Memory Flashcards
Coding, capacity and duration of memory - AO1
Coding - Baddeley - acoustic and semantic confusion - acoustic in STM and semantic in LTM. Word lists that were acoustically or semantically similar or dissimilar.
Capacity - Jacobs - digit span of 9, letter span of 7. Digit span technique - participants repeat back a series of digits - increase each time. Miller - 7plus/minus2 span with chunking.
Duration - Peterson and Peterson - about 18 seconds in STM - consonant syllables.
Bahrick yearbook study - potentially unlimited in LTM. Photo recognition study.
Coding, capacity and duration of memory - AO3
+ Coding - separate memory stores, supports multi-store. Important step in our understanding of memory.
- Artificial stimuli - words had no meaning to participants - when processing meaningful info, people may use semantic coding even for STM.
- Cowan thinks Miller overestimated STM - only 4 chunks. Lower end of Miller’s estimate is more appropriate.
+ Application - postcodes - chunking used to improve recall. - Duration - meaningless stimuli. No external validity. Could change by using meaningful info such as phone numbers.
+ Bahrick used meaningful stimuli - good external validity. Studies on LTM with meaningless pictures, recall went down. More ‘real’ estimate
The Multi-store model of memory (MSM) - AO1
Sensory register - all sorts of coding (modality-specific) - echoic, iconic (visual) - very brief duration (50ms) high capacity. Transfer to STM by attention.
STM - acoustic coding - limited duration and capacity. 18 seconds and 7+-2 digits. Transfer to LTM by maintenance rehearsal.
LTM - mainly semantic - unlimited duration and capacity. Created through maintenance rehearsal, retrieval from LTM via STM.
The Multi-store model of memory (MSM) - AO3
+ Research support from Baddeley and Jacobs. Acoustically similar and dissimilar words. Shows STM and LTM are separate stores.
C.P - studies use meaningless, artificial stimuli. May not be a valid model of how memory works in real life.
- More than one STM store - KF - different STMs for visual and auditory information. His STM for digits were poor when read to him, but better when he read to himself.
- Elaborative rehearsal more important than maintenance. Type of rehearsal more important than amount - elaborative is linking to existing knowledge. MSM doesn’t explain long-term storage.
Types of LTM - AO1
Episodic memory - events in our lives - time-stamped. Several elements interwoven - people, objects, behaviours. Requires conscious retrieval.
Semantic memory - general knowledge - not time-stamped. Less vulnerable to distortion and forgetting. Do not require conscious recall.
Procedural memory - memory for autonomic and skilled behaviours - unconscious recall, not time-stamped.
Types of LTM - AO3
+ Clinical evidence - Clive Wearing and HM had damaged episodic memory but semantic and procedural were intact. Wearing could still play piano.
C.P - case studies, don’t know their brains before, confounding variables.
- Conflicting neuroimaging results - some studies link semantic to left prefrontal cortex, and episodic on the right. Other research suggests left prefrontal cortex linked to episodic encoding and right episodic retrieval.
+ Real-world applications - old-age memory loss improved by targeting episodic memory. Intervention of episodic memory training.
The working-memory model (WMM) - AO1
Central executive - supervisory, allocates slave subsystems to tasks, limited processing capacity and doesn’t store information.
Phonological loop - auditory information - phonological store and articulatory process (rehearsal). Coding = acoustic, capacity = 2 secs of speech. Preserves order of information.
Visuo-spatial sketchpad - visual and spatial information - visual cache and inner scribe (records arrangement of objects). Coding = visual, capacity = 3 or 4 objects.
Episodic buffer - integrates data from slave systems and records the order of events - creates LTMs. Coding = flexible, capacity = 4 chunks.
The working-memory model (WMM) - AO3
+ Clinical evidence - KF had poor auditory memory but good visual memory. Damaged PL but VSS fine.
C.P - KF may have had other impairments that affected his WMM. Lack of control with case studies.
+ Explains dual-task performance - difficult to do 2 visual tasks, but one visual one auditory is fine. Demonstrates separate systems.
- Nature of central executive is not well specified. Needs to be more than ‘attention’. Some believe it is made of subcomponents.
- Lieberman points out that blind people have no visual ability but strong spatial ability - suggests that VSS should be split into 2 stores.
Explanations for forgetting: interference - AO1
Interference occurs when two pieces of information disrupt each other. Mainly occurs in long-term forgetting.
Types - proactive - past interfering with recent. Retroactive - recent interfering with past.
Effects of similarity - similar words created more interference. Participants learned a list of words, then a new list, then recalled old list. Disruption with synonyms was most effective.
Explanations for similarity - PI makes new information difficult to store. RI - old information overwritten.
Explanations for forgetting: interference - AO3
+ Real-world interference - rugby players study - more games - worse memory. Good external validity.
C.P - interference unusual in everyday situations. Retrieval failure more common.
- Interference can be overcome by cues - only temporary loss of memory - not predicted. Tulving recall got worse with additional lists, but recognition no difference.
+ Support from drug studies - taking a benzodiazepine after learning reduced interference and forgetting = retrograde facilitation.
Explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure - AO1
Encoding specificity principle - cue must be present at learning and recall to be effective. Link may be meaningful or meaningless. Cues used in mnemonic techniques.
Context-dependant forgetting - Baddeley - deep-sea divers study - recall better when environments matched.
State-dependant forgetting - antihistamine study - recall better when internal states are matched, despite sedative effect of drugs.
Explanations for forgetting: retrieval failure - AO3
+ Real-world application - cues are weak but worth paying attention to as strategy for improving recall. E.g forgetting why you entered a room - go back to previous room.
+ Wide range of research suggests this is the main reason for forgetting. Baddeley and Carter (antihistamine). Memory researchers like Eysenck and Keane agree.
C.P - environments have to be very very different. Two different rooms - negligible effect.
- Recall vs recognition - no context effects when memory assessed using recognition task in a replication of Baddeley deep-sea divers study.
Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information - AO1
Leading questions - speed estimates affected by verb choice - smashed, bumped - Loftus and Palmer. 40 compared to 30 mph.
Why do leading questions affect memory - response bias - no change to memory, just to how participant responds. Substitution - report of seeing broken glass - permanent change, memory altered.
Post-event discussion - co-witness discussion affects memories of event. Gabbert crime videos - pairs of participants watched video of the same crime, from different POVs. 71% participants reported parts of the video they picked up during discussion. Memory conformity.
Why does PED affect memory - memory contamination - mix of information. Memory conformity - responses given for social approval.
Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: misleading information - AO3
+ Real-world application - police interviews no longer use leading questions. Psychologists sometimes testify in court about the limits of EWT. Improves legal system.
C.P - film clips in labs less stressful than everyday life - EWT more reliable than assumed.
- Evidence against substitution - central details not much affected. Study played video clip for participants and were asked misleading questions - central details not distorted. Tunnel theory.
+ Hair colour study supports contamination. Muggers hair became a blend of light and dark brown due to discussion between participants who had seen different clips.
Factors affecting eyewitness testimony: anxiety - AO1
Anxiety has a negative effect - weapon focus study high-anxiety condition led to poorer recall. Waiting room - man came out with pen and ink or knife and blood. Were asked to pick out man from a photo. 49% compared to 33%.
Anxiety has a positive effect - Cutshall (real-world) shooting - high anxiety - better recall. Self report of anxiety. 88% accurate compared to 75%.
Contradictory findings explained by Yerkes-Dodson theory. Medium arousal produces best recall. Extremes are detrimental.
