memory

    Cards (68)

    • 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
    • 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
    • findings
      LL recall was 40% accurate
      LU recall was 20% accurate
      LL + UU had best recall
      external cues available at learning were different from the ones at recall this led to retrieval failure
    • evaluations
      G - bad generalisability - only scuba divers
      R - good reliability - easy to replicate
      A - good real life application - police use this with eye witnesses as they take them back to the crime so they get better recall of story
      V - bad validity - dont learn stuff underwater normally
      E - good ethics
    • PEEL
      Strength
      P -has real life practical applications - context dependent forgetting
      E -cognitive interview developed by police to encourage EW to think about event
      E - helps police in investigations- more valid accounts from EW and ultimately saves money for economy
      L - good external validity - wider applications

      Limitations
      P -Baddeley argues effects of context arent very strong
      E - Context has to be significantly different before effect is seen
      E - Learning something in one room then recalling it another is unlikely to result in much forgetting as contexts arent different enough
      L -Real life applications of retrieval failure due to lack of contextual cues dont normally explain much forgetting because being in a significantly different context is quite rare in life

      Limitation 2
      P - tulvings ESP cant be scientifically tested
      E - we assume in experiments that the cue must have been encoded at time of learning
      E - but no way of scientifically testing cue was encoding at learning stage
      L - theory cant be falsified therefor doesnt meet aims of psychology being scientific
    See similar decks