Memory Flashcards
define short term memory
The limited capacity memory story
- coding is mainly acousting
- capacity is 7 +-2 items
- duration is about 18 seconds
Define long term memory
The permanent memory store
- coding is mainly semantic
- unlimited capacity
- unlimited duration
Define coding
The format in which information is stored in the various memory stores
Define capacity
The amount of information that can be held in a memory store
Define duration
The length of time information can be held in memory
What research has been done into coding
Baddeley
- gave lists of words to four different groups of pps
- 1: acoustically similar
- 2: acoustically dissimilar
- 3: semantically similar
- 4: semantically dissimilar
- pps were shown the original words and asked to recall them in the correct order
- STM: worse at recalling acoustically similar words
- LTM: worse at recalling semantically similar words
What does semantic mean
Have similar meaning
What does acoustic mean
Similar sounding
What are examples of capacity
- digit span
- span of memory and chunking
What is the digit span research into capacity
Jacobs
- researcher reads out 4 digits
- pps recalls them out loud in the correct order
- the researcher adds 1 more digit until the pps can no longer recall them
- this was the individuals digit span
- the mean span of digits was 9.3
- mean span of letters was 7.3
What is the research into span of memory and chunking
Miller
- noticed things come in groups of 7s
- 7 days, 7 deadly sins, 7 notes
- Miller thought that the capacity of STM is about 7 +-2 items
- people can really 5 words as easily as 5 letters
- this is done by chunking
What is chunking
Grouping sets of digits or letters into units or chunking
What was the research done into duration
- duration of STM
- duration of LTM
What research was done into the duration of STM
Peterson + Peterson
- tester 24 in 8 trials
- in each trial the student was given a constant syllable
- also given a 3 digit number
- student then counted backwards from a number until told to stop
- counting backwards prevented mental rehearsal
- told to stop after varying periods of time
- recall worsened with more time between hearing and recall
- 3 seconds = 80% recall
- 18 seconds = 3% recall
What research was done into duration of LTM
- Bahrick
- studied 392 American participants between 17-74
- high school year books were obtained
- recall was tested in various ways
- 1: photo recognition test consisting of 50 photos
- 2: free recall
- within 15 years = 90% accuracy
- after 48 years = 70% accuracy
- free recall was less accurate
- 15 years = 60% accuracy
- 48 years = 30%
Evaluation points for research on coding
- separate memory stores
- artificial stimuli
PEEL for separate memory stores = coding
- strength
- Baddeley’s study identifies a clear difference between two memory stores
- later research showed that there are some exception to his findings
- STM being acoustically coded and LTM being semantically coded has remained constant
- led to the multi-store model
PEEL for artificial stimuli - research on coding
- limitation
- used artificial stimuli rather than meaningful material
- word lists had no personal meaning
- findings might not tell us much about coding in different kinds of memory tasks
- meaningful information may use semantic coding
- limited application
Evaluation for research on capacity
- a valid study
- not so many chunks
PEEL for a valid study - research on capacity
- strength
- study has been replicated
- old psychology research often lacked adequate controls
- some pps digit spans might have been underestimated
- distracted during testing
- Jacobs findings have been confirmed y others
- valid test of digit span in STM
PEEL for not so many chunks - research on capacity
- limitation
- Miller’s research may have overestimated STM capacity
- Cowan reviewed other research
- concluded that STM capacity is only about 4 +-1 chunks
- the lower end of Miller’s estimate is more appropriate
Evaluation points for research on duration
- meaningless stimuli in STM study
- high external validity
PEEL for meaningless stimuli in STM study - research on duration
- limitation
- stimulus material was artificial for Peterson + Peterson
- not completely irrelevant
- we do sometimes try to remember fairly meaningless material (phone numbers)
- recalling constant syllables doesn’t reflect most everyday memory activities
- lacked external validity
PEEL for high external validity - research on duration
- strength
- Bahrick’s study has high external validity
- the researchers investigated meaningful meteorites
- when the study was conducted with meaningless pictures recall rates were lower
- findings reflect a more real estimate of he duration of STM
What is the multi-store model
A representation of how memory worlds in terms of three stores
- sensory register
- short term memory
- long term memory
Also describes how information is transferred from one store to another, what makes some memories last and some disappear
What is the sensory register
- all stimuli from the environment pass through the sensory register
- comprises several registers: one from each sense
- coding for each is modality specific
- duration is very brief (<0.5 seconds)
- very high capacity
- information passes to the next component if it is payed attention to
What is modality specific
Depends on the sense
How is vidual information coded
Iconic memory
How is acoustic information coded
Echoic memory
What happens in the STM in the MSM
- information in codes mainly acoustically
- duration is about 18 seconds unless rehearsed
- limited capacity before forgetting occurs
- if information is rehearsed enough is passes to LTM
What is maintenance rehearsal
When we repeat material to ourselves over and over
What happens in the LTM of MSM
- potentially permanent memory store
- after information has been rehearsed for a prolonged time
- coded mostly semantically
- duration may be up to a lifetime
- MSM information must be transferred back to the STM via retrieval
Evaluation points for MSM
- research support
-COUNTERPOINT - more than one STM store
- elaborative rehearsal
PEEL for research support
- strength
- studies showing that STM and LTM are different
- Baddeley found that we tend to mix up word with similar meaning when using our STM
- mix up words with similar meaning when using our LTM
- further support from the studies of capacity and duration
- clearly show that STM and LTM are separate
COUNTERPOINT
- we form memories related to all sorts of useful things
- many studies that support MSM used none of these
- instead they used digits, letters and words
- MSM may not be a valid model of how memory works
PEEL for more than one STM store - MSM
- limitation
- evidence for more than one STM store
- Shallice + Warrington = studied KF
- KF had amnesia
- STM for digits was poor when read out loud to him
- recall was much better when reading the digits to himself
- there could even be another short term store for non verbal sounds
- MSM is wrong in claiming that there is just one STM store processing different information
PEEL for elaborative rehearsal - MSM
- limitation
- prolonged rehearsal is not needed for transfer to LTM
- the amount of rehearsal is what matters
- the more you rehearse the more likely it is to transfer to LTM
- called prolonged rehearsal
- the type of rehearsal is more important than the amount of
- elaborative rehearsal is needed for long term storage
- linking information with existing knowledge
- information can be transferred to LTM without prolonged rehearsal
- doesn’t fully explain how LTS is achieved
What is elaborative rehearsal
When you link information with existing knowledge
What are the different types of long term memory
- episodic
- semantic
- temporal
Who researched the types of long term memory
Tulving
What is an episodic memory
- ability to recall events from our lives
- when the event occurred, people, objects, places, behaviours
- complex memories
- time stamped
- single episodes include several elements
- require a conscious effort to recall them
What are semantic memories
- knowledge of the world
- facts, what words and concepts mean
- not time stamped
- less vulnerable to distortion and forgetting than episodic memories
- have to be recalled deliberately
What are procedural memories
- knowledge of how to do things
- actions and skills
- can recall without making an conscious or deliberate effort
Evaluation points for types of long term memory
- clinical evidence
-COUNTERPOINT - conflicting neuroimaging evidence
- real world application
PEEL for clinical evidence - types of LTM
- strength
- famous case study: HM + Clive Wearing
- episodic memories impaired due to brain damage
- semantic memories unaffected
- meaning of words
- procedural memories still intact
- could walk and speak
- Clive was still able to play music
- different memory stores in LTM
- one store can be damaged but the others unaffected
COUNTERPOINT
- clinical studies are not perfect
- lack control of variables
- brain injuries experienced were unexpected
- no way to control what happened to the pps before or during the injury
- difficult to judge how much worse it was after
- lack of control limits what can be said about different types of LTM
What happened to HM
Operation to remove his hippocampus
What happened to Clive Wearing
Viral infection
- amnesia
- damaged hippocampus
PEEL for conflicting neuroimaging evidence - types of LTM
- limitation
- linking types of LTM to areas of the brain
- Buckner + Peterson: reviewed evidence regarding the location of semantic and episodic memory
- semantic memory is located on the left side of the prefrontal cortex
- episodic memory on the right side of the prefrontal cortex
- other researchers link the left prefrontal cortex with encoding episodic memories
- right side of prefrontal cortex with retrieval of episodic memories
- challenges neurophysiological evidence
- poor agreement with where they different types are located
