Memory Flashcards
What are the types of LTM
Episodic- Personal events (time, people, objects, behaviours, places)
Semantic- Knowledge of the world (words and concepts meaning)
Procedural- Knowledge of how to do things (learned skills e.g. driving)
Short term memory
Limited capacity memory store, 5 to 9 items capacity (jacobs- letter digit span 7.3 and numbers is 9.3), 18 second duration (Peterson&Peterson- after 3 secs trigrams recall was 80% but fell to 3% after 18 secs), mainly acoustic coding.
LTM
Permanent memory store, unlimited capacity, can store memories for up to a lifetime (Bahrick-ptts cld remember classmates names 50 yrs later), mainly semantic coding.
Coding
Format in which information is stored in various memory stores.
Capacity
The amount of information that can be held in a memory store.
Research on coding (Baddeley)
What are retrieval cues?
Stimuli that assist in memory retrieval. Help access memory stored in LTM.
WMM evaluation
+Support from case studies: KFs STM damaged after motorcycle crash. Verbal impairment but visual was largely unaffected.
-Counterpoint: KF may have had other cog impairments affecting his performance e.g. trauma
+RWA in dementia diagnosis.
**+Baddeley’s research on dual task coding.
**
-Lack of understanding of central executive: Baddeley said ‘Central executive is the most important but least understood component of the WMM’.
Baddeley dual task study
When ptts are asked to perform 2 visual tasks (or verbal) at the same time there performance is much lower than if they are asked to perform one visual and one verbal task at the same time.
WMM Baddeley and Hitch
It’s an explanation of how STM is organised and it’s functions.
It consists of the central executive, visuospatial sketchpad (Visual info), episodic buffer and phonological loop (Auditory info).
Role of central executive
Coordinates activities of the 3 ‘slave systems’ (subsystems) allocating resources to them.
Has a very limited capacity.
Role of phonological loop
- Responsible for auditory info.
- Phonological store (inner ear)- stores words you hear.
- Articulatory control system (inner speech)- maintainance rehearsal
Capacity worth 2 seconds of what you can say, coding is acoustic
Role of Visuospatial sketchpad
- Responsible for visual info.
- Visual cache- stores visual data
- inner scribe- records objects arrangment in visual field
Capacityof 3/4 objects, coding is visual
Role of episodic buffer
Integrates data from slave systems and records the order of events.
Linked to LTM
Capacity is 4 chunks/items, coding is flexible
WMM Atkinson and Shiffrin
Model describes how info flows through memory system.
Environment-Sensory memory, (attention)-STM, (maintainance rehearsal/ rehearsal)-LTM (retreival when recalling info).
MSM evaluation
+Research support showing STM and LTM are different from Baddeley: We mix up words that sound similar in our STM but mix up words with similar meanings (synonyms) in our LTM.
-MSM is not valid everyday life representation of memory: Studies that support MSM use digits & letters (Jacobs), words (Baddeley) and constant syllables (Peterson&Peterson)
-Reductionist: elaborative rehearsal: MSM overestimates rehearsal as it states prolonged rehearsal is needed to transfer info into LTM. Craik & Watkins found **type of rehearsal is more important that the amount **.
-Oversimplifies unitary stores: Case study of KF show there is more than one STM store as his STM was poor for digits when read to him but was better when he read them himself.
Forgetting- interference
- One peice of info disrupts another leading to memory not being able to be accessed.
- Proactive- Old affects new
- Retroactive- New affects old
- Interference most likely if words are similar
- Interference least likely if theres time-gap between learning and recall
Studies supporting interference theory for forgetting
- Baddeley & Hitch: rugby players remembered less if they played more games over a szn but could always remember last game. Supports retroactive interference. Increases external validity of theory.
Interference theory for forgetting evaluation
+Real-world interference: (Baddeley & Hitch rugby players)
-However doesn’t occur often as memories have to be similar to interfere in everyday situations.
+Support from drug studies: Taking Diazepam after learning reduces interference and forgetting=retrograde facilitation
Retreival failiure as an explanation for forgetting
- Occurs when we don’t have necessary cues to access info.
- ESP: Tulving- cues are most effective if present at coding and retreival.
- 2 types: context and state dependent forgetting
What are 2 types of forgetting in retreival failure?
-
State dependent forgetting: Internal factor of forgetting (e.g. being drunk, feeling upset).
Carter & Cassady gave antihistamine drug to certain ptts and word lists to recall. Recall better when internal states match (e.g. learn on drug and recall on drug or learn not on drug and recall when not on drug. -
Context dependent forgetting: External factor of forgetting (e.g. weather, place).
Baddeley & Godden deep sea divers **recall word lists better when external contexts match.
**
Retreival failure explanation for forgetting evaluation
+RWA: Although cues are weak Baddeley still thinks they’re worth paying attention to. When you have trouble remembering info aim to recall the env you learnt it in.
-Recall vs recognition: There were no context effects when memory was assessed using recognition tests so only applies to when memory needs to be recalled.
+Research support: Godden & Baddeley (deep sea divers), Carter & Cassady (drugs), Eysenk & Keane argue retreival failure main reason for forgetting from LTM.
-Counterpoint: Baddeley argues no forgetting occurs unless completely diff contexts such as deep sea divers study.
