Logie find in their Japanese experiment?

A

Found, visual similarity and phonological similarity effect

But they don’t interact

Contrast with Cohen as not attention but visual code

33
Q

What did Logie et al (2016) find when investigating serial recall of visually similar and dissimilar Kanji characters in pure and mixed lists?

A

Mixed lists:

  • Higher numbers mean more errors
  • You get a zigzag pattern

Similar items get more wrong even if not one after another

34
Q

What is Milner (1965) Corsi Test?

A

9 wooden blocks arranged at random - recall a series of movements to blocks

Used as a measure of visual structural memory - disabilities

35
Q

What were Knox Cubes (1914)?

A

Knox - assess people coming into America on Mental ability that don’t speak English

  • Pointed to blocks in particular order, increasing in sequence length
36
Q

What did Smyth et al (1988) point out with regard to the corsi block task?

A

Recall is disrupted by concurrent arm movement

37
Q

What did De Renzi and Nichelli (1965) find?

A

Specific impairments in brain damaged patients with poor immediate spatial memory but intact verbal memory

38
Q

What did Logie and Pearson (1997) find with regard to the Corsi Block task?

A

Corsi block capacity increases faster during child development than memory for matrix patterns

39
Q

What did Inoue and Matsuzawa (2007) show?

A

Chimps Visual spatial memory is better than humans

40
Q

Why might chimps have scored better on VSM tasks than humans other than being better?

A

Over 30 years of training - learnt certain arrays and movements using conditioning

41
Q

After 3 years of chimp training who was better humans or chimp? And what might this mean?

A

Humans

Visual long term memory seems to be important even though it seems like a short term memory task

42
Q

What factor did time have on chimp vs human results

A

Time was important, with 650 as apposed to 210 humans were as good as chimps

43
Q

Evaluation of Japanese task

A

Not the case that people do the same task in the same way, could be the same task in different ways

- Phonological vs visual depending on what is better

Japanese study was averaged - could have been distorted results of some using one method some using another as apposed to all using both

44
Q

How has temporary visual binding been studied?

A

Design: present a combination of colour shapes you have to remember

Temporary feature binding

45
Q

Explain Luck and Vogel’s experiment with regard to temporary feature binding

A

Design: Angle of orientation and colour of 2, 4 or
6 rectangles

half the same, half a new colour

Recognise what is different

Also did this with squares with an outside colour and inside colour

46
Q

What were the results of Luck and Vogel’s experiment?

A

More rectangles worse more errors

No difference in error rate between the orientation or colour change

Combination, or just one exactly the same results

  • 4 integrated things instead of 8 individual features
47
Q

Conclusion of Luck and Vogel:

A

Objects are singular structures that remain coherent or are entirely lost from VWM

You don’t forget one feature, you forget the whole object or nothing!

48
Q

Explain Wheeler and Treisman’s (2002) experiment with regard to VWM,

who did the same experiment?

A

4 Inside and outside squares with different colours

Changing either one feature of the square or a combination of both features

Luck and Vogel

49
Q

What were the findings of Wheeler and Treisman (2002)

A

Combination was much poorer than individual feature

50
Q

How might we resolve the inconsistency of Luck and Vogel vs Wheeler and Treisman findings?

A

By looking at the effect of attention manipulations on object memory

51
Q

What were Gajewski and Brockmole (2006) investigating?

A

To hold an integrated object does it require attention / added effort?

52
Q

Explain Gajewski and Brockmole (2006) experiment on attention.

A

Present with shapes and distract attention away from what they have to remember before asking them

either change bindings or single feature

53
Q

What did Gajewski and Brockmole (2006) find?

A

Distract attention away from what they have to remember this had no impact on performance

No impact on attentional cue on remembering bindings vs single feature

holding and binding integrated objects is automatic and doesn’t require extra attention

54
Q

What did Allen Baddeley and Hitch (2006) investigate?

A

Whether filling retention interval with various executive function tasks (backwards counting) would effect memory of the object shape conjunctions than memory for individual objects and shapes

55
Q

What did Allen Baddeley and Hitch (2006) find?

A

Counting backwards had no more effect on binding than it did on individual features

  • Not attention demanding
56
Q

Evaluation to Attention free studies (Gajewski and Brockmole, Allen Baddeley and Hitch)

A

G & B - response bias

Allen et al - susceptibility to interference

57
Q

What did Logie, Brockmole & Vandenbroucke (2009) claim? And what did they look into

A

They claimed repetition does not lead to learning of temporary feature bindings

Hence STM separate from LTM

58
Q

Explain Logie, Brockmole & Vandenbroucke (2009) experiment

A

Presented with 6 shapes of different colours in trial one

in trial 2 either change a shape or a feature or both change

Every third trial is actually the same 3 shapes and colour but they don’t know this

Over 72 trials

Do they get better at repeated sequence?

59
Q

What did Logie, Brockmole & Vandenbroucke (2009) findings

A

If you repeat the shape or colour no change in performance

  • Even though you seem the same array 60 times over

No impact of repetitions
No evidence of proactive interference

VSTM can support performance without continued LTM activation

60
Q

If VSTM as activated LTM what do we expect in the logie et al 2009 experiment?

A

Improved changed detection performance on repeat trials (learning)

reduced change detection on novel trials (proactive interference)

61
Q

Shimi and Logie (2018) experiment

A

Same as logie et al (2009) but with array shown 120 times

62
Q

What does Hebb-type repeated presentation mean?

A

Every third trial repeated presentation

Then asked what they saw or just looked

63
Q

What did Shimi and Logie find?

A

When reconstructing the array or asked what they saw - massive learning

  • Recalling info learning
  • Looking - no learning
64
Q

Why did Baddeley (2000) introduce the episodic buffer and what is it responsible for?

A

Short term prose recall and sentence memory much better than random words

There must be a multi-model component of WM that links LTM

Need for episodic buffer!

65
Q

Examples of evidence for the episodic buffer?

A

Baddeley and Wilson (2002) - Amnesic patients can remember prose for short periods

Chen and Cowan (2009) - capacity is around 3-4 chunks with articulatory suppression

Binding studies (Wheeler + Triesman, Luck + Vogel)

Italian learning

However no evidence that episodic bugger require attention to function

66
Q

What’s the difference between Cowan’s focus of attention and the episodic buffer

A

Episodic buffer does not require attention

67
Q

What was Logie’s opinion of the episodic buffer?

A

Get rid of episodic buffer and what you have is communication between the systems, they speak to one another to form communication but not a separate system