memory Flashcards
capacity of LTM
unlimited
coding of LTM
semantically (Alan Baddeley)
duration of LTM
15 years - 90%
48 years - 70%
peterson + peterson trigrams
Barhicks year book
capacity of STM
5-9 items
coding of STM
acoustically
duration of STM
15-30 seconds
episodic memory (LTM)
recall events from our lives. complex with lots of elements
semantic memory (LTM)
knowledge and facts, the things you learn
procedural memory (LTM)
actions, skills and how we do things
the MSM (atkinson and shirrifin)
how information moves through 3 separate stores
stimulus from environment - sensory register
moves to STM - pay attention
STM can overflow and info lost by displacement
move to LMT - prolonged rehearsal
info can be lost through decay
evaluation of MSM +
case studies support existence of MSM - clive wearing
STM limited to 7 secs
evaluation of MSM -
lab - hard to apply to real life
more than on type of STM
working memory model
mostly based in the STM and was created by Baddeley and hitch in 1974
central executive WMM
control of slave systems
problem solving and decision making
limited capacity
monitors incoming data
phonological loop WMM
auditory information coding is acoustic learning of sound and language phonological store - speech articulatory control system - the words you hear inner ear/ voice limited capacity maintenance rehearsal ( 2 sec capacity )
episodic buffer WMM
added by Baddeley in 2000
integrates visual, spartial, and verbal info
records events that happen
capacity of 4 chunks
binds info into episodes that we can bring back from our LTM to produce new scenarios
visio spartial sketch pad WMM
stores visual info
e.g how many windows on ur house you would visualise it
the things we see around us
hippocampus
episodic and semantic memory
motor cortex
procedural memory
actions etc
evaluating types of LTM + CW
clive wearing - existence of LTM
difficulty in recalling events
however could do actions such as play piano
one area damaged - another intact must be on diff parts of brain
evaluating LTM +
evidence from brain scans there’s diff memories in diff parts of the brain
tulving(1994) asked ppts for diff memory tasks and scanned the brain
diff areas involved in recalling info
supports this
eyewitness testimony - yerkes dobson
U theory - performance will increase with stress to a certain point then will decrease
EWT
an account given by people on an event they have seen
weapon focus
when a crime involves a weapon it often attracts the eyewitness
anxiety associated with the weapon may affect recall
EWT - anxiety Johnson + Scott (negative affects on recall)
heated discussion with pen - 49% of ppts identified man
heated discussion with knife - 33% ppts identified man
(anxiety has a negative affect)
easily repeated
high internal validity
unethical - ppts deceived
EWT - anxiety Yuille and Cutshall (positive affect on recall)
13 ppts witnessed shooting and rated the stress at the time 88% accurate levels of high stress 75% accurate levels of low stress (positive affect) low reliability low internal validity unethical - traumatising experience
EWT - anxiety Christiansen + Hubinette (positive affect on recall)
questioned victims of a bank robbery
those threatened were most accurate in their recall compared to on lookers
continued to be true 15 months later
EWT - leading questions
loftus and palmer - “how fast did the cars hit” word hit changed “contracted, bumped, collided, smashed” highest with verb smashed sample used does not represent the pop low external validity - lab
EWT post event discussion
gabbert -
vids of crime from different perspectives
ppts discussed crime before giving the account
71% recalled aspects of the crime that they could not see from the perspective in their vid
demand characteristics - guessed aim of study
cognitive interview
fisher + guismans aim reports everything reinstate context reverse order change perspective
evaluation of cognitive interview
- time consuming/ expensive
+ report everything/ reinstate context is most useful - comparison is difficult due to diff techniques/ police forces
proactive interference
reduction in memory performance for new info because of old info
e.g friend has a new number
retroactive interference
when newer memories interfere with the retrieval of older memories
retrieval failure
forgetting information due to insufficient cues. e.g. place we were in
context cue dependent forgetting
external environmental cues
state dependant forgetting
internal cues
effects of similarity on interference - McGeoch + McDonald
p - ppts memorised list of words then given another list. G1- synonyms, G2- antonyms, 3- unrelated, 4-consonant syllables, 5- 3 digit number
f - performance depended on second list. G1 was worst and G5 was best. shows interference is worse when similar
(-) interference - artificial stimuli
usually word lists. not realistic to everyday. e.g. bdays, faces, names. AS makes interference more likely but does not explain everyday forgetting. therefore any findings from a lab we must be skeptical and may not be as valid as we think
(+) interference - real life studies BADDELEY
baddeley and hitch asked rug players to recall names of teams they had played that season. accurate recall did not depend on time but on the amount of games played inbetween. shows it can apply to some everyday life. not AS aswell.
(-) interference - generalising and real life app
ppts only usually get 20 min to learn words. this reduces real life app as this is not how we learn most info. so conclusions may not generalise to real life as this is not how we remember in LTM. meaning interference is exaggerated.
context dependant forgetting - Godden and Baddeley
p- cues were context where recall and learning took place. Deep sea divers learned word lists. G1- learn on land, recall on land, 2- learn on land, recall underwater, 3- learn underwater recall on land, 4- learn underwater recall underwater.
f- when environmental cues did not match recall was only 40% - lower than matching. this is due to lack of cues. img it’s not accessible without cue.
(-) retrieval failure - context dependant
Baddeley said contexts have to be very diff before an effect is seen. e.g. land,water. learning in one room and recalling in another is i liek y to result in forgetting as environment is not diff enough. so does not apply to real life explanation of forgetting
(-) retrieval failure - diff types of mem tests
G and B replicated underwater study w a recognition test instead of recall. performance was the same in all conditions whether cues matched or not. shows the absence of cues only effects certain memory tasks limiting its explanation.
(+) retrieval failure - useful for everyday life
everyday forgetfulness such as going into a room for something and forgetting what you went for. in order to help this it is worth making the effort to revisit the environment u first had the thought in. this applies to important things such as cog interview where ppl report everything they seen by using context reinstatement.
