Memory Flashcards
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Baddeley’s (1966) research on coding
PROCEDURE
- ptps asked to recall word lists in correct order
- group 1 (acoustically similar): words sounded similar
- group 2 (acoustically dissimilar): word sounded different
- group 3 (semantically similar): words with similar meanings
- group 4 (semantically dissimilar): words with different meanings
FINDINGS
- when recalled immediately (recalling from STM), tended to do worse with acoustically similar words
- when recalling after a time interval of 20 mins (recalling from LTM) tended to do worse with semantically similar words
CONCLUSION
- information is coded acoustically in STM and semantically in LTM
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Jacob’s (1887) research on capacity
- measured digit span
PROCEDURE
- researcher reads out 4 digits
- ptp recalls them in the correct order
- if correct, researcher reads out 5 digits, etc, until ptp gets it wrong
- indicates ptp’s digit span
FINDINGS
- mean digit span for all ptps was 9.3 ITEMS
- mean span for letters was 7.3
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Miller’s (1956) research on capacity (not usual format of APFC)
- span of memory and chunking
- made observations of everyday practice, e.g. 7 notes on musical scale, 7 deadly sins, 7 days of the week
- Miller thought that the span (i.e. capacity) of STM is about 7±2
- also noted that people can recall 5 words just as easily as 5 letters: chunking (grouping)
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Peterson and Peterson’s (1959) research on duration
DURATION OF STM
PROCEDURE
- 24 students in 8 trials
- student given a consonant syllable (e.g. YCG) and a 3-digit number to remember
- student counted backwards from that number to prevent any maintenance rehearsal of the consonant syllable (which would increase the duration of STM)
- on each trial they were told to stop after varying periods of time: 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 seconds (retention interval)
FINDINGS
- after 3 seconds, average recall was 80%
- after 18 seconds average recall was 3%
CONCLUSIONS
- STM duration may be 18 secs without maintenance rehearsal
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Outline Bahrick et al’s (1975) research on duration
DURATION OF LTM
PROCEDURE
- 392 American ptps
- aged 17-74
- high school yearbooks obtained from ptps directly or through schools
- recall tested in various ways including: 1) photo-recognition using 50 photos, some from ptps’ yearbook, 2) free recall test, where ptps recalled all the names of their graduating class
FINDINGS
Photo recognition test:
- after 15 years, 90% accuracy
- after 48 years, recall declined to 70%
Free recall test:
- less accurate overall
- after 15 years, 60% accuracy
- after 48 years, 30%
CONCLUSION
- duration of LTM may last up to a lifetime for some material
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Evaluate (one strength, one limitation) research on coding
STRENGTH: identified clear difference between two memory stores
- idea that STM uses mostly acoustic coding and LTM uses mostly semantic coding has stood the test of time
~~> important step in our understanding of memory system, led to MSM
LIMITATION: artificial stimuli
- word lists have no personal meaning to ptps
- findings may tell us nothing about coding of meaningful kinds of memory tasks in everyday life
~~> findings have limited application
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Evaluate (one strength, one limitation) research on capacity
STRENGTH: Jacobs’ study is valid
- has been replicated
- findings have been confirmed by other (better controlled) studies
- e.g. Bopp and Verhaeghen 2005
~~> Jacobs’ study is a valid test of capacity/digit span of STM
LIMITATION: Miller may have overestimated capacity of STM
- Cowan (2001) reviewed other research and concluded capacity of STM is only about 4(±1) chunks
~~> lower end of Miller’s research (five items) is more appropriate than 7 items
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Evaluate (one strength, one limitation) research on duration
LIMITATION: meaningless stimuli in STM study
- recalling consonant syllables doesn’t reflect most everyday memory activities where what we’re trying to remember is meaningful
~~> Peterson and Peterson’s study lacked external validity
STRENGTH: LTM study has high external validity
- researchers investigated meaningful memories (ppl’s names and faces)
- Shepard (1967): when LTM study conducted with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall rates were lower
~~> Bahrick’s findings reflect a more ‘real’ estimate of the duration of LTM
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Complete the following sentences
The coding of STM is…
The coding of LTM is…
The capacity of STM is…
The capacity of LTM is…
The duration of STM is…
The duration of LTM is…
The coding of STM is… ACOUSTIC
The coding of LTM is… SEMANTIC
The capacity of STM is… 7±2 CHUNKS
The capacity of LTM is… POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED
The duration of STM is… 18 SECONDS
The duration of LTM is… UP TO A LIFETIME
CODING, CAPACITY AND DURATION OF MEMORY
Match the researcher to the research
Baddeley et al (1966)
Jacobs (1887)
Miller (1956)
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Bahrick et al (1975)
Bopp and Verhaeghen (2005)
Cowan (2001)
Shepard (1967)
____________________________________
- reviewed other research and concluded that the capacity of STM is only about 4(±1) chunks
- measured the capacity of STM by measuring digit span, found mean digit span to be 9.3 items and mean letter span to be 7.3 letters
- measured duration of LTM by doing recall tests using high school yearbooks, found the duration of LTM to be up to a lifetime
- measured duration of STM by making ptps remember consonant syllables while counting backwards, found duration of STM to be 18 seconds without maintenance rehearsal
- conducted LTM study with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall was lower than they were for meaningful stimuli
- confirmed Jacobs’ findings with their better, more controlled replica of his study
- researched coding of STM and LTM using word lists which differed in acoustic similarity then semantic similarity, found coding of STM to be mainly acoustic and LTM to be mainly semantic
- observed 7 as a magical number (7 days of the week, 7 notes on musical scale, 7 deadly sins), said that the span/capacity of STM is 7±2, noticed the idea of chunking
Baddeley et al (1966): researched coding of STM and LTM using word lists which differed in acoustic similarity then semantic similarity, found coding of STM to be mainly acoustic and LTM to be mainly semantic
Jacobs (1887): measured the capacity of STM by measuring digit span, found mean digit span to be 9.3 items and mean letter span to be 7.3 letters
Miller (1956): observed 7 as a magical number (7 days of the week, 7 notes on musical scale, 7 deadly sins), said that the span/capacity of STM is 7±2, noticed the idea of chunking
Peterson and Peterson (1959): measured duration of STM by making ptps remember consonant syllables while counting backwards, found duration of STM to be 18 seconds without maintenance rehearsal
Bahrick et al (1975): measured duration of LTM by doing recall tests using high school yearbooks, found the duration of LTM to be up to a lifetime
Bopp and Verhaegen (2005): confirmed Jacobs’ findings with their better, more controlled replica of his study
Cowan (2001): reviewed other research and concluded that the capacity of STM is only about 4(±1) chunks
Shepard (1967): conducted LTM study with meaningless pictures to be remembered, recall was lower than they were for meaningful stimuli
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline what is meant by the Sensory Register (SR)
- all environmental stimuli pass through SR
- comprised of stores for each of the 5 senses (e.g. iconic, echoic)
- duration is less than 1/2 second
- capacity is very high (over 100 million cells storing data in one eye)
- info only passes through if we pay attention
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline what is meant by the Short-term Memory (STM)
- limited-capacity memory store
- coding is mainly acoustic
- capacity is 7±2 chunks
- duration is 18 seconds
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Outline what is meant by the Long-term Memory (LTM)
- permanent memory store
- coding is mainly semantic
- capacity is potentially unlimited
- duration is up to a lifetime
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Evaluate the MSM
STRENGTH: research support
- Baddeley (1966): we mix up words that sound similar when using our STM
- but we mix up words with similar meanings when we use our LTM
- further support from other research on duration and capacity of STM and LTM
~~> clearly there are separate stores for STM and LTM, as suggested by MSM
—————> COUNTERPOINT: artificial stimuli
- stimuli used in studies have no personal meaning to ptps
~~> MSM may not be a valid model for how memory works in our everyday lives when we have to remember meaningful info
LIMITATION: more than one STM store
- Shallice and Warrington (1970): studied patient KF (amnesia)
- KF’s STM for digits was poor when they were read TO him, but much better when HE read the digits to himself
~~> MSM is wrong in claiming that there is just one STM store processing different types of info
LIMITATION: elaborative rehearsal over prolonged rehearsal
- Craik and Watkins (1973): type of rehearsal is more important than the amount
- elaborative rehearsal is needed for transfer to LTM (linking new info to existing knowledge/thinking about what it means) rather than prolonged rehearsal (rehearsal for a long time)
- therefore info can be transferred to LTM without prolonged rehearsal
~~> MSM doesn’t fully explain how LTM storage is achieved
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Name the 4 components of Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM
Central Executive (CE)
Phonological Loop (PL)
Visuo-spatial Sketchpad (VSS)
Episodic Buffer (EB)
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Central Executive in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974)WMM
Central Executive
- ‘supervisory role’
- monitoring incoming data
- focuses and divides our limited attention
- allocates subsystems to tasks
- limited capacity, doesn’t store info
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Phonological Loop in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM
PHONOLOGICAL LOOP
- deals with AUDITORY info
- coding = acoustic
- divided into Phonological Store (stores words we hear) and Articulatory Process (allows for maintenance rehearsal - repeating sounds in a loop to remember them)
- Articulatory Process has a capacity of 2 secs
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Visuo-spatial Sketchpad in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM
VISUO-SPATIAL SKETCHPAD
- deals with VISUAL (and/or spatial) info
- (e.g. “How many windows are in your house?” you’d visualise it)
- limited capacity, 3 or 4 objects
- divided into Visual Cache (stores visual data) and Inner Scribe (records arrangements of objects in the visual field)
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Outline the role of the Episodic Buffer in Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM
EPISODIC BUFFER
- temporary store of info
- integrates info from other stores and maintains time sequencing
- capacity of 4 chunks
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Evaluate Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) WMM
STRENGTH: clinical evidence of patient KF
- Shallice and Warrington (1970): KF had poor STM ability for auditory info but normal ability for visual info
- e.g. immediate recall of digits was better when he read them himself, rather than having them head to him
- KF’s PL was damaged but his VSS was intact
~~> strongly supports existence of separate visual and acoustic stores
———————> COUNTERPOINT: possibility of other factors
- unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairments (other than PL) which might have affected his performance on memory tasks, because his injury was caused by a motorcycle accident
- the trauma involved may have affected his cognitive performance rather than the brain injury
~~> challenges evidence from clinical studies of ppl with brain injuries
STRENGTH: dual-task performance studies
- Baddeley et al (1975): when ptps carried out a visual and a verbal task at the same time (dual task), their performance was similar to when they carried out the tasks separately
- but when both tasks were visual (or both verbal), performance on both declined substantially
- this is because both visual tasks compete for the same subsystem (VSS)
- but there is no competition when performing the visual and verbal tasks together
~~> there must be a separate subsystem for processing visual data (VSS) and verbal data (PL)
LIMITATION: lack of clarity over central executive
- Baddeley (2003) “The CE is the most important but the least understood component of working memory”
- needs to be more clearly specified than being just simply ‘attention’
- e.g. some psychologists believe the CE may consist of separate subcomponents
~~> CE is an unsatisfactory component and this challenges the integrity of the WMM
THE WORKING MEMORY MODEL (WMM)
Match the researcher to the research
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
Shallice and Warrington (1970)
Baddeley et al (1975)
Baddeley (2003)
_____________________________________________________________________
- said “The CE is the most important but least understood component of the working memory”
- studied patient KF, whose PL was damaged and so struggled with auditory processing but could process visual data normally
- their ptps were able to carry out a verbal and visual task simultaneously but failed to carry out two tasks which competed for the same subsystem (i.e. two visual or two verbal)
- devised the Working Memory Model, which describes how STM is organised and how it functions
Baddeley and Hitch (1974): devised the Working Memory Model, which describes how STM is organised and how it functions
Shalice and Warrington (1970): studied patient KF, whose PL was damaged and so struggled with auditory processing but could process visual data normally
Baddeley et al (1975): their ptps were able to carry out a verbal and visual task simultaneously but failed to carry out two tasks which competed for the same subsystem (i.e. two visual or two verbal)
Baddely (2003): said “The CE is the most important but least understood component of the working memory”
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
What 3 types of LTM did Tulving (1985) propose?
Episodic Memory
Semantic Memory
Procedural Memory
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline what Tulving (1985) meant by Episodic Memory
EPISODIC MEMORY
- our ability to recall events (episodes) from our life (like a diary/record of daily personal experiences)
- memories are time-stamped (we remember when they happened and how they relate to other events in time)
- memory of a single episode will include several elements (e.g. people, places, objects and behaviours) which are interwoven to produce a single memory
- must make a conscious effort to recall episodic memories; it’s quick but you’re aware you’re searching for that memory
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline what Tulving (1985) meant by Semantic Memory
SEMANTIC MEMORY
- our shared knowledge of the world (like a cross between an encyclopedia and a dictionary)
- e.g. how to apply to uni, meaning of words, taste of an orange, understanding of concepts like love
- memories are not time-stamped
- semantic knowledge is less personal and more about the facts we all share
- immense collection of material, constantly being added to
- less vulnerable to distortion and forgetting than episodic
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Outline what Tulving (1985) meant by Procedural Memory
PROCEDURAL MEMORY
- memory for actions, skills: how we do things
- can be recalled without conscious effort but requires practise
- difficult to explain to someone else
- memories of learned skills, unlikely to forget but must be practised to recall/be good at them
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Evaluate Tulving’s (1985) LTM stores
STRENGTH: clinical evidence (HM + Clive Wearing)
- episodic memory of both men was severely impaired due to brain damage
- but semantic memories were relatively unaffected (still understood meaning of words
- e.g. HM could not recall stroking a dog 30 mins earlier but he didn’t need to have the concept of ‘dog’ explained to him
- procedural memories were also intact
- e.g. still knew how to walk and speak, and Clive Wearing could still read music and play piano
~~> evidence supports Tulvig’s view that there are different memory stores in LTM, one store can be damaged while the others are unaffected
—————————> COUNTERPOINT: lack of control variables in clinical studies
- brain injuries experienced by patients were usually unexpected, so researchers had no way of controlling what happened to the ptp before or during the injury
- the researcher has no knowledge of an individual’s memory before the damage => difficult to judge how much worse it is afterwards
~~>lack of control limits what clinical studies can tell us about different types of LTM
LIMITATION: conflicting neuroimaging evidence (locating LTM stores)
- Buckner and Petersen (1996): semantic memory located in left prefrontal cortex, episodic on the right
- however, other research links left prefrontal cortex with encoding episodic memories and the right with episodic retrieval
~~> challenges any neurophysiological evidