Memory Flashcards
(57 cards)
1
Q
Define coding
A
Format in which info is stored
2
Q
Define capacity
A
Amount of info that can be held in memory store
3
Q
Define duration
A
Amount of time info can be held in memory store
4
Q
Define STM
A
Limited capacity memory store. Coding acoustic, capacity btw 5-9 items, duration 18-30 sec
5
Q
Define LTM
A
Permanant memory store. Coding semantic, capacity unlimited, duration upto a lifetime
6
Q
Outline study: coding STM + LTM
A
- Baddeley
- Acoustically similar/dissimilar words
- Semantically similar/dissimilar words
- Immediate recall: worse w/ acoustically similar, STM acoustic
- Recall after 20 mins: worse w/ semantically similar, LTM semantic
7
Q
Outline study: capacity STM (digit span)
A
- Jacobs
- Digit span: researcher reads 4 digits + inc until unable to recall correctly
- Pps read 9.3 no. + 7.3 letters correctly
8
Q
Outline study: capacity STM (chunking)
A
- Miller
- Made observation that things come in 7
- Span is 7 (plus/minus 2) - can be improved by chunking- grouping sets of digits/letters into meaningful units
9
Q
Outline study: duration STM
A
- Peterson + Peterson
- 24 students given consonant syllable + 3 digit no. to count backwards for 3-18 secs
- Recalled 80% w/ 3 sec interval, after 18 sec recall fell to 3% - duration STM w/o rehearsal 18-30 sec
10
Q
Outline study: duration LTM
A
- Bahrick
- Pp: 392 Americans aged 17 + 74
- Recognition test: 50 photos from year book
- Free recall test: listed names from graduating class
- 48 years after grad 70% in photo recogintion, less accurate in free recall
11
Q
Evaluate the studies into memory
A
(-) Baddeley doesn’t use meaningful material - when processing meaningful info, people may use semantic even in STM
(-) Jacob’s conducted long time ago - lack control of ext variables
(-) Miller overestimated capacity STM - Cowan concluded capacity was only 4 chunks
(-) PP uses artificial stimulus - lack ext validity
(+) Bahrick high ext validity - lab study w/ meaningless pic recall rates lower. However confounding variables
12
Q
Define the multi-store model
A
Representation of how memory works in terms of 3 stores: sensory register, STM + LTM. Also describes how memory is transferred from one memory store to another, how it’s remembered + forgotten
13
Q
Describe the sensory register (MSM)
A
- Stimulus passes through + has 5 stores (senses)
- Capacity: high
- Duration: brief (miliseconds)
- Coding: depends on sense
- Contains sub stores: iconic + echoic
- If we pay attention to info in this store, it will transfer to STM
14
Q
Describe the STM store (MSM)
A
- Duration: 18-30 sec unless info is rehearsed
- Capacity: 5-9 items
- Coding: acoustic
- If info is rehearsed, it will be maintained in the store (maintenance rehearsal)
15
Q
Otuline how information is transferred from the STM store to the LTM store (MSM)
A
If we rehearse (repete)
16
Q
Describe the LTM store (MSM)
A
- Permanent memory store
- Duration: upto a lifetime
- Capacity: unlimited
- Coding: semantic
- When we want to recall material stored in LTM it has to be transferred back to STM - retrieval
17
Q
Evaluate the MSM
A
(+) Research showing STM + LTM are diff - Baddeley found: mix up AS (STM) + SS (LTM), shows 2 seperate stores
(-) Oversimplifies LTM - Not single unitary store: episodic, semantic + procedural
(-) Oversimplifies STM - KF study suggests 2 store: process visual + auditory, STM poor when digits read aloud but better when read himself
(-) Supporting research uses artificial material - digits, letters etc - low eco val
18
Q
What are the 3 stores in LTM?