PEEL for real world application - types of LTM
- strength
- psychologists can help people with memory problems
- as we age we experience memory loss
- specific to episodic memories
- Belleville: intervention to improve episodic memory in older people
- trained pps performed better on a test of episodic memory after training g
- distinguishes between types of LTM enable specific treatment to be developed
Who created the working memory model
Baddeley + Hitch
What is the WMM
Representation of STM
- STM is a dynamic processor of different types of information
- contain 3 subunits controlled by the central central executive
What are the different components of the WMM
- central executive
- phonological loop
- Visio-spatial sketch pad
- episodic buffer
What is the central executive
- coordinated the activities of the three subunits in memory
- allocates processing resources to those activities
What is the capacity and coding of the CE
Coding = doesn’t store information
Capacity = very limited
What is the phonological loop
- processes information in terms of sound
- writing and spoken material
- divided into phonological store and articulatory process
- information is preserved in the order it arrives
What is the phonological store
Stores words you hear
What is the articulatory process
Allows maintenance rehearsal
What is the coding and capacity like in the phonological loop
Coding = repetition
Capacity = 2 seconds
What is the visuo-spatial sketch pad
- processes visual adn spatial information
- mental space called our inner eye
- divided into the visual cache and inner scribe
What is the visual cache
Stores visual data
What is the inner scribe
Records the arrangement of objects in the visual field
What is the coding and capacity like in the visuo spatial sketch pad
Coding =
Capacity = limited, 3-4 objects
What is the episodic buffer
- brings together material from the other subunits
- into a single memory rather than separate strands
- provides a bridge between working memory and long term memory
- added later on
Evaluation points for the WMM
- clinical evidence
-COUNTERPOINT - dual task performance
- nature of the central executive
PEEL for clinical evidence
- strength
- support from Shallice and Warrington
- case study of KF
- poor STM ability for auditory information
- process visual information normally
- immediate recall of letters and digits were better when he read them than when read to him
- visual > acoustic
- phonological loop was damaged
- visuo spatial sketch pad was intact
- supports existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores
COUNTERPOINT
- dont know if KF had other cognitive impairments
- may have affected his performance of memory tasks
- injury caused by motorbike accident
- trauma may have affected his cognitive performance
- challenges evidence
PEEL for dual task performance - WMM
- strength
- task supports the separate existence of the visuo-spatial sketch pad
- Baddeley: pps carried out a visual and verbal task at the same time
- performance on each was similar to then carried out separately
- when both visual/verbal performance declined
- both visual tasks competing for same subsystem
- seperate system that processes visual input
PEEL for nature of the central executive - WMM
- limitation
- lack of clarity of the nature of the CE
- most important and least understood - Baddeley
- needs to be more clearly specified
- some think it may consist separate sub components
- CE is an unsatisfactory component
- challenges the integrity of the WMM
What are the two explanations of forgetting
- interference
- retrieval failure
What is interference
- forgetting becuase one memory blocks another
- causes one or both memories being distorted or forgotten
What are the different types of interference
- proactive interference
- retroactive interference
What is proactive interference
- older memories disrupt the recall of newer memories
- degree of forgetting is greater when the memories are similar
What is retroactive interference
- occurs when newer memories disrupt the recall of older memories
- degree of forgetting is greater when the memories are similar
What research was done of the effects of similarity in forgetting
McGeoch + McDonald
Effect of similarity in forgetting procedure
- studied retroactive interference
- changing amount of similarity between two sets of material
- learn lists of 10 words until got them all correct
- 6 groups
1) synonyms
2) antonyms
3) words unrelated to the original ones
4) consonant syllables
5) three digit numbers
6) no new list (control group)
Findings and conclusion on research on effects of similarity in forgetting
- synonyms produced worst recall
- interference is strongest when the meaning are similar
- recall improved down the list
Explanation of the effects of similarity in forgetting
- previous information makes new similar information more difficult to store
- new information overwrites previous similar memories because of the similarities
