Memory Flashcards
3 parts of MSM
sensory register , STM, LTM
sensory register (CCD)
Code - dependent on sense
Capacity - unlimited
Duration - milliseconds
STM (CCD)
Code - acoustic
Capacity - 7
Duration - 18-30s
LTM (CCD)
Code - semantic
Capacity - unlimited
Duration - Unlimited
2 categories of LTM
explicit - consciously recalled memories
implicit - memories that are part of sub conscious
3 types of LTM
procedural- memory on how to do things
Semantic - memory on general knowledge but not consciously recalled
episodic - memory on events in your life
4 parts of WMM
central executive
VSS
phonological loop
episodic buffer
Positives and negatives of MSM
Positives- good understanding on STM , supported by HM as separate stores
Negatives - too linear and simple
VSS ( inner eye )
temporary stores visual and spatial information , used for navigation
( can hold 3-4 items )
Central executive
allocates tasks to correct sub systems, and deals with problem solving
Phonological Loop
divided into two stores
phonological store ( inner ear) - processes speech
limited capacity of up to 2s
articulatory store ( inner voice) - and rehearses verbal info
episodic buffer
backup store which communicates with LTM and STM memory
Strengths and Weaknesses WMM
S - more dynamic view of STM
applicable to real life tasks
W- limited explanation for how Episodic buffer and Central executive work
WMM support - KF
brain damage in motorcycle accident, had difficulties with auditory info not visual
supports WMM as shows PL and VSS are separate stores
Baddeley - Coding study Proc
P’s split into 4 groups
acoustically simialr , acoustically dissimilar , semantically similar, semantically dissimilar.
Asked to recall either straight away or after 20 min
Baddeley - Coding study Results
immediately recalled - difficult to recall acoustic similar
after 20 min - difficult to recall sematic similar
Jacobs and Miller Capacity of STM study
Ps asked to recall sequence of letters and numbers in order
easier to recall digits than letters ( 9 D’s , 6 L’s)
Capacity of STM is 7 +-2
Bahrick et al - duration of LTM proc
tested 15/30/48 year after graduation
tests - free recall, photo recognition/name recognition
Bahrick et al - duration of LTM Results ( 15 years )
free recall 60%
name recognition - 90%
Bahrick et al - duration of LTM Results (30 years )
free recall - 30%
Bahrick et al - duration of LTM Results ( 48 years)
name recognition - 80%
photo recognition - 40%
Sperling - sensory register capacity
shown a grid of letters for 0.5s and asked to recall whole grid or row
grid - 4/12 recalled
row - 3/4 recalled
Shows we can only process small amount of Sensory info
Peterson and Peterson - Duration of STM
recall trigrams after ( 3,6,9,12,15,18s) intervals - had to count backwards during these intervals
3s- 80%
6s- 50%
18s- 10%
STM has limited duration
HM - case study
severe epilepsy resulting in removal of hippocampus
procedural memory was fine but episodic and semantic damaged
STM and LTM weren’t connected
show distinction of STM and LTM
STM forgetting is caused by
lack of availability
LTM forgetting is caused by
interference
CDF
retrival failure
2 Types of interference
proactive - old info hinders new
retroactive - new info hinders old
Underwood and Postman - Retroactive
2 groups - G1 given 1 group of word , G2 given 2 lists of words
asked to recall original list
G1 recalled better as not affected by retroactive interference
Underwood and Postman- proactive
given a list of nonsense syllables and tested 24hrs later
bad recall as proactive interference as in previous study
Cue dependent forgetting
associated cues aren’t present at retrival
Context dependent forgetting
cues are in the environment
State dependent forgetting
cues are internal
Godden and Baddely - CDF divers
material learnt on land or underwater was better recalled in same context
40% more forgotten when contexts didn’t match up
Overton - SDF - drunk
material learnt either drunk or sober , recalled better when recalled in same state it was learnt in
Anxiety and EWT
low anxiety - under aroused bad recall
high anxiety - over aroused attention narrowed
Loftus - weapon focus effect
2 groups hear argument in next door room
G1- man appears with greasy pen
G2- man appears with bloody knife
G1- pen - 49% accuracy
G2- knife - 33% accuracy
Leading question
a question asked in a specific way that encourages a particular answer
Loftus and Palmer - Car crash
shown a video of car crash
asked speed of car but using smashed bumped contacted collided
smashed - 41mph
contacted - 32 mph
Yuille and Cutshall - anxiety and EWT
witnesses to shooting were interviewed and asked to rate stress
more stressed - 85% accuracy recall
less stressed - 75% accuracy recall
Gabber et al - PED
G1 - video of girl stealing
G2- in pairs , 1 watched video of stealing , 1 watched video but didn’t see stealing
Cowitness group - 71% said they saw her steal when they didn’t
4 techniques of cognitive interview
recall everything
change perspective
change narrative order
mental reinstatement
CI - a03 - research support
240 ps watched a video
120 interviewed standardly
120 interviewed with CI
35% better recall with CI
A03- Miller - contrasting research
Cowan reviewed Millers study and found the capacity of STM was about 4 chunks suggesting Miller has over estimated it
A03 - Bahrick et al - validity
high external validity due to real life meaningful stimuli however external variables not controlled
A03 - MSM - research support - Baddeley
Baddeley showed that acoustically simialr words get mixed up in STM and semantically similar words get mixed up in LTM , shows the stores are encoded differently
A03 - MSM - KF research against
shows there must be more than one type of STM as when he was read digits he couldn’t recall them but when he read them himself he could
A03 - MSM - rehearsal
Watkins found that there are two types of rehearsal maintenance and elaborative and elabrotative is needed for LTM storage
HM and CW - support for types of LTM
both had severely impaired episodic memory but good procedural memory. CW could still play the piano showing one LTM type can be damaged and others can be fine
A03 - PET scan support for different types of LTM
episodic and semantic memories activated pre frontal cortex during rehearsal, semantic in the left side and episodic in the right
A03 - types of LTM - are there 2
squire disagrees there are 3 types of LTM but instead thinks there are two , episodic and sematic are declarative and procedual is non declarative
A03 - WMM - Baddeley
found that Ps had more difficulty doing two verbal tasks at once then when they did a visual and verbal task , showing that two visual tasks compete for same system
A03 - WMM Brain scan support - Braver
Braver asked ps to do tasks that involved the CE whilst having a brain scan , they found greater activity in PFC as the task became harder showing the CE works harder when demands increase
Baddeley and Hitch - inteference rugby players
asked rugby players to recall the names of the teams they played that season , they found that recall was not effected by length of time since their last game but instead how many teams they had played since
A03 -Context depending forgetting - context effects
Baddeley argues that context effects have to be very contrasting for context dependent forgetting to occur so the idea that learning and recalling in different rooms causes CDF isn’t true
A03 -Context depending forgetting - Recall Vs recognition
Godden and Baddeley replicated their divers study but using recognition of words rather than recall and found results same in all 4 conditions showing CDF only occurs when tested in a certain way
A03 - Encoding specifity principle
ESP is based upon assumption and can’t be tested
A03 - cue dependent forgetting - real life applications
it is a basic principle of CI which helps EW recall more information
A03 - Leading questions - real life application
the effect of leading questions on memory shows the importance of police interviews not using them as they can cause a false EWT so this can improve the legal system
A03 - loftus and palmer
due to the car crash being a video there is no effect of emotions which have been proved to effect EWT meaning it lacks validity
A03 - EWT - own age bias
people beleive that older people are worse at giving EWT however age groups tend to be better at identifying people their own age
A03 - EWT - effect of age ( Rhodes)
found that 18-25 and 35-45 year olds had better recall in EWT then 55-78 yo
A03 - weapon focus effect ( Pickel)
replicated johnson and scotts study in a hair salon using scissors and a chicken , they found recall to be better with the chicken even though this is less threatening , showing weapon focus effect may be a result of surprise rather than anxiety
A03 - Johnson and scott - ethical
there are ethical issues in creating anxiety in participants known as psychological harm which doesn’t challenge the findings but does question the need for the research
Yerkes and Dobsons inverted U theory of arousal
low anxiety creates poor recall but too high anxiety also does so it is shown as an inverted U
A03 - inverted U theory
anxiety is difficult to define and measure as it has many elements , the only type of anxiety the inverted U theory only refers to physiological arosual
A03 - CI- drawbacks
way more time consuming than a standard police interview and requires special training in order to be done properly
A03 - CI - components ( Milne and Bull)
they found that the report everything and context reinstatement produced better recall than other components which shows some elements are more valuable than others
A03 - CI - Konken mete analysis
did a 50 study meta analysis and found that CI consistently provided more correct information than a standard interview
A03 - CI - Konken study - contradicts CI
using CI did increase correct info recalled by 81% but also saw an increase of 61% of incorrect information recalled