A
- Episodic
- Semantic
- Procedural
19
Q
Outline episodic memory
A
- Personal events
- Time stamped
- Involve people, places, objects + behvaiours
- Have to make conscious effort to recall
20
Q
Outline semantic memory
A
- Knowledge of world + what concepts mean
- Need conscious effort to recall
21
Q
Outline procedural memory
A
- Knowledge of how we do things
- Recall w/o conscious effort
22
Q
Evaluate LTM
A
(+) Case study evidence - HM difficulty recalling events from past but semantic memory unaffected
(+) Brain scan studies - Tulving: pps performed memory tasks while brain scanned w/ PET, E (r) + S (l) in prefrontal cortex
(-) Clinical evidence - lack control of variables (where damage is located) - difficult to generalise
(-) 2 types of LTM - E + S stored together (declarative memory) + P is non-declarative
23
Q
Define the working memory model
A
Representation of STM. Suggests STM is a dynamic processor of diff types of info using sub-units coordinated by a central decision making system
24
Q
Describe the central executive (WMM)
A
- Attentional process which moniters incoming data
- Allocates slave systems to tasks
- Limited storage capacity
25
Describe the phonological loop (WMM)
* Deals w/ **auditory info** + **preserves order info arrives**
* Divided into:
- **Phonological store**: stores **words** you **hear**
- **Articulatroy process**: **allows maintenance rehearsal**
26
Describe the visuo-spatial sketchpad (WMM)
* Stores **visual** and/or **spatial info**
* Divided into:
- **Visual cache**: stores **visual data**
- **Inner scribe**: **records arrangement** of objects in **visual field**
27
Describe the episodic buffer (WMM)
* **Temporary store** for info
* **Intergrates visual**, **spatial** + **verbal** info from other stores
* **Maintains time seq**
* **Links** to **LTM**
28
Evaluate WMM
**(+) Case study** - **KF** who had brain damage had **poor STM ability** for **verbal** info **but** process **visual** info **normally**
**(+) Dual task performances** - **Baddeley** found pps found difficulty doing 2 visual tasks than verbal + visual task
**(-) Brain damaged patients** - **difficulty** paying **attention** so **underperform**
**(-) Lack of clarity over central executive** - needs to be **more specified** than being '**attention**' eg. **seperate components**
29
Define interference
Forgetting bc **1 memory blocks another**, causing 1/both memories to be **distorted/forgotten**
30
Which part of memory does forgetting occur?
**LTM** - **can't access** memories even though they're **available**
31
Define proactive interference
**Older** memory **disrupts** **newer** one
32
Define retroactive interference
**Newer** memory **disrupts** an **older** one
33
Why is interference worse when memories are similar?
* PI - **previously** stored info makes **new** info **difficult** to **store**
* RI - **new** info **overwrites** **previous** memories which are similar
34
Outline the study into interference
* **McGeogh** + **McDonald**
* PP learnt **list** of **words** to **100% accuracy**
* Given **new list** to learn: **synonyms**, **antonyms**, **unrelated**, **consonant** **syllables**, **3 digit no.** + **no new list**
* Most **similar** material produced **worst recall**
* **3 digit**, mean no. of items **recalled inc**
* **Interference** is **strongest** when memories are **similar**
35
Evaluate interference as an explanation to forgetting
**(+) Research support** - **McGeogh** + **McDonald** - **lab** study therefore **high** **control** over variables
(**+) Real life studies support** - **Baddeley** + **Hitch**: **rugby** players recalled teams they played week by week, **accurate recall** didn't depend on how long ago it was but the **amount played between**
**(-) Artificial task** - list of words
**(-) Time btw learning** - time btw learning + recall are **short** in lab studies - **doesn't reflect real life**
36
Define retrieval failure
A form of forgetting. It occurs when we **don't have** the **necessary cues** to access memory. Memory is **available** but **not accessible** unless suitable cue is provided
37
Outline encoding specificity principle
* Cues help retrieval if **same cues** are **present** at **encoding** + **retrieval**
* **Closer** the **retrieval** cue to **OG** cue, **better** the cue **works**
38
Define cues
**Triggers** of info that allows us to **access** a **memory**. Can be **meaningful** (mnemonics) or maybe **indirectly** **linked** by being **coded** at the **same time** as **learning** (ext - env / int - mood)
39
Outline a study into context-dependent forgetting
* **Godden + Baddeley**
* **Divers** learnt words (4 conditions)
**- Learn land - recall land / learn UW - recall UW**
**- Learn land - recall UW / Learn UW - recall land**
* Recall more **accurate** when context of learning + recall **matched**
* **Ext cues available** at learning **diff** at recall so led to **retrieval failure**
40
Outline a study into state-dependent forgetting
* **Carter** + **Cassaday**
* Given **antihistimines** (**drowsy**) to **change** **internal** state - **Learn on drugs - recall on it** etc.
