memory content Flashcards
(27 cards)
research on coding, capacity and duration
BADDELEY (coding):
- lab experiment
- 75 participants
- 4 groups learning word lists
- acoustically similar/dissimilar, semantically similar/dissimilar
- STM tested through immediate recall, LTM after 20 minutes
- found STM coed acousticallt, LTM semantically
MILLER (capacity):
- reviewed research
- proposed STM capacity is 7 +/- 2 items
- words 9.3, letters 7.3
PETERSON AND PETERSON (duration):
- lab study
- 24 psychology students
- recall trigrams after 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 secons
-80% recall after 3 seconds, dropped to 19% after 18 seconds
strengths of research on coding, capacity and duration
HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY:
- baddeley carefully controlled variables (word presentation, timing)
- reduces confounding factors
- ensures results are due to memory processes
CLEAR DISTINCTION IN CODING:
- baddeley’s study supports MSM distinction between STM and LTM
- strengthens model’s validity
PRACTICAL APPLICATION:
- understanding STM is acoustically coded and LTM is semantically coded helps in designing educational strategies
- e.g. using semantic associations for better learning
limitations of research on coding, capacity and duration
LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY:
- use of meaningless words in baddeley’s study doesn’t reflect how memory operates in daily life
- e.g. remembering names or stories
SAMPLE BIAS:
- peterson and peterson only tested psych students, may have higher cognitive abilities than general population
- limits generalisability of findings
LIMITED REAL-WOTLD APPLICATION:
- STM may not represent how memory works in meaningful contexts
- e.g. remembering directions
multi-store model (MSM)
ATKINSON AND SHIFFRIN
- 3 distinct stories
- sensory register > iconic/echoic memory, briefly holds info
- STM > limited capacity/duration, maintained by maintenance rehearsal
- LTM > unlimited storage, retrieved when needed
BAHRICK:
- field study
- 392 participants recalling classmates from yearbook
- 90% accuracy after 15 years
- 70% after 48 years
strength of multi-store model (MSM)
STRONG SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
- baddeley demonstrated clear differences in STM and LTM
- provides strong support for separate memory stores
ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY:
- bahrick used real-life memories
- shows LTM can last for decades
- unlike lab studies (artificial tasks)
CLEAR FRAMEWORK
- MSM provides structured explanation for how memory works
- easy to understand and test experimentally
limitations of multi-store model (MSM)
OVERSIMPLIFIED MODEL:
- shallice and warrington’s study (patient KF) showed impaired verbal STM but intact visual STM
- suggests more than 1 type of STM
- contradicts MSM
IGNORES REHEARSAL QUALITY:
- craik and watkins found elaborative rehearsal (deep processing) is more effective than simple maintenance rehearsal
- MSM overemphasises this
NEGLECTS INTERACTION:
- MSM doesn’t explain how STM and LTM interact
- e.g. chunking uses LTM to help STM
types of long term memory (LTM)
TULVING:
- 3 types of LTM
— episodic memory > personal experiences
— semantic memory > factual knowledge
— procedural memory > skill
TULVING:
- PET scans on 6 volunteers showed episodic and semantic memory uses different brain areas
- found left prefrontal cortex for semantic, right prefrontal cortex for episodic
strengths of types of long term memory (LTM)
CLINICAL EVIDENCE:
- HM and clive wearing had impaired episodic memory but intact procedural memory
- demonstrates separate LTM stores
SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY:
- tulving used neuroimaging
- provides objective and scientific evidence for different types of LTM
PRACTICAL APPLICATION:
- helps understanding memory disorders
- e.g alzheimer’s
- develops targeted treatments
limitations of type of long term memory (LTM)
LIMITED GENERALISABILITY:
- case studies like HM and CW involve rare brain damage
- limits generalisability of findings to general population
OVERLAP OF MEMORY TYPES:
- episodic and semantic memories often intact
- challenge idea of distinct systems
SMALL SAMPLE SIZES:
- tulving’s PET scans used 6 people
- difficult to generalise findings
working memory model (WMM)
BADDELEY AND HITCH:
- central executive > director attention, allocates resources
- phonological loop > auditory info (phonological store & articulatory process)
- visuo-spatial sketchpad > visual/spatial info (visual cache & inner scribe)
- episodic buffer > integrates info (baddeley)
BADDELEY:
- dual task study
- found participants struggled with 2 visual tasks, but not a visual and verbal task
