COGNITIVE - STUDIES Flashcards
CLASSIC STUDY: Baddeley (1966b)
AIM: to see whether acoustic or semantic similarity had an effect on LTM
IV: whether the words were acoustically/semantically similar/dissimilar
DV: amount of words correctly recalled at a given time
SAMPLE: 20 ppts, both men and women from a PRU at Cambridge, volunteer sample
CONTROL OF EVs: ppts not warned about the retest or surprise recall task
PROCEDURE:
->1) 4 trials of the same list were presented to ppts by a slide projector (1 word shown every 3 seconds)
->2) ppts had 1 min to write down the correct list of words in the right order after a distraction task (6 lots of 8 digit sequences, given 1 per second, with 8 seconds to write them down)
->3) 15 mins of self-paced digit copying after each trial
->4) surprise recall task
RESULTS:
-> acoustically similar list had no significant differences to the acoustically dissimilar list, but the semantically dissimilar list had better recall (85%) than the semantically similar list (55%)
CONCLUSIONS:
->LTM encodes differently to STM (LTM = semantic, STM = acoustic)
->LTM jumbles up semantically similar words
G-> (weakness) the study had low generalisability
–>the ppts were a volunteer sample from the PRU at Cambridge University
–>they already have more psych knowledge than the rest of the general population so are likely too react differently. They were also a volunteer sample, meaning they were highly motivated to do the task
R-> (strength) high reliability due to standardised procedure
–>4 lists of 10 words presented on a slide projector (1 word every 3 secs), 1 min to recall the words, 15 min digit copying task after 4 trials, surprise recall task
–>therefore, the study can be replicated to test the results for reliability and consistency
A-> (application) findings can be applied IRL
–>85% recall for semantically dissimilar list vs 55% recall for semantically similar list, concluding that we encode LTM semantically
–>these findings have enabled teachers to provide students with the best learning strategies to improve memory
V-> (weakness) low external validity as it was a lab expt
–>the study was highly controlled: recall 4 lists of 10 words that are acoustically/semantically similar/dissimilar under 1 min
–>therefore has low mundane realism due to unrealistic task
E-> (partial weakness, mainly strength) lack of informed consent as ppts weren’t told of the surprise recall task
–>however, this did not cause the ppts any psychological harm and all ppts were debriefed afterwards
–>therefore, follows ethical guidelines as no ppts were harmed
CONTEMPORARY STUDY: sebastian and hernandez-gil (2012)
AIM: to study the developmental digit span of the phonological loop in ppts aged 5-17 and to observe what happens to digit span with age
IV: different ages of ppts
DV: the amount of digits correctly recalled
SAMPLE: volunteer sample of 570 ppts aged 5-17 from the Spanish population
CONTROL OF EVs: no ppts had repeated a school year or had any learning difficulties
PROCEDURE:
->1) ppts were split into age groups (5, 6-8, 9-12, 12-15, 16-17)
->2) ppts were tested individually in their break times
->3) sequences of digits were read (1 per second)
->4) each time the ppt got the sequence correct, another digit was added to increase the digit span, and the ppt tried again
->5) they started 3 sequences with 3 digits that were recalled correctly
RESULTS:
->digit span increases with age (pre-school children have very low digit spans)
CONCLUSIONS:
->digit span increases with age, but slows at age 11
->differences between word length/language has an impact (eg. Spanish words are longer than English words, so subvocal rehearsal takes longer, and subvocal rehearsal doesn’t start until age 7)
G-> (weakness) low generalisability as the ethnocentric sample shows cultural issues in digit lifespan
–>Spanish speaker’s digit span is developed at 17 whereas an English speaker’s is developed at 15
–>this is due to language differences - the longer the word, the longer the subvocal rehearsal as it takes longer to pronounce the word, therefore, the results aren’t generalisable to other cultures and languages as only Spanish speakers were ppts
R-> (strength) high reliability due to large sample size
–>570 ppts took part in this study
–>large sample sizes limit the chance of anomalies impacting the results, therefore increasing the reliability of the data analysed
A-> (strength) findings can be used to explain real life cognitive skills and abilities
–>digit span can be applied to understand specific cognitive abilities, eg. people with longer digit spans are said to be better readers and more intelligent, whereas people with lower digit spans are associated with learning disabilities
–>therefore, if we screen digit span early we can put interventions into place to help improve learning for those who find it harder
V-> (strength) high mundane realise
–>recalling sequences of digits is a realistic task, eg. remembering someone’s phone number
–>therefore, the task is representative of everyday life, increasing the validity
E-> (strength) highly ethical
–>parental consent was gathered, no ethical guidelines were broken
–>therefore, the study was highly ethical and can be repeated
CASE STUDIES: HM and CW
HM:
->HM had epileptic seizures from the age of 7 as a result of a bike accident, but later in life his seizures became debilitating due to the medication he was on - in an attempt to improve his epilepsy, he had his hippocampus sucked out
->after this procedure, his epilepsy got slightly better, but he had significant memory loss and could no longer form LTMs; however, his procedural memory stayed in tact as he was still able to learn new motor skills (the star task) but was largely unable to form new episodic memories (his IQ and personality remained the same)
->concluding, different parts of the brain have different functions (eg. he lost his memory but not his IQ or personality, hippocampus does NOT affect procedural memory)
CW:
->CW has viral encephalitis, which causes him to have very little memory of his life before/after his illness: he has “moment to moment consciousness” as his memory has a duration of roughly 20-30 seconds (but he remembers his wife and how to play piano)
->his hippocampus (responsible for memory and learning) is almost fully wasted away, and his temporal lobe (responsible for both creating and preserving LTMs) is also damaged
G-> (weakness) case studies have low generalisability
–>eg. HM was unique in his impairments as he had trouble defining objects and giving descriptions, and also had language impairments - all of which were unique responses to him
–>therefore, this case study is only representative of one person who had different responses to everyone else, therefore case studies are not generalisable to the wider population
R-> (weakness) low reliability as there’s no standardised procedure
–>eg. HM’s situation was completely unique to him: he developed epilepsy after a bike accident he had when he was young, and he had his hippocampus sucked out in an attempt to cure the epilepsy.
–>HM’s situation cannot be replicated, meaning we therefore cannot test the findings for consistency
A-> (strength) the findings from case studies such as CW and HM can be applied IRL
–>we understand that the hippocampus, when damaged, can cause anterograde and retrograde amnesia, meaning that new information can’t be stored in the STM and causes loss of memory from before the damage
–>therefore, we can further understand the causes of memory loss
V-> (strength) the nature of case studies makes them highly valid
–>as case studies involve looking in depth at a real person, the results are as real and valid as you can get
–>although the results aren’t generalisable they’re 100% accurate to the individual being studied
E-> (weakness) case studies could be considered highly unethical
–>eg. both CW and HM had severe memory impairment, meaning neither of them were in a stable position to give fully informed consent due to their general lack of awareness of what was happening around them