* Recall **more accurate** when context of learning + recall **matched**
* **Ext cues available** at learning **diff** at recall so led to retrieval failure
41
Evaluate retrieval failure as an explanation to forgetting
**(+) Research evidence** - **Godden** + **Baddeley**
**(+) Context-related has real life application** - **cognitive interview**
**(-) Context effects only occurs when memory tested in certain way** - **replicated** underwater study w/ **recognition**, **recall = same**
**(-)Context effect not v strong in real life** - **context** has to be v **different** before **effect** is **seen** eg. learning in 1 room + recall in another produces similar results
42
Define misleading information
**Incorrect information** given to the eyewitness usually **after** the event. It can take many forms, such as **leading questions** and **post-event discussion**
43
Define leading question
Question that **suggests** a certain **answer**
44
Why do leading questions affect EWT?
* **Response bias exp** - **influences** kind of **ans** given
* **Substitution exp** - **interferes** w/ OG **memory**, **distorting** it
45
Outline research into leading questions
* **Loftus** + **Palmer**
* **45 pp** watched clips of **car crash** + ans Q about speed
* Q: **how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?**
* **Hit**, **contacted**, **bumped**, **collided** + **smashed**
* Contacted: **32 mph**
* Smashed: **41 mph**
* **Leading Q biased recall**
46
Define post-event discussion
Occurs when there is **more** than **one witness** to an event. Witnesses may **discuss** what they have seen- **influencing** the **accuracy** of their recall
47
Define memory contamination (post-event discussion)
When **co-witnesses disscus** crime, they **mix info** from other **witnesses** w/ **own memories**
48
Define memory conformity (post-event discussion)
**Witnesses go along** w/ each other to **win social approval** bc believe other witness is **correct**
49
Outline research into post-event discussion
* **Gabbert et al**
* **Paired pp** watched **diff video** of **same event**
* PP **discussed** what they saw before **recall test**
* **71% mistakenly recalled** aspects of even they didn't see on their video
* **Control**: **no discussions = no error**
50
Evaluate misleading information
**(+) Real life application** - **police** need to be careful when **phrasing** Q is eyewitness interviews
**(-) Artificial material** - **experiencing** + **watching** crime is **diff** - **low eco val**
**(-) Demand characteristics** - pps want to help researcher so ans how they would be expected to - **low internal val**
**(-) Individual diff** - **older** people **less accurate** than **younger** people when giving report + **own age bias**
51
Outline research into anxiety having a negative effect
* **Johnson** + **Scott**
* PP **waiting room** **believing** they're taking part in **lab study**
* Each pp heard argument: **LA**: man carrying **pen w/ greasy hands HA**: sound of **breaking glass** + **paper knife** covered in **blood**, pps asked to **pick man** from **photos**
* **49% LA** were able to identify him, **33% HA**
* **Tunnel theory** of memory - witness' attention of weapon bc source of danger + anxiety
52
Outline research into anxiety having a positive effect
* **Yuille** + **Cutshall**
* **Real life crime**, gun shop owner **shot theft**, **21 witnesses** + **13 agreed** to pp
* Pp **interviewed 4-5 months after** + **compared** to **police accounts** at the time - also **rated** **stress levels** at the time
* **V accurate** + **little change**
* PPs who reported **highest levels** of **stress** were **more accurate** (**88%** compared to **75%**)
53
Explain the contradictory findings of anxiety
* **Inverted U theory**: relationship btw **performance** + **arousal** is **curvilinear**
* **Recall** **inc** w/ **anxiety** upto an **optimal point**
54
Evaluate the effects of anxiety on EWT
**(+) Real life applications** - **understanding effects** of anxiety on accuracy of EWT helps determine **how likely witness** saw what they believe they saw
**(-) J+S test surprise not anxiety** - **scissors**, **handgun**, **wallet** + **raw chicken** in **salon**, **recall poorer** for **high surprise** than high threat
**(-) Field lacks control** - **post event discussion**
**(-) Ethical issues** - creating anxiety causes **psychological harm**
55
Who came up with cognitive interview?
**Fisher** + **Geiselman**
56
What are the components to a cognitive interview?
* **Report everything** - even if **irrelevant**, might trigger
* **Mental reinstatement of context** - encouraged to mentally **recreate physical** + **psychological** **env** of incident
* **Reverse order** - asked to consider **alternative timeline**
* **Change perspective** - recall from another perspective
57
Evaluate the effects of cogntive interview on EWT
(+) Research support - **Kohnken et al meta analysis** **53 studies** + found **inc 34%** amount of **accurate** info generated in CI
**(-) Takes time** - requires **training**
**(-) Diff in old + young people** - **Mello** + **Fisher** found CI produced **more inf**o from **older** pps - more effective for older
**(-) Inc quanity not quality** - Kohnken found **81% inc** in **accurate** info but also **61% inc** in **incorrect**