- supports separate systems
strengths of working memory model (WMM)
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
- baddeley supports idea of separate visual and verbal memory systems
- increases model’s validity
BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:
- braver’s fMRI scans showed prefrontal cortex activity during WMM tasks
- supports biological basis of the model
PRACTICAL APPLICATION:
- explains multitasking difficulties and helps design workplace environments to improve efficiency
limitations of working memory model (WMM)
LACK OF CLARITY IN CENTRAL EXECUTIVE:
- baddeley addmitted CE is poorly defined
- limited understanding of how it works
ARTIFICIAL TASKS:
- lab studies
- e.g. word recall
- not reflective of real-world multitasking
LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF INTEGRATION:
- episodic buffer added later
- shows model was initially incomplete
explanations of forgetting: interference
- proactive interference (PI) > older memories disrupt newer memories
- retroactive interference (RI) > newer memories disrupt older memories
MCGEOGH AND MCDONALD:
- lab study
- participants learn 2 word lists
- learned synonyms, antonyms, unrelated words and nonsense syllables
- found more similar the word lists were, the worse the recall
strengths of interference
CONTROLLED VARIABLES:
- lab setting
- eliminates confounding variables
- increases internal validity
CONSISTENT EVIDENCE:
- interference reliably replicated in many studies
- supports role in forgetting
limitations of interference
ARTIFICIAL STIMULI:
- lists of words/syllables doesn’t reflect real-life learning
- lacks ecological validity
TIME FRAMES:
- studies often use short intervals between learning
- exaggerates interference
explanations of forgetting: retrieval failure (cue-dependent forgetting)
- encoding specific principle (ESP) > tulving proposed cues present during encoding must also be present during retrieval
- context-dependent forgetting > external cues (environment) are missing at recall
- state/dependent forgetting > internal cues (mood/state) missing at recall
GODDEN AND BADDELEY (CDF):
- divers learn words underwater or on land
- findings > recall 40% lower when recall occured in different environments
CARTER AND CASSADAY (SDF):
- antihistamines impacting recall
strengths of retrieval failure
STRONG EXPERIMENTAL SUPPORT:
- godden and baddeley demonstrated how environmental cues effect memory
- supports ESP
REAL-LIFE APPLICATIONS:
- helps improve revision strategies
- e.g. revising in exam conditions
limitations of retrieval failure
RECALL VS RECOGNITION:
- baddeley found ESP doesn’t apply to recognition tasks
- limits general application
OVER-SIMPLIFICATION:
- ESP doesn’t account for all types of forgetting
- other factors may be involved
EWT: misleading information
- leading questions > suggestive questions distort memory
LOFTUS AND PALMER:
- 45 participants watching car crash videos
- estimated cars speeds using verbs like ‘smashed’ or ‘contacted’
- found ‘smashed’ led to higher average (41mph), ‘contacted’ 31mph
GABBERT:
- post-event discussion
- 60 students watched videos from different angles
- found 71% recalled incorrect details after discussion
strengths of misleading information
REAL-WORLD IMPACT:
- influenced legal procedures and police interviewing techniques
- e.g. avoiding leading questions
CONTROLLED RESEARCH:
- lab studies ensure high internal validity by controlling EVs
limitations of misleading information
LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY:
- watching videos of car crashes isn’t as emotionally impactful as witnessing real accidents
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES:
- older adults are more susceptible misleading information (anastasi and rhodes)
EWT: anxiety (weapon focus effect)
- yerkes-dodson law > suggests moderate anxiety improves recall while too much/little impairs it
- weapon focus effect > narrows focus on threats, reducing after recall
JOHNSON AND SCOTT:
- participants witnessed a man with a pen or knife
- found 49% identified the man with the pen, 33% with the knife
YUILLE AND CUTSHALL:
- field study of real shooting
- found witnesses with higher anxiety had more accurate recall
strengths of anxiety (weapon focus effect)
REAL-LIFE RELEVANCE:
- yuille and cutshall used real crime witnesses
- increases ecological validity
CONTROLLED EVIDENCE:
- johnson and scott systematically tested anxiety’s impact on recall
limitations of anxiety (weapon focus effect)
ETHICAL ISSUES:
- including anxiety in johnson and scott’s study may cause psychological harm
LACK OF CONTROL IN FIELD STUDIES:
- real-world studies can’t control external factors like post-event discussion
