Memory Flashcards
(14 cards)
Outline AO1 for the MSM
- proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin
1. Sensory Register - coding: modality specific e.g. iconic, echoic
- capacity: very large
- duration: less than half a sec
2. STM - coding: mainly acoustic
- capacity: 7+- 2 items (Miller)
- duration: 18-30s (Peterson)
- info transferred to LTM through maintenance rehearsal)
3. LTM - coding: semantically
- capacity: unlimited
- duration: lifetime (Bahrick)
- info retrieved back into STM when needed
Linear transfer of info, each store unitary and distinct
Outline AO3 for MSM
+ RS for seperate stores
Baddeley found that STM is coded acoustically and LTM semantically
+ Case study HM
post epilepsy surgery, HM couldnt form new LTM memories but STM was intact suggesting they are seperate stores
+ RM: controlled lab studies
research supporting MSM involves controlled lab exp so higher reliability and validity of findings
- oversimplifies memory stores
MSM suggests STM and LTM are unitary stores but KFs STM had poor verbal processing but visual processing was fine which suggests there could be separate STM components
- role of rehearsal questioned
Watkins found that elaborative rehearsal is more effective: linking new info to existing knowledge
- artificiality of RS
the RS uses artificial tasks so may not reflect real life situations
Outline AO1 for coding capacity and duration of memory
- Coding: how info is processed and stored
Baddeley investigated how we code info in STM and LTM
Procedure:
- P given list of words that were acoustically similar/dissimilar, semantically similar/dissimilar
- P either had to recall immediately (STM) or after 20 mins (LTM)
Findings:
- STM: P struggled to recall AS words
- LTM: P struggled to recall SS words
Conclusions:
- STM coded acoustically and LTM coded semantically - Capacity - how much info can be held
Jacobs - Digits Span technique
Procedure:
- P recalled sequences of digits or letters that increased in length
Findings:
- Average span for digits: 9.3
- Average span for letters: 7.3
Miller - Chunking
- observed that STM capacity is around 7+-2 items
- chunking improves memory
- Duration - how long info held for
Peterson&Peterson: STM
Procedure:
- P given trigrams and asked to recall after intervals of 3,6,9,12,15,18 seconds while performing a task (prevents rehearsal)
Findings:
- recall declined over time and found duration to be 18-30s without rehearsal
Bahrick et al: LTM
Procedure:
- studied Ps ability to recall classmates from highschool up to 48 years
Findings:
- photo recognition: 90% accuracy after 15yrs, 70% after 48yrs
- free recall: 60% accuracy after 15yrs, 30% accuracy after 48yrs
Conclusions:
- LTM can last a lifetime esp if material is meaningful
Outline AO3 for coding, capacity and durations findings
- Coding - Baddeley
+ highly controlled study
higher replicability and internal V
- artificial task so lacks ecological V and application to RW - Capacity: Jacobs + Miller
+ controlled study
higher replicability and internal V
- Jacobs: lacks methodological rigor of modern research as it was in late 19th century - Duration: Bahrick
+ high ecological V
used meaningful, real world material - photos
- confounding V
P couldve memorised over the years
Outline AO1 for Types of LTM
Tulving: LTM isnt a single store but has three types
1. Episodic Memory
- stores personal experiences and events
- includes info about time, emotions and context
- e.g. recalling ur bday
- Semantic Memory
- stores general world knowledge and facts
- not linked personally
- e.g. London capital city - Procedural Memory:
- motor skills and actions
- operates without conscious awareness
- each type supported by diff brain regions and can be affected independantly by brain damage
Outline AO3 for Types of LTM
+ HM case study
impaired episodic and semantic M but procedural was intact which supports the distinction
+ RWA
helps to develop help for people with memory problems
Belleville developed an intervention to improve episodic memory in older people
- over-simplification
classification into three types may be too simplistic, there could be overlap between categories or additional stores
- conflicting neuroimaging evidence
Buckner says semantic M located in left side of prefrontal cortex and episodic in the right BUT other research links left prefrontal cortex with encoding of episodic M and the right with episodic retrieval so this challenges any neurophysical evidence
Outline AO1 for WMM
- proposed by Baddeley and Hitch and provides a more complex STM
1. Central Exec - control centre, directs attention
- limited capacity, no storage
- Phonological Loop
- processes auditory info and language
- divided into:- Phonological Store: holds words we hear
- Articulatory Control: allows for maintenance rehearsal of info (inner voice)
- Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
- processes visual and spatial info
- limited capacity
- divided into:- Visual Cache: stores visual info
- Inner scribe: records spatial arrangements
- Episodic Buffer:
- integrates info from CE, PL, VSS, and LTM into a single coherent episode
- limited capacity
- modality free
Outline AO3 for WMM
+ Dual task Studies
