memory input dis shi Flashcards

(39 cards)

1
Q

What is meant by coding in memory and how do STM and LTM differ in this?

A

refers to the format in which information is stored. STM is coded acoustically, while LTM is coded semantically.
Study: Baddeley (1966) – More errors with acoustically similar words in STM recall, and semantically similar words in LTM recall after 20 minutes.

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

baddeleys study

A

Baddeley (1966) conducted an experiment to examine the coding of STM and LTM. ppts were shown lists of words that were either acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar, or semantically dissimilar.
He found that ppts had more difficulty recalling acoustically similar words immediately (STM), suggesting STM is coded acoustically, and semantically similar words after 20 mins (LTM), suggesting LTM is coded semantically.

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

what does baddeleys study show

A

when words sound too similar STM has a hard time distinguishing between these sounds.It prefers words that sound different to one another which supports the claim STM uses acoustic encoding.When words have as similar meaning, the LTM has difficulty differentiating between them and so gets confused.This is why LTM prefers to code semantically

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

What is the capacity of STM and LTM, and which studies support this?

A

A: Capacity is the amount of information a store can hold.
STM: 7 ± 2 items (Miller, via the idea of chunking)
LTM: Potentially unlimited
Studies:
Miller (1956) – chunking helps recall ~7 items
Jacobs (1887) – average span: 7.3 letters, 9.3 digits

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

miller study
Jacob study

A

Miller (1956) suggested that the capacity of STM is about 7 ± 2 items. He observed that people often remember things in groups or “chunks,” like 7 days in a week. He concluded that we are predisposed to process information in groups, and chunking helps us increase the amount of info held in STM.

Jacobs (1887) tested STM capacity by asking participants to recall increasing strings of digits or letters. He found that participants could recall on average 9.3 digits and 7.3 letters, suggesting a limited capacity in STM.
However, as it was conducted in the 19th century, it may lack scientific rigour by modern standards (e.g. control, standardisation), limiting reliability.

both proved its 5-9 items(7+-) and that capacity in stm is fairly limited
however chunking info can help.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the duration of STM and LTM, and which studies support this?

A

A: the length of time information can be stored in each memory store.

STM: 18–30 seconds
Petersen et al. (1959)
LTM: Potentially lifelong
Bahrick et al. (1975)

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

Petersen
bahrick

A

stm-Peterson & Peterson (1959) tested 24 undergraduates by asking them to recall trigrams (e.g., YCG) after intervals. During intervalS, ppts had to count backwards(INTERFERENCE TASK) to prevent rehearsal.
They found that recall dropped significantly after just 18s, suggesting STM has a limited duration of about 18–30 seconds without rehearsal.

ltm-Bahrick et al. (1975) studied 392 American ppts aged 17–74 on their memory for high school classmates. Participants were tested via photo recognition and free recall.
Photo recognition was 90% accurate within 15 years of graduation but dropped to 70% after 48 years, showing that LTM can last a very long time, possibly a lifetime.

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

Strengths & Weaknesses of Memory Research Studies

A

— A key issue w historical psychological research, particularly Jacobs, is lack of standardisation and appreciation of scientific methods. For eg, the current lab experiment methodology produces highly reliable n valid data through controlling and removing EV’S and confounding variables. unlike jacobs where confounding variables such as a noisy room or difficult word lists, may have had a greater influence on accuracy of recall, leading to unreliable results.
+ A strength of Bahrick et al’s 1975 study is use of meaningful stimuli, and a methodology which is high in mundane realism. This suggests that the findings have high ecological validity because they can be easily generalised to real-life, due to the stimuli reflecting those which we would often try to learn and recall in our day to day lives: info w meaningful value!
— key issues with the Petersen et al n Miller et al studies is that they feature methods w low mundane realism, thus producing findings w little ecological validity. due to the use of artificial stimuli which has lil personal meaning to the ppts, and so does not acc reflect everyday learning experiences. limiting the generalisability of such findings.
— recent research has suggested that Miller may have over-exaggerated the capacity of STM, and that capacity is more similar to 4 chunks as opposed to the original 5-9. This may reflect the outdated methodologies adopted by Miller and, the lack of control over confounding variables which may have contributed to this inaccurate estimate.

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

2 types of memory ltm is divided into

A

declarative memory-“knowing that”conscious memory that helps us declare facts.subdivided into episodic n semantic
procedural-“knowing how”helps us recall procedures such as how to tie our shoelaces, cycle or swim.

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

episodic memory

A

memories such as our thoughts n experiences + our personal recollection of them. usually based on events that occur in peoples lives but over time they move over to semantic memory as the event’s association diminishes and the memory becomes “knowledge” based.
The strength of these mems is determined by emotions present at the time the memory’s being coded. Traumatic life events may be recalled better cuh of the strong emotional attachment they have and episodic mems helps us distinguish between our imagination n real events.
The pre-frontal cortex involved in initial encoding of episodic mems + consolidation and storage associated with neocortex.

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

semantic memory

A

contains the knowledge,concepts and meanings individuals learnt e.g. the capital of France is Paris. It may also relate to how certain objects work, appropriate behaviour in situations or abstract concepts such as language or mathematics.
Semantic memory is often stronger when deeper processing involved n typically lasts longer than episodic memory.
It’s closely linked to episodic LTM, as semantic memories often develop from experiences.
Over time, episodic mems can shift into semantic as the personal context fades and the info becomes general knowledge.
Semantic mems is mainly coded in the frontal and temporal lobes.
There’s debate over whether the hippocampus is involved, or if multiple brain areas are responsible.

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

procedural memory

A

skill-based memory - focused on recalling how to do something ,it doesnt require conscious thought. Often learnt through repetition and practice.

Language is an eg as it helps ppl speak using the correct grammar and syntax without having to consciously give this thought.
Procedural LTM linked to the neocortex areas within the primary motor cortex, cerebellum N prefrontal cortex. Unlike declarative memory, not rely on the hippocampus to function.

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

strengths of ltm evaluation

A

+ Case study of HM gives strong evidence for different LTM types.
(Milner, 1962), - damage to the hippocampus and temporal lobes, no longer form episodic + semantic memories, but could still acquire procedural skills, such as mirror drawing. suggests declarative memory (E+S) and non-declarative memory (P) rely on diff brain systems. Although HM learned new skills, he had no memory of learning them, showing a clear divide between “knowing how” and “knowing that.”This supports idea that E,S+ P mems are separate.

Brain imaging research provides strong support ltm consists of separate stores, linked to distinct brain regions.
Studies w brain scans have shown episodic memory activates hippocampus + frontal lobes, while semantic memory linked to activity in temporal lobe, + procedural memory involves cerebellum and motor cortex. Additionally, Petersen et al. found semantic memories are recalled from left prefrontal cortex, while episodic memories come from right prefrontal cortex.
These neurological findings show diff types of LTM aren’t only functionally distinct but also biologically separate, relying on specific brain regions.
;;;strengthens the argument for separate LTM stores, showing its supported by objective, evidence from neuroimaging.

further Case studies provide strong evidence for the idea that LTM’s divided into distinct systems.
In the case of CL (Vicari et al), a young girl who suffered brain damage after tumour removal showed an inability to form new E memories, but her S memory remained unaffected. Similarly, Clive Wearing lost ability to form or retrieve E memories, yet his P memory (e.g. playing piano) and S memory (e.g. understanding music) were intact.
These cases suggest that diff types of memory rely on different brain systems, and that damage to 1 type doesn’t necessarily impair others. supports the view that E,S+P are diff and functionally separate.
;;, evidence from real-life brain damage cases strengthens the argument for multiple LTM stores, in line with Tulving’s theory.

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

weaknesses of types of ltm

A

A – of using case studies like HM is lack of generalisability.
HM was a unique individual w severe brain damage, n findings from his case may not apply to others.
Differences in memory loss / retention may be unique to his brain structure + recovery process, making it hard to generalise results to the wider population.
;;;although insightful, case studies must be interpreted cautiously when used as evidence for LTM theories.

Not all psychologists agree with Tulving’s classification of LTM.
Cohen and Squire proposed a 2-part system: declarative memory and non-declarative memory
This suggests that Tulving’s model may oversimplify or misclassify how memory functions, highlighting that LTM is complex and open to interpretation.
;;; while Tulving’s theory is influential, it may not be the only valid explanation of how LTM is structured.

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

What are the components of Atkinson & Shiffrin’s Multi-Store Model (1968)?

A

Sensory Register: receives sensory input
(STM): temporary store via attention
(LTM): permanent store via rehearsal
Each differs in coding, capacity, n duration.model proposes that memories are formed sequently and information passes from 1 component to the next, in a linear fashion.

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

What are the characteristics of the sensory register?

A

What are the characteristics of the sensory register?

Capacity: Very large has to contain all sense impressions. But only what is paid attention to is passed to STM
Duration: Very short info not retained for long.
Coding:depends on sense organ info comes from so it’s modality specific.
Info passes to STM only if attention is paid.

17
Q

what is ltm and stm

A

Info stored may last permanently and info from STM comes via rehearsal and to use info in ltm it needs to be passed back to STM via retrieval.

It receives info from sensory register by paying attention. STM passes info to LTM through rehearsal(through maintenance rehearsal or elaborating) info is passed back through retrieval

18
Q

how does msm work

A

it constantly gets info in the SR but ,most gets no attention and it stays in SM for a short period.If attention is focused it goes into STM.Info held in STM is fragile so it w decay quickly if it isn’t rehearsed(maintenance or rehearsal).If rehearsed enough it will go into ltm.

19
Q

how can the glazer and cunitz effect be applied to msm?

A

Glanzer and Cunitz gave participants a list of words to recall.They found that participants appeared to be better at recalling words from start and end. end words were easier because they are stored in sim and therefore more easily recalled.start would’ve been rehearsed and put into LTM and middle isn’t rehearsed enough.

20
Q

evaluate multistore model of memory

A

The MSM assumes (STM) is a unitary store - challenged by evidence from brain-damaged patients.
Shallice and Warrington’s case study of patient KF found he had poor STM recall for auditory info but normal recall for visual stimuli.
suggests STM has separate components for diff types of information (e.g., verbal vs. visual), contradicting the MSM’s view of STM as a single store.;;; MSM oversimplifies STM’s structure, indicating that memory models need to account for multiple short-term stores rather than just one.

Research supports that (STM) and (LTM) are separate stores.
Glanzer et al’s study demonstrated the primacy + recency effects, showing early words are stored in LTM and later words in STM. Brain imaging studies also reveal diff brain areas active during STM + LTM tasks—such as the prefrontal cortex for STM and the hippocampus for LTM. findings support the model’s claim that STM and LTM are distinct stores, each w unique neural bases. Additionally, the model’s predictions can be experimentally tested through such behavioral and neurological research.
;;; this evidence strengthens the MSM’s validity by confirming distinct functioning of STM and LTM.

MSM accurately shows the qualitative diff between STM + LTM by treating them as separate stores.
for eg, research by Baddeley + Miller found STM is mainly encoded acoustically, while LTM is encoded semantically and lasts much longer.
This shows MSM correctly reflects how info is processed + stored diff in each memory store.;;; the MSM provides a valid framework for understanding the key differences between STM and LTM, supporting its credibility as a memory model.

The (MSM) claims amount of maintenance rehearsal determines whether info transfers from (STM) to (LTM).However, Craik and Watkins challenged this, arguing type of rehearsal is more important than amount. suggested elaborative rehearsal, which links new info to existing knowledge, is necessary for effective transfer to LTM—not just repeated maintenance rehearsal.
TMT MSM oversimplifies the rehearsal process by ignoring how deeply info is processed before storage, so it does not fully explain how memories are formed.;;;, this criticism highlights a key weakness of the MSM, showing that memory transfer is more complex than the model originally proposed.

21
Q

what is the working memory model

A

The WMM suggests that STM is an active processor is made up of the central executive, the phonological loop, the visuo-spatial sketchpad and the episodic buffer.

22
Q

what’s the central executive

A

main component n coordinates the other “slave systems” n ensures they don’t go astray. slave systems (phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad and episodic buffer) can also be used as temporary storage systems to free up capacity within CE to deal w other demanding tasks. Capacity for CE = very limited n it receives information from the senses or from LTM. It is also involved in directing “attention” and resources towards particular tasks.

23
Q

phonological loop

A

processes speech-based info preserving its order within the phonological store which acts like an “inner ear”. The articulatory control process (inner voice) is linked to speech production and used to rehearse n store verbal info from phonological store through a form of maintenance rehearsal. this has limited capacity determined by amount of info which can be spoken out loud in 2 seconds. Confusions often occur w similar sounding words as its an acoustic store.

24
Q

vss

A

processes visual info through the senses (eyes) or LTM on what things look like, patterns of recognition n spacial info consisting of the relationship between things and perception of movement. Logie (1995) suggested VSS could be further sub-divided into a visual cache (CV) which stores visual material on colour n form and an inner-scribe (IS) which deals with spatial relationships, rehearsal and the transfer of information from the visual cache to the central executive. baddelly said capacity is 4-5 chunks

25
episodic buffer
integrates info from all 3 main systems as well as LTM. The CE has no storage capacity of its own and Baddeley realised the model required a general store to explain why some amnesia patients with no longterm recall could recall info immediately. This suggested a temporary buffer existed as that store. has limited capacity n also maintains time-sequencing recording events as they happen n transferring this info into LTM.
26
weaknesses of working memory model
little is known about the CE, the model’s most important component. Research by Eslinger et al. supports this criticism through a case study of a patient - EVR, who had a cerebral tumour removed. Although EVR performed well on reasoning tasks, indicating part of his CE was intact, he showed poor decision-making skills. suggests that the CE may not be a single, unified system but could consist of multiple components. WMM does not account for this complexity, making it an oversimplified explanation of how the CE functions.;;;, the model lacks detailed understanding of CE, limiting its ability to fully explain how working memory operates. A weakness of the WMM is that much of the supporting evidence lacks external validity. Studies often use dual-task techniques to test components like the phonological loop and VS sketchpad, where ppts perform 2 tasks at the same time. These tasks are highly artificial and dont reflect real-life memory use. so, findings may not apply to everyday situations, –> the studies lack mundane realism and dec the ecological validity of the evidence supporting the model. ;;; weakens credibility of the WMM, as its core claims are based on research that may not accurately represent real-world memory processes.
27
strengths of working model memory
+its support from dual-task performance studies. These studies require ppts to perform a visual n verbal task simultaneously n show dec performance on these tasks. This decrease suggests that the CE has a limited processing capacity and that slave systems (the phonological loop and VS sketchpad) compete for these limited cog resources, as WMM predicts ;;;, dual-task studies provide experimental evidence supporting WMM’s claim about the central executive’s role and capacity limits. +neuroscanning evidence regarding the CE. Braver et al. demonstrated a + correlation between inc cog load (task difficulty) n higher activation levels in prefrontal cortex. This shows that as the CE processes more difficult tasks, brain activity in prefrontal cortex inc, supporting its role in allocating tasks to slave systems and having a limited processing capacity. ;;;, neuroscanning evidence provides biological support that WMM acc describes function n limitations of CE.
28
explanations for forgetting
interference retrieval failure
29
explain interference as a method for forgetting
Interference theory argues forgetting occurs due to 2 memories competing n being affected by past memories or possible future learning. The more similar the two memories are the more interference it causes as the two memories become confused with one another.+ positive correlation between forgetting n similarity
30
two types of interference
proactive-(PI) occurs forward in time. the coding of new memories being interfered by past similar memories. eg, an old mobile number is recalled when trying to recall the new mobile phone number. retroactive- (RI) occurs backwards in time when coding of new INFO disrupts previously stored info. For eg, you learn your new mobile number but are unable to remember your old one. The new memory, therefore, affects recall of the old memory. unlearning theory-suggests new learning replaces old learning.
31
studies to help explain proactive and retroactive interference
Keppel and underwood (1962) demonstrated PI. ppts were tasked w recalling consonant trigrams after varying intervals where they were tasked w counting backwards in threes. Forgetting inc after each interval however little forgetting occurred at start. PI can explain this as earlier consonants entered the LTM and interfered with the formation of new memories. Ceraso (1967) suggested 1 possible explanation for RI = there was no actual loss of info but merely wrong info was accessed as it had been moved. Muller (1900) identified RI through a study where ppts tasked with learning a list of syllables are given an intervening task between exposure to the syllables and recall. The intervening task (describing paintings) produced RI with participants struggling to recall their lists.
32
strengths of interference as an explanation of forgetting
it is supported by a large body of reliable, controlled lab research. eg Keppel and Underwood (1962) and McDonald et al. (1931) demonstrated both proactive and retroactive interference using controlled memory tasks involving word lists. These lab studies use standardised procedures and tightly controlled environments, reducing the influence of confounding variables. This inc internal validity, allowing researchers to confidently attribute forgetting to interference effects.;;; This consistent empirical support enhances credibility of interference theory as a scientific explanation of forgetting. real-world research supports its claims, especially RI. Baddeley and Hitch (1977) found rugby players’ recall of previous games depended on how many games they had played since, not the time that had passed — supporting the idea that new memories can interfere with older ones. This shows that interference, particularly RI, occurs outside the lab in real-world, meaningful contexts, Inc the external validity of the theory.;;; ability of interference theory to explain forgetting in naturalistic settings strengthens its relevance n usefulness.
33
weaknesses of interference as an explanation of forgetting
many supporting studies lack ecological validity due to the use of artificial materials. ppts often asked to learn lists of unrelated words or syllables that have little personal meaning, such as in Muller’s (1900) or McDonald et al.’s studies. Irl situations, memory tasks are more meaningful (e.g., studying for exams), and we use strategies n links between concepts to aid recall. This limits how well lab-based findings generalise to real-world memory processes. ;;;, while interference has been shown in lab settings, its applicability to everyday forgetting may be limited. it offers a narrow explanation of forgetting n ignores other important mechanisms. Anderson (2000) argued while interference does occur, its difficult to determine how much forgetting it accounts for. Ceraso (1967) proposed that RI might result from retrieval failure rather than actual memory loss. suggestS interference theory may oversimplify forgetting by focusing only on memory similarity n ignoring factors like retrieval cues, emotional state, or context. ;;; theory may be just one part of a more complex explanation of forgetting in long-term memory.
34
explain retrieval failure as a way of forgetting
argues forgetting from the LTM is caused by failing to access the memory due to insufficient clues/ cues to aid recall rather than it being unavailable. the cues act as markers to aid recall N without these, mind is unable to locate the correct memory. A cues effectiveness depends on the no of items associated w it with fewer items leading to a more effective cue. According to Tulving’s encoding specificity principle, memory recall is most effective when the cues present during retrieval match those present at encoding. If the context or state has changed, recall becomes harder. Cues are also more effective when they are linked to fewer items.
35
what are the 2 diff types of cue dependent forgetting
context dependent failure and state dependent failure
36
what’s content dependent failure
happens when the ext environment at recall is different from when the memory was encoded, making it harder to remember. eg, you recall more if you take a test in the same room where you studied. Environmental cues like sights n sounds, can trigger memory if they were present during learning. Abernethy (1940) found that after ppts had learnt various material, they showed greater difficulty with recall when they were tested by an unfamiliar teacher in an unfamiliar room compared to a familiar teacher and familiar room. This shows support for the importance of context aiding memory retrieval process.
37
what’s state dependent failure
happens when a person’s internal state at recall is different from when they learned the info. eg, it may be harder to remember something learned while happy if you’re now sad. shows that internal states like emotions can act as retrieval cues. Supported by Carter & Cassaday (1998) -gave ppts anti-histamines to make them drowsy.recall was up to 40% better when ppts were in the same internal state at learning and recall. supports state-dependent forgetting, showing that internal states like alertness or drowsiness can act as retrieval cues.
38
strengths of retrieval failure
its practical application in real-world memory improvement. Its been used in witness investigations,-eg the 2001 reconstruction of Danielle Jones’s last known whereabouts. this prompted witnesses to recall new details that helped convict her uncle. ts demonstrates how context cues can aid memory retrieval. Retrieval failure research has also informed cognitive interview techniques, helping witnesses recall more accurate details in criminal investigations. shows that understanding how cues affect memory has positive real-world implications, esp in the justice system. it has theoretical support and is based on controlled research. Eysenck suggested retrieval failure may be 1 of main reasons for forgetting from LTM. theory supported by lab experiments conducted under strictly controlled conditions. These controlled settings help to dec the influence of EV’s, allowing researchers to est a cause n effect rl between presence of cues and successful recall. This inc the internal validity of the findings, so we can place more confidence in the theory. ;;;, high-quality experimental methods strengthen the credibility of retrieval failure as a valid explanation
39
weaknesses of retrieval failure
its difficult to test and verify, which questions its scientific validity. Baddeley (1997) criticised the encoding principle by arguing that if a cue helps retrieval, it is assumed to have been encoded with the memory, but if it does not help, it is assumed not to have been encoded.this circular reasoning means we can’t objectively test whether a cue was acc encoded or not, making the theory unfalsifiable. w out ability to test it properly, the principle lacks the scientific rigour expected of psychological theories. ;;; despite its popularity, the principle may be an incomplete and unscientific explanation of how retrieval cues work. Retrieval failure research often lacks ecological validity. This is because Baddeley argued that it is difficult to find conditions in real-life which are as polar as water and land, This means studies may not accurately represent how forgetting works in real-world situations, limiting generalisability. Also, retrieval failure doesn’t explain forgetting procedural memories (e.g., riding a bike), showing it’s an incomplete explanation. Therefore, the theory’s real-life application is limited despite lab evidence.