What are 3 types of LTM?
Episodic- Ability to recall personal events (e.g. gig you went to last week). They are conscious to recall and are time-stamped.
Semantic- Facts and knowledge of the world and concepts (e.g. what an orange tastes like). They’re conscious to recall but aren’t time-stamped.
Procedural- Knowledge of how to do things (e.g. drive a car, ride a bike). They’re unconscious to recall and aren’t time stamped.
Evaluation points of LTM
+RWA: Old-age memory loss improved by intervention to target episodic memory (Belleville et al)- trained ptts performed better.
+Clinical evidence: Clive Wearing and HM had damaged episodic memories but semantic and procedural were genrally fine.
-Clinical studies lack control of variables: No insight into memory before injury, trauma may affect HM (motorbike accident).
-Conflicting neuroimaging evidence: Buckner & Petersen- semantic memory left prefrontal cortex and episodic right prefrontal cortex.
However Tulving found the opposite.
Weaon focus
Anxiety having a -ve effect on recall
- Anxiety creates physiological arousal in the body which prevents us paying attention to important cues so recall is worse.
- Johnson & Scott high anxiety knife and blood condition led to poorer recall (33% picked correct man from 50 photos). Compared to pen with grease on hands recall which led to higher recall (49% picked correct man from 50 photos).
- Represents tunnel theory of memory- weapon focus.
Anxiety has +ve effect on recall
- Witnessing stressful event leads to anxiety being formed. Fight or fligh is triggered increasing alertness. May improve memory of event as we become more aware of situations cues.
- Yuille & Cutshall shooting in gun shop (ptts interviewed 4/5 months after and asked to rank how stressed they were at the time).
- Found higher anxiety ptts witnessed better recall (88%) than lower anxiety ptts (75%).
- Suggests anxiety may even enhance recall
Explaining contradictory findings:
Deffenbacher reviewed 21 studies, and said there is an optimal level for anxiety for maximum accuracy (Yerkes & Dodson inverted-U theory). Any anxiety more or less than this reduces recall.
Effect of anxiety on EWT evaluation:
-Unusualness not anxiety: limitation of Johnson & Scott’s study- Ptts may have focused on weapon due to surprise at what they saw rather than anxiety. Pickel (98) found poorer recall if ckicken or handgun were in hairdressers (unusualness).
+Support for -ve effects: Valentine & Mesout (09)- London Dungeons- anxiety decreased accurate recall of an individual.
+Support for +ve effects: Christianson & Hubinette (93)- recall of bank robbery 75% accurate across all witnesses and found the direct victims (most anxious) to have better recall.
-Counterpoint: post-event discussion may have occured due to interviews being 4-15 months after event. (lack of control of CVs)
Loftus+Palmer
Leading Qs affecting EWT
(Misleading info)
Wording of a Q may lead you to give a certain answer
Loftus & Palmer:
* 45 ptts watched video of car crash and had to estimate the speed.
* If critical verb was contacted speed was 31.8mph compared to if it was smashed where speed was 40.5mph. Leading Q- biased eye witness response.
* Went on to find critical verb altered memory as those who had the verb smashed were more likely to report seeing glass. (substitution explanation)
Gabbert et al
Post-event discussion affecting EWT
(misleading info)
Co-witness discussion affects memory of event
Gabbert et al- 71% of ppl mistakenly recalled event aspects they hadn’t seen in the video but picked up from discussion.
Why does it occur?:
Memory contamination- Mix info from others
Memory conformity- Responses given for social approval
Affects of misleading info on EWT evaluation
+RWA: Loftus (75)Leading Qs can have such a great effect in distorting memory that police need to be careful w how they phrase their Qs.
-Counterpoint: Ptts less motivated to be accurate as film clips in labs are less stressful than everyday life. Fostor- Ptts responses have no consequences.
-Evidence against substitution: Sutherland & Hayne showed ptts a video clip and found central details were not much affected by misleading info. Central features resistant to misleading info.
-Evidence challenging memory conformity: Skagerberg & Wright found post-event info on hair colour blended (‘medium brown’ if one person said dark and one said light) Support contamination.
COPE
What are the 4 main cognitive interview techniques?
Reinstate context- Picture scene and how they felt as this avoids context dependent forgetting.
Reverse order- Recall from end and work backwards as this disrupts expectations.
Change perspective- Put yourself in shoes of someone else present as this disrupts schema.
Report everything- Even unimportant details as they may trigger other more important details.
Enhanced cognitive interview (ECI)
Fisher (87)- Additional CI elements to focus on social dynamics of the interaction. When interviewer shld establish eye contact. Reduce anxiety, ask open-ended Qs, minimise distractions, get eye-witness to speak slowly.
Cognitive interview evaluation
+Support for effectivness: Kohnken et al- produces 41% more accurate recall than standard police interview.
-Counterpoint: Police shld treat CI/ECI w caution as it mroduces more inaccurate recall than standard interview.
-Some elements may be more useful: All elements alone are more effective than SI but report everything and reinstate context produced best recall when used together. (Milne & Bull)
-Time-consuming: Needs more time and training. Rapport needs to be established and ptts need to relax. (Kebbell & Wagstaff)
Not realistic for police.