Baddeley and Hitch found P could perform 2 tasks simultaneously if they used diff components, supporting idea of separate STM stores
+ KF Clinical Study
had impaired verbal STM but intact visual STM
+ Neuroimaging support
brain scans show diff areas activated for verbal and visual tasks which provides evidence for VSS and PL
- central exec role undefined
exact role and functions unclear so empirical testing difficult - limited expl: LTM integration
lacks comprehensive explanation of how the STM interacts with the LTM - overemphasis on structure rather than the processes involved in memory tasks
Outline AO1 for Explanations of Forgetting
- Interference Theory
- when one memory disrupts the ability to recall another
- proactive: old M interferes with new M recall
- retroactive: new M interferes with old M recall
Underwood:
- found that P who learned multiple lists of words had poorer recall of later lists (proactive)
- Retrieval Failure
- when info is available in memory but not accessible due to absence of cues
Encoding Specificity Principle:
- states that memory is most effective when the conditions at retrieval match those at encoding
Godden and Baddeley:
- divers who learned words underwater had better recall underwater than on land which shows context-dependant memory
Carter and Cassady:
- gave antihistamine drugs to P which changes the internal physiological state as theyre slightly drowsy
- learn on drug - recall off
- learn on drug - recall on
- learn off drug - recall off
- learn off drug - recall on
- found that when physiological cues are absent, recall is lower
- state-dependant memory
Outline AO3 for Explanations for Forgetting
+ RS for Interference
McGeoch & McDonald:
- found that when P learned list of synonyms after an initial list, recall of og list was worse, demonstrating retroactive interference
+ RWA
helps in education - spacing out study sessions to reduce proactive interference
+ RS for retrieval failure - Tulving
found that P had better recall when given cues that matched the encoding context
- artificial research settings
Underwood used artificial word lists which do not reflect real world - individual differences
some P may be more susceptible to interference or retrieval failure - interference is temporary
Tulving & Psotka gave P lists of words in categories but didnt tell them the category
recall was 70% for first list but got worse as they learnt an additional list
End of procedure: gave P a cued recall test and gave category names and recall rose to 70% again
this shows that interference causes temporary loss of access to material still in the LTM
interference theory doesnt predict this
Outline AO1 for Factors influencing EWT Accuracy
- Misleading Information -Leading Questions
- questions that suggest a particular answer which could distort the witnesses memory
Loftus and Palmer
Procedure:
- showed P videos of car accidents and asked them ab speed of cars using diff verbs e.g. smashed, bumped, collided
Findings:
- verb used influenced the speed estimates e.g. bumped was a lower est than smashed
Post-event Discussion
- conversations with others after an event can alter a witnesses memory
Gabbert et al
- found that when P discussed a crime video with others who had seen diff versions, they incorporated incorrect details into their own recall
- Anxiety
- can both hinder and enhance memory recall
Negative Effect: Johnson & Scott
- found that P who witnessed a man with a knife (high anxiety) were less accurate in identifying him than those who saw a man with a pen (low anxiety)
Positive Effect: Yuille & Cutshall
- studied real witnesses of a shooting and found that those who reported higher stress levels were more accurate in their recall
Outline AO3 for Factors influencing EWT Accuracy
+ Practical App
improved legal procedures and development of cognitive interview
+ RS from Loftus&Palmer and Yuille&Cutshall
- Lab studies
artificial settings which do not reflect real life settings which could limit the generalisability
- Individual differences
factors such as age, intelligence and personal experiences can affect recall so its hard to generalise the findings across the population
Outline AO1 for Improving Accuracy of EWT - Cognitive Interview
- Reinstate the Context
- witnesses encouraged to mentally recreate the environment and emotional context of the incident
- helps to access contextual cues and aids retrieval - Report everything
- witnesses asked to retrieve ebery trivial detail they can
- increases the chances of important info being retrived that may be overlooked - Change the order
- recall in diff chronological orders
- prevents witness from reporting their expectations and reduces the influence of schemas - Change perspective
- witnesses are asked to recall the event from diff viewpoints
- helps to access additional details and reduce personal biases
Outline AO3 for Improving Accuracy of EWT- Cognitive Interview
+ RS Kohnken et al
meta-analysis found that CI improved accuracy of EWT by 41% compared to standard police interviews
+ real world application
- some aspects of CI better than others such as a combo of reinstate the context and report everything so the others may be useless
- CI is time consuming and all police would require retraining