Evaluation points for interference explaining forgetting
- real world interference
- COUNTERPOINT
- interference and cues
- support from drug studies
PEEL for real world interference - forgetting
- strength
- effects everyday situations
- Baddeley + Hitch: rugby players
- asked to name teams played
- played for same time interval
- number of games played varied
- missing games or injury
- more games played = poorer recall
- increases validity of theory
COUNTERPOINT
- causing forgetting in everyday life is rare
- conditions necessary occur rarely
- unlike lab studies
- memories must be similar
- doesn’t happen often
- forgetting may be better explained by another theory
PEEL for interference and cues - forgetting
- limitation
- temporary
- can be overcome using cues
- Tulving: gave pps lists of words organised by categories
- recall 70% for the first list
- recall worsened with additional lists
- at the end of the procedure pps given cued recall test
- told names of categories
- recall rose back to 70%
- interference causes temporary loss of accessibility to material
PEEL for support from drug studies - forgetting + interference
- strength
- evidence for retrograde facilitation
- Coenen: gave pps a list of words
- asked them to recall the list later on
- when list was learnt under influence of drug recall was poor after a week
- when list was learned before drug was taken recall was better than placebo
- drug improved recall
- Wixted: drugs prevent new information reaching part of brain to be processed
- reducing interference, reduces forgetting
What is retrieval failure
- form of forgetting
- occurs when we don’t have the necessary cues to access memory
- memory is available but not accessible
- unless a suitable cue is provided
What is a cue
- trigger of information
- allows us to access a memeory
- may be meaningless or indirectly linked
- may be external (environmental) or internal (mood, drunkenness)
Examples of non-meaningful cues
- context dependent forgetting
- state dependent forgetting
What is the encoding specificity principle
A cue that is (1) present at encoding or (2) present at retrieval
- the cues available at encoding and retrieval are different
What is context dependent forgetting
Recall depends on external cues
- weather
- place
What is state dependent forgetting
Recall depends on internal cues
- feeling upset
- being drunk
Procedure of Godden + Baddeley’s study - context dependent
- studies deep-sea divers
- see if training on land helped or hindered their work underwater
- divers learnt a list of words either underwater or on land
- 4 conditions
1) learn and recall on land
2) learn and recall underwater
3) learn on land, recall underwater
4) learn underwater, recall on land
Finding and conclusion of Godden + Baddeley’s study - context dependent
- accuracy of recall was 40% lower with non-matching conditions
Procedure for Carter + Cassaday’s study - state dependent
- gave antihistamine drugs to pps
- contained mild sedatives
- internal psychological state different from teh normal state
- had to learn lists of words and passages and then recall information
- 4 conditions
1) learn and recall with drug
2) learn and recall without drug
3) learn with drug, recall without drug
4) learn without drug, recall with drug
Findings for Carter + Cassaday’s study - state dependant
- more forgetting when cues are different at learning and recall
Evaluation points for retrieval failure explaining forgetting
- real world application
- research support
-COUNTERPOINT - recall versus recognition
PEEL for real world application - retrieval failure
- strength
- retrieval cues help overcome some forgetting
- still worth paying attention to cues
- when forgetting something
- better to recall the environment it was first learnt in
- strategies to use in the real world to improve recall
PEEL for research support - retrieval failure
- strength
- impressive range of research support
- both studies are just two examples of
- show a lack of relevant cues at recall lead to forgetting
- Keane: memeory researcher
- retrieval failure is the main reason for forgetting from LTM
- retrieval failure occurs in real world situations as well as labs
COUNTERPOINT
- Baddeley: context effects aren’t very strong
- contexts have to be very different before an effect is seen
- hard to find an environment as different as land and underwater
- learning in one room and recalling in another
- unlikely to result in much forgetting
- retrieval failure due to contextual cues may not explain much everyday forgetting
PEEL for recall versus recognition - retrieval failure
- limitation
- context effects may depend on the type of memory being tested
- repeated underwater experiment
- recognition test instead of recall
- had to say if recognised word being said to them
- performance same for all conditions when recognition tested
- no context effects
- retrieval failure is a limited explanation
- only applied when recalling information, not recognition
