memory

• multi store model

  
• capacity duration coding - multi store model

  
• studies which help prove mutli store model capcity duration coding

  sperling, jacobs, peterson peterson, bahrick and baddeley
• sperling - capacity of SR

  showed ppts array of 12 letters on a computer screen for 50 milliseconds

  instructed ppt to recall row of letters that corresponded to a tone he sounded - high tone for top row + low tone for bottom row

  ppt able to recall 100% of letters accurately

  however if there was a delay of 1/4 seconds ppt struggled to recall the letters
• Jacobs (Capacity of STM)

  443 ppt all female

  asked to read words/ digits and recall digits out loud in correct order

  with number of digits/ words increasing every time

  when a ppt would incorrectly recall a digit or word this would determne there digit span

  average was 5-9 digits

  (7+-2)

  Miller called this the magic number 7
• peterson and peterson (duration of STM)

  24 ppt took 8 trails

  each trail a trigram was shown followed by a distractor task - ppt had to count down from a number in -3

  each trail increased in length

  after 18 seconds ppt struggled

  suggested duration of STM was 18-30 seconds
• Bahrick (Duration of LTM)


  392 American ppt

  big age gap of 17-74

  took part in 2 tasks - photo recognition and name recognition

  15 years - 90% were correct in photo recognition and 60% in name recognition

  48 years - 78% were correct in photo recognition and 30% in name recognition

  this suggested that duratino of LTM is potentially a life time
• Baddeley (coding of STM and LTM)

  20 ppt were tested acoustically or semantically with 4 lists

  L1 - accoustically similar

  L2 - acoustically dissimilar

  L3 - semantically similar

  L4 - semantically dissimilar

  asked to recall list straight away and 20 minutes later

  immediate recall was better for L1 + L2

  little difference L3 + L4

  after 20 minutes

  L3 + L4 were recalled better

  L1 + L2 had little difference

  suggested we code acoustically from STM and semantically for LTM
• PEEL - evaluate multi store model (theory)

  Strength

  has research support

  Baddeley found coding is different for STM and LTM

  HM had epilepsy and had hippocampus removed - LTM damaged STM same

  Baddeley and HM offer support that the STM and LTM are two separate stores

  
  

  Limitation

  has contradictory evidence suggesting there is more than one type of STM/LTM

  KF had a motorcycle accident and his verbal STM was fine but visual was bad

  Tulving did brain scans of different areas of brain for types of LTM

  therefor MSM is too simplistic and STM and LTM can be broken up further

  
  

  Limitation 2

  methodology used as supporting evidence

  peterson and peterson lack ecological validity

  research lacks generalisability because only study done on students

  bharick had good ecological validity because study was on people the ppt knew
• PEEL for evaluate research into the MSM

  Limitation

  Often use artifical stimuli so lack ecological validity

  artificial stimuli in baddely study was 4 word list

  artificial stiuli in p and p was the trigram

  however bharick et al study has higher ecological validty as they used real photos from graduating year books

  
  

  Weakness

  research lacks generalisability

  students in study is bad as they might have a better memory as they are in uni

  also in jacobs stud they only use females

  therefor findings into duration and coding of memory may only be accurate for younger students

  
  

  strength

  resarch into MSM has good reliability

  lab experiments

  P+P gave all ppt same trigrams

  able to replicate these studies and gain results
• types of long term memory

  episodic, semantic, procedural
• episodic


  abillity to recall events from our lives, similar to diary

  time stamped

  concious effort to recall these memories

  stored in frontal and temporal lobes
• semantic


  facts + general knowledge

  not time stamped

  concious effort to recall these memories

  stored in frontal and temporal lobe
• procedural


  details or skills - how to ride a bike

  unconcious awareness to remember memories

  stored in cerebellum
• case studies


  HM, Clive wearing, Tulving et al
• HM


  semantic memory was in tact

  episodic memory was bad

  procedural was good

  couldn't remember facts/ memories

  supports evidence of there being 3 different LTM
• clive wearing


  episodic is awful - thinks he wakes up every 7 seconds

  procedural is good - plays piano perfectly

  no memory of his whereabouts but remmebrs teaching and rehearsing music
• tulving et al


  brain scans

  episodic memories were localised in different areas of brain

  localised in brain
• PEEL


  strengthP -case studies to show evidence of different types of LTME -HM epilepsy - hippocampus removedE - clive wearing - viral infection of hippocampusL - case studies research lack generalisability

  Strength 2P -supporting evidence that 3 types of LTM are linked to different areas in brainE - tulving - brain scansE - buckner + peterson found differing results (1986)L - studies into this lack reliability as findings are not consistent

  strength 3P - real life applications of knowledge of LTM with helping people with memory problemsE - bellevile et al demonstrated that episodic memories could be improved in older people by lots of trainingE - episodic memory is often area of weakness in older peopleL - understanding different types of LTM means specific treatments can be developed to help with particular type of LTM problem
• Working memory model

