Memory Flashcards

1
Q

what are the 3 types of long term memory

A

episodic, semantic and procedural

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

episodic memory

A

memory for events in our lives, time-stamped, like a diary

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

semantic memory

A

memory for knowledge of the world like a dictionary

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

procedural memory

A

memory for automatic and often skilled behaviors, unconscious recall

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

who came up with the multi-store model and what does it do/ tell you about memory

A
  • Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
  • memories are formed sequentially and information passes from one component to the other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what are the 3 components in the multi-store model

A

sensory register, short term memory and long term memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

sensory register

A

modality-specific coding
has very brief duration and high capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

short term memory

A

mainly acoustic coding
unlimited duration and capacity
transfers to the LTM by rehearsal

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

long term memory

A

mainly semantic coding
unlimited duration and capacity
created through maintenance and rehearsal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

who came up with the working memory model, what memory does it go with

A

Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
A model for short term memory

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

what components is the working memory made up of

A

multi-component system
central executive, phonological loop, episodic buffer and the visuospatial sketchpad

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

central executive

A

supervisory, allocates subsystems, slave between the tasks, has very limited capacity
coding = any sensory modality

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

phonological loop

A

auditory information- made up of the phonological store and the articular processes
has maintenance rehearsal
coding = acoustic, capacity= 2 seconds of speech

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

episodic buffer

A

integrates data from subsystems and records order of effects. links into the LTM.
coding= flexible, capacity=4 chunks

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

visuospatial sketchpad

A

visual information- visual cache (store), inner scribe (spatial arrangement).
coding= visual, coding= 3 or 4 objects

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

strengths for the WMM, Baddeley and Hitch

A

research support-
the dual task techniques support the existence of the multiple components within the STM and supports the idea of a separate PL and V-S-S.

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

another strength for the WWM

A

more research support- KF study
- supports the idea of the WMM and the idea of the 2 slave systems, the PL and the V-S-SP, and also providing support for the WWM and the ideas for the STM

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

weakness of the episodic buffer in the WWM

A

lacks of clarity- its to vague and simplistic

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

research within coding

A

Baddeley and Hitch, acoustic in STM, semantic in LTM
words recall of similar/dissimilar words

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

2 evaluation points for the research on coding

A

Baddeley and Hitch
separate memory stores- identified the STM and LTM
artificial stimuli- word lists had no personal meaning

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

research within capacity

A

digit span- Jacobs: 9.3 words, 7.3 letters
span of memory and chunking: Miller- 7+/-2 span, putting items together to extend STM capacity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

2 evaluation points for the research on capacity

A

a valid study- later studies replicated findings so valid tests of the digit span
not so many chunks- Miller overestimated STM, only four chunks (cowan)

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

research within duration in STM and evaluation of it

A

Peterson and Peterson : about 18 seconds without rehearsal
meaningless stimuli in STM- Petersons used consonant syllables, lacks external validity

24
Q

research within duration in LTM and evaluation

A

Bahrick et al : year books: facial recognition 90%, free recall 60% - for 15yrs. facial recognition 70%, free recall 30% - for 48 years

high external validity- used meaningful materials, better recall than studies with meaningful stimuli

25
within the cognitive interview what is it improving and what are the 4 techniques
- improving the EWT - report everything - reinstate context - reverse the order - change the perspective
26
CI- report everything
free recall, state unimportant details as well as important details
27
CI- reinstate the context
picture the scene and recall how you felt avoids context-dependent forgetting
28
CI- reverse the order
recall from the end and work backwards, non chronological order disrupts expectations
29
CI- change perspective
put yourself in the shoes of someone else present disrupts schema
30
support for the effectiveness of the cognitive interview
CI produce 41% more accurate recall than the standard interview (Kohnken et al)
31
evaluations on the CI
some elements are more useful than others- report everything and reinstate the context used together best recall- Milne & Bull - its time consuming- takes long and needs specific training (Kebbell and Wagstaff).
32
key study for the CI
Geisel man- interviewed using the CI recalled significantly more correct information than those using the standard interview
33
leading questions
Loftus and Palmer- speed estimates affected the leading questions e.g. smashed, contacted
34
Loftus and palmer experiment
44 participants were shown films of a car accident and asked specific questions i.e. 'how fast were the cars going when they X each other?' - smashed=40.5mph/ contacted= 31.8mph - shows accuracy of EWT affected by leading questions
35
Loftus and Palmer evaluations
low ecological validity- eyewitnesses to real accidents have a stronger, emotional connections
36
why do leading questions affect EWT
response bias- no change to memory
37
post-event discussion
co-witness discussion affects memories of events (Gabbert et al)
38
Gabbert et al research
77% of participants who discussed an event before recall mistakenly recalled information and 60% said the girls was guilty despite not seeing her
39
evaluation of Gabbert et al research
-low ecological validity- does not reflect everyday examples of crime -high population validity- university students and older students- little differences found -real world application- keep eyewitness apart
40
why does PED affect EWT
memory contamination- mix (mis)information from others memory conformity- responses given for social approval
41
weapon focus effect- negative effect on recall in anxiety
witness focus attention on weapons- causes anxiety- leads to difficulties in recalling the other details accurately
42
what was Johnson and Scott experiment
lab experiment witnesses saw a man holding a pen: 49% identified culprit compared to the witnesses who saw man holding a knife: 33% Shows anxiety reduces accuracy to the EWT
43
evaluations of Johnson and Scotts experiment
further low ecological validity reduces demand characteristics
44
real life shooting- positive effects on recall within anxiety
Yuille and Cutshall- high anxiety associated with better recall when witnessing real crime
45
Yuille and Cutshall experiment
witnesses were very accurate after 5 months later those who reported the highest level of stress were the most accurate shows real life anxiety= positive effects on accuracy
46
evaluation for Yuille and Cutshall experiment
doesn't account for individual differences
47
what are the 2 types of interference
proactive, retroactive
48
proactive interference
old memories interfere with the new ones
49
retroactive interference
new memories interfere with the old ones
50
effects of similarity research
McGeoch and McDonald- 6 groups learned lists; similar words created more interference
51
the explanations of the effects of similarity
proactive interference makes new information difficult to store retroactive interference means old info is overwritten
52
evaluations on interference
- support from drug studies- taking Diazepam after learning reduces interference and forgetting= retrograde facilitation - validity issues= lab studies have high control but use artificial materials and unrealistic procedures
53
encoding specificity principles in the retrieval failure
Tulving- cues are most effective if present at coding and at retrieval links between cues and materials may be meaningful or meaning less
54
context development in forgetting within retrieval failure
Godden and Baddeley (drivers)- recall bet when external contexts matched
55
state-dependent in forgetting within the retrieval failure
Carter and Cassady- recall better when internal states matched