Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology P1 > Memory > Flashcards

Memory Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

LTM - capacity, duration and coding

A

Capacity: potentially infinite
Duration: lifetime (bahrick)
Coding: semantic (baddeley)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Types of LTM

A

Episodic - memories of events (explicit)
Semantic - facts and knowledge (explicit)
Procedural - how to do things (automatic)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Evidence for types of LTM

A

Patient HM - only had procedural LTM
Brain scanning - shows different areas of the brain working at different times
- hippocampus for episodic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Evidence against types of LTM

A

Over reliance on brain damaged patients
May be 4 stores, priming, programmed thoughts through advertising

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

STM - capacity, duration and coding

A

Capacity: 5-9 items (miller)
Duration: 18-30 seconds (Peterson and Peterson)
Coding: acoustic (baddeley)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

describe sensory memory

A

capacity - 12-16 items
duration - around 0.5s
coding - 5 senses

echoic - retaining info from sound
iconic - retaining info from visual

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Describe MSM

A

Sensory input
Sensory memory
Attention moves it to STM
(Rehearsal loop)
Rehearsal moves it to LTM
LTM - STM by retrieval

Lost by forgetting
Spontaneous decay from sensory memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Evidence for MSM

A

Clive Wearing - had LTM but couldn’t make new STMs
support for separate stores

Patient HM - had LTM but no STM
- BUT had procedural LTM but not explicit, shows separate stores but there are more LTM stores

Recency effect - those at end easier to remember as have not been displaced from STM

Primacy effect - those at beginning rehearsed and put into LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Limitations of MSM

A

Patient KF - had visual but not verbal STM shows evidence for more stores

Reductionist, oversimplified

Rehearsal not always needed to enter LTM
Rehearsal doesn’t always make information stay in LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Describe WMM

A

Central executive
- receives all the information
- sends it to right store to be processed
(vague and untestable)

Phonological loop - stores auditory information based on tone, volume, pitch etc
- inner ear - speech perception
- inner voice - process speech production

Visuo-spatial sketch pad - visual and spatial info
- visual ceche- mental image
- inner scribe - spatial awareness

Episodic buffer - integrates information from other stores, sends to LTM
- added later

LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Strengths of WMM

A

Acknowledges memory is active, unlike MSM

Patient KF - had visual but no verbal STM, evidence there’s separate stores of STM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Limitations of WMM

A

Patient HM - had procedural but no explicit LTM, evidence for more LTM stores

Reductionist, oversimplifies human memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Explanations for forgetting for STM

A

Limited capacity and duration
Decay and displacement (pushed out)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Explanations for forgetting from LTM

A

Interference theory
Retrieval failure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Proactive interference (IT)

A

Old info and memories effect recall of new info

Supported by Underwood

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Retroactive interference (IT)

A

New memories or info effects recall of old memories

supported by Muller

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Support for Interference Theory

A

Underwood - earlier lists easier to remember than later ones
- supports proactive interference

Muller - harder to recall lists after distraction task
- supports retroactive interference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Weaknesses of Interference Theory

A

Research is artificial so can’t be generalise to real how it

Doesn’t explain why or how it happens - incomplete explanation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Outline retrieval failure

A

Forgetting as we lack the cues needed for recall
Context-dependent
State-dependent
Encoding specificity principle

Supported by Goodwin and Baddeley (context) and Goodwin (state)

20
Q

Outline Interference Theory

A

Forgetting as information is confused
Proactive interference
Retroactive interference

Supported by Underwood

21
Q

Context dependant forgetting (RF)

A

Where we are can act as a cue
Learning and recall in same place can aim memory

22
Q

State dependant forgetting

A

How we feel can act as a cue
Feeling the same at learning and recall can aid memory

23
Q

Encoding specificity principle

A

Information present and learning should be present at recall to aim memory

24
Q

Support for Retrieval Failure

A

Goodwin and Baddeley (context)
- learning words lists on land and underwater, recall better when in same place

