Each store differs in terms of coding, capacity, and duration
Sensory register (SR)
Information gathered by the sensesenters the SR
Sensory stores in the SR
Iconic store (visual information)
Echoic store (auditory information)
Information that is paidattention to passes on to short-term memory
Coding in SR
Information is in a raw and unprocessed form, notcoded
Capacity of SR
Large, constantly bombarded with information
Duration of SR
Limited, information fades away after a fewseconds if not paid attention to
Short-term memory (STM)
Stores information received from the SR
Coding in STM
Mainly coded acoustically, information tends to be stored and represented through sound
Research into coding in STM
Baddeley (1966) divided participants into twogroups, one heard acousticallysimilar words and the other heard acousticallydissimilar words, participants found it moredifficult to recall the acousticallysimilar words, Baddeley concluded that STMcodesacoustically
Capacity of STM
Limited, information can be forgotten through displacement (oldinformation pushed out by new)
Chunking
Groupinginformation into largermeaningfulunits to increase the capacity of STM
Research into the capacity of STM
Miller (1956) used the serialdigitspanmethod, found most participants could recall 7+/-2chunks of information
Duration of STM
Limited, information can be forgottenthroughdecay (fading away over time)
Maintenance rehearsal
Repeatinginformation to increase the duration of STM, largely verbal as STM is codedacoustically
Research into the duration of STM
Peterson & Peterson (1959) presented nonsensetrigrams, found 90% recalled correctly after 3seconds but only 5% after 18seconds, concluded STMduration is 20-30seconds
Long-term memory (LTM)
Stores information received from STM, information is retrieved from LTMback to STM for use
Coding in LTM
Mainly codedsemantically, information tends to be stored and represented through meaning
Research into coding in LTM
Baddeley (1966) divided participants into groups, one heard semanticallysimilar words and the other semanticallydissimilar, participants found it more difficult to recall semanticallysimilar words, Baddeley concluded LTMcodessemantically
Capacity of LTM
Potentially unlimited
Research into the capacity of LTM
Wagenar (1986) created a diary of over 2400events over 6years and had excellentrecall, concluded LTMcapacity is potentially unlimited
Duration of LTM
Potentially unlimited, information does not need continuousrehearsal to be maintained, but can stillbeforgotten through decay
Research into the duration of LTM
Bahrick et al. (1975) found participants could identifyfaces from their high school yearbook with 70% accuracy 48 years later, concluded LTMduration is potentiallyunlimited
The serial position effect supports the idea that STM and LTM are separate stores
Case studies of brain-damaged patients like HM support the idea that STM and LTM are separate stores
The role of maintenance rehearsal in transferring information from STM to LTM has been criticised, as long-term memories can form without rehearsal (e.g. flashbulb memories)
Evidence suggests STM is not a unitary store, it has visual and auditory components (e.g. case of KF)
The working memory model (WMM) was proposed by Baddeley & Hitch (1974)
Working memory model
Suggests information in STM is processed (worked on) whilst being stored, and replaces the idea of a unitary STM with multiple components
Components of the WMM
Central executive, phonological loop, visuo-spatial sketchpad, episodic buffer
Central executive
Supervisory function in overall control of working memory, limited capacity, can process information from any sensory system
Phonological loop
Temporarily stores and processes auditory information, divided into phonological store and articulatory control process
Visuo-spatial sketchpad
Temporarily stores and processes visual and spatial information, divided into visual cache and inner scribe
Episodic buffer
Extra storage system that integrates information from the other components
Evidence for the WMM from dual task studies
Baddeley et al. (1975) found participants could complete visual and verbal tasks simultaneously, supporting separate visual and auditory components
Evidence for the WMM from case studies
Case of KF supports separate visual and auditory components as his verbal STM was impaired but visual STM was intact
Dualtask studies lack ecological validity as the tasks are often artificial
Casestudies lack generalisability as each case is unique