  
• central executive


  key component in model

  makes decisions + directs attention to particular tasks and decides how the brain allocates resources to different tasks

  limited duration

  very limited capacity

  can process info in any modelity
• visuo - spatial sketchpad


  visual and or spatial informateion

  visaul - what thinks look like

  spatial - physical relationshiip

  also called inner eye

  limited capacity - 3-4 objects

  limited duration

  Cogie suggested subdivisions

  visuo - cache

  innerscribe for spatial relationship of object we can see
• episodic buffer


  baddely added episodic buffer as he realised the model needed a more general store

  provides extra storage for central executive but with limited capacity of about 4 chunks

  integrates info from 3 other stages and links wmm to LTM
• phonilogical loop


  deals with auditory info and order of words and sounds

  baddely further subdivided into

  phonological store - inner ear

  auditory process - inner voice

  limited capacity - 1.5-2 seconds

  limited dudration

  auditory stores words by subvocal repetition

  phonological stores words we hear
• long term memory


  episodic buffer moves info from STM to LTM
• PEEL wwm


  strength

  P -support for WWM from case study research

  E -KF - motorcycle - poor auditory STM visual STM fine

  E -suggest phonological loop was in tact was vss wasnt in tact

  L - provides external validity of existence of WWM in real world

  
  

  strength 2

  P - Lab experiments can also be used to support WMM

  E - World length study showed ppt recall more monosyllabic words than polysyllabic words - shows PL has limited capacity

  E -Dual task experiments ppt cant do 2 visual tasks at the same time but can do 1 visual and one auditory

  L - Lab experiments lack ecological validity because you dont trace letters in every day life

  
  

  Limitation

  P - lack of clarity on central executive

  E - Baddeley said that the central executive was most important part but it is the least understood

  E -there has been no research into the central executive or episodic buffer maybe these sections should be broken down further

  L -Therefor lack of knowledge of central executive and episodic buffer challenges the integrity of the model
• definition - interference


  interference is when pieces of information conflict with eachother resulting in forgetting or distortion of memory

  LTM is relatively permanent its likely we cant access them rather than the memory being forgotten
• types of interference


  proactive - when a older memory inteferes with a new one

  - teacher struggles to remember your name but calls you your siblings name

  retroactive - when a new memory interferes with a old one

  - teacher remembers his new classes names but cant remember his old year groups names that left the year before
• mcgoeh and mcdonald 1931 (procedure)


  ppt had to learn a list of 10 words until they could recall them 100% perfectly

  given a new list of words to remember before being tested on first list

  the new material varied in degree

  1 - synonyms

  2 - antonyms

  3 - unrelated words

  4 - consonant syllables

  5 - three digit numbers

  6 - no new list (control condition)
• findings


  ppt that had to learn synonmys in their second list had the worst recall of the first list

  shows that interference is strongest when memories are most similar

  example of retroactive interference
• evaluations

  good internal validity - extraneous variables controlled

  lacks ecological validity

  reliability good - standardised procedure all ppt given same list
• PEEL interference

  limitation

  P - majority of evidence comes from lab based research

  E - Mcgoech and Mcdonald lacks ecological validity - don't normally learn synonyms or antonyms lists on a day to day life

  E - PPT often have only a short time between learning the new pieces of info - whole experience could be done in over a hour which doesn't reflect rea life learning

  L - therefor research used to support interference theory lacks ecological validity

  
  

  Strength

  P - support for real life applications

  E - baddely and hitch - rugby players remember team names they had played during the season

  E -results = recall did not depend on how long ago matches too place it was how many games they had played

  L - therefor interference does have some external validity as we can see it occurring in every day life

  
  

  Limitation 2

  P - interference can be overcome by using cues

  E - tulving + ptoska gave ppt lists of words to remember and organize into categories

  E - recall of list was 70% but fell down with each new list, but when given cues recall rose back up to 70%

  L -this shows interference causes just a temporary loss of access to material still in LTM not a permanant loss
• retrieval failures
• tulvings esp

  if a cue is available at encoding of a memory is absent during there will be some forgetting - known as retrieval failure

  
  

  external + internal cues are linked to the memory in a meaningful way and help you remember more info
• state dependent forgetting

  state dependent forgetting - occurs when your mood or physiological state during recall is different from when you were learning info
• goodwin et al (procedure)


  48 male medical students

  4 groups

  SS - sober when learn, sober when recall

  AA - intoxicated when learn, intoxicated when recall

  AS - intoxicated when learn, sober when recall

  SA - sober when learn, intoxicated when recall

  groups had to perform 4 tasks each day - word association and picture recognition
• findings (retrieval failure)


  SS condition perfomed the best accross all tasks

  recall was best when same internal state was replicated accross both days

  - if you learn something drunks likely to recall better when drunk

  - similar findings by other researcher for pos/ neg moods and marajuana use
• evaluations

  G - lacks generalisability - only male medical students

  R - good reliability - lab experiment = easy to replicate

  A- good real life applications - can be applied to students revising for exams

  V- poor ecological validity - normally don't learn when drunk

  E - poor ethics - giving alcohol may have caused harm
• context dependent forgetting

  failure to retrieve information from LTM due to the absence of appropriate contextual cues
• godden and baddeley procedure

  divers learned a list of words either underwater or on land and then asked to recall the words in one of the environments

  LL - learn on land, recall on land

  UU - learn underwater, recall underwater

  UL - learn underwater, recall on land

  LU - learn on land. recall underwater