Goodwin (state)
- learning words drunk and sober, recall better when in same state

25
Q

Weaknesses of Retrieval Failure

A

Artificial research
Can’t tell which cue is related to which memory

26
Q

Factors effecting EWT

A

Misleading information:
Leading questions (Loftus and Palmer)
Post event discussion (Gabbert)

Anxiety (Loftus)
- weapon focus effect

27
Q

Loftus and Palmer

A

Shows leading question negatively effect EWT

  • showed participants a video of a car crash
  • asked them to guess the speed
  • changed the verb in the question
    • smashed = 41mph
    • hit = 32mph

+ changed police interviews
- demand characteristics
- artificial, not generalisable
- Yuille and Cutshall

28
Q

Yuille and Cutshall (LQs)

A

Used leading questions on real life shootings
real witnesses to real crime not effected by LQs
not effect on EWT

+ high ecological validity
- lack of control, other variables

29
Q

Gabbert

A

Shows post event discussion negatively effects EWT

  • participants shown 1 of 2 videos of same event from different perspectives
  • allowed them to discuss what they saw
    • 71% recalled info they couldn’t have seen (girl stealing from man)

+ lab, controlled
- lacks ecological validity

30
Q

Loftus

A

Anxiety negatively effects EWT
- also supports weapon focus effect

  • shown either a violent crime and a knife or a argument and a pen
    • 49% identified him with a pen
    • 33% identified him with a knife
      When anxiety is high they only focus on central details eg weapon

+ lab, controlled
- lack ecological validity

However Yuielle and Cutshall
and Christianson and Hubinette

31
Q

Yuielle and Cutshall (anxiety)

A

Contradicts weapon focus effect
Shows anxiety improves EWT in real life shooting

those reporting higher stress = more accurate recall

+ high ecological validity
- low control

32
Q

Christianson and Hubinette

A

real life bank robbery witnesses more accurate in recall when closer
- despite higher anxiety

+ high ecological validity
- low control

33
Q

what is the weapon focus effect?

A

when anxiety is high,
focus on central details eg weapon
miss other information eg criminal and environment

34
Q

Cognitive interview

A

Recall everything

Change perspective - from another witnesses view, think harder

Change order - eg backwards, disrupts schema

Context reinstatement - think about how it felt, can act as a cue for recall

  • Kohnken
  • Geiselman
  • time consuming and requires specially trained officiers
35
Q

Kohnken

A

Compared cognitive and standard interviews

81% increase in correct info

However a 61% increase in incorrect info

36
Q

Miller

A

serial recall test
capacity of STM
5-9 items

37
Q

Peterson and Peterson

A

recall trigram after 3 and 18 seconds
after 3 - 90%
after 18 - 2%

duration of STM

38
Q

Bahrick

A

asked people to recall people from their yearbook
after 48 years - 70% on photo recall

duration of LTM
(potentially lifetime)

39
Q

Baddeley

A

STMs coded acoustically
LTM coded semantically asked to remember lists, similar sounding words harder to remember straight away as more easily comfused

coding of STM and LTM

40
Q

Underwood

A

earlier lists easier to remember than later ones
- supports proactive interference

41
Q

Patient HM

A

support MSM and evidence for types of LTM
against MSM and WMM

hippocampus removed
had LTM but no STM
had procedural LTM but not explicit

42
Q

Patient KF

A

supports WMM
against MSM

motorcycle accident
had visual but no verbal STM

43
Q

Clive Wearing

A

had LTM but no STM

supports MSM

44
Q

Muller

A

harder to recall nonsense syllables when having done a distraction task before recall

supports retroactive interference

45
Q

Geiselman

A

Tested cognitive and standard interviews on students
Found cognitive increases amount of information recalled
But error rates were similar

46
Q

How does sensory register encode information from environment?

A

Acoustically via echoic memory
Visually via iconic memory

Psychology P1 (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions