Semantic coding, lifetime duration, unlimited capacity, displacement not decay
The multi-store model of memory proposes 3 unitary stores: sensory register, STM, and LTM
Attention and maintenance rehearsal
Lead to encoding into LTM
The multi-store model is too simplistic and does not account for unitary LTM
Brain scans show activity in the prefrontal cortex for STM and the hippocampus for LTM, providing scientific evidence
Deeper processing through elaborative rehearsal leads to better memory compared to just maintenance rehearsal
Types of long-term memory
Episodic
Semantic
Procedural
Episodic memory is for events, is time-stamped, and involves conscious recall
Semantic memory is for general knowledge, is not time-stamped, and involves conscious recall
Procedural memory is for how to do something, is not time-stamped, and involves unconscious recall
Brain scans show episodic memory is associated with the right prefrontal cortex and semantic memory with the left prefrontal cortex
The working memory model includes a central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer
Central executive
Delegates information into the other components, has limited processing capacity
Phonological loop
Processes auditory information, has a capacity of around 2seconds. split into phonological store and articulatory control process
Visuospatial sketchpad
Processes visual information, has a capacity of 3-4 items. split into visual cache and inner scribe
Episodic buffer
Connects working memory to long-term memory, has a capacity of around 4 chunks
The working memory model explains dual-tasking, where similar tasks overload one store
The central executive is the most important but least understood component of the working memory model
Interference is when the presence of a memory prevents the retrieval or encoding of another memory
Types of interference
Retroactive interference
Proactive interference
Similarity increases interference, with the worst recall when two lists are highly similar
Interference studies in controlled settings may overexaggerate the effect and lack ecological validity
Echoic memory
Doesn't explain
Listening to music doesn't impair other acoustic tasks
No comprehensive
More complex
Interference as an explanation for forgetting
Interference
1. Presence of a memory prevents another memory being encoded or retrieved
2. Retroactive - old prevents new
3. Proactive - new prevents old or distortion
Baddeley - real world, similar results
Rugby players, worse recall when played more matches vs time between, not decay
Controlled setting
Ideal for interference, overexaggerates, lacks mundane realism, ↓ ecological validity
Tulving + Psotka - absence of cues, recall increased back to 70%, not lost permanently
Retrieval failure as an explanation for forgetting
Tolving specificity principle
We present at encoding, not present at retrieval
State dependent forgetting
Cater + Cassaday, antihistamines, change internal state, recall lists of words, same state = ↑ recall
Context dependent forgetting
Godden + Baddeley, scuba divers, recall lists of words, same state = 40% ↑ recall, lower in non matching
Baddeley - recognition, no difference
RWA - revision, use in real world, positive impact, cognitive interview methodology, lacks mundane realism, word lists, less drastic changes, over exaggerates, unfalsifiable
Nairne - circular argument, can't test directly, validity, only correlation, ↓ ecological validity
Leading questions as a factor affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Leading questions
Phrased in a particular way to suggest a certain answer
Yuille + Cutshall - too pessimistic, asked leading questions, still ↑ accuracy, ↑ influence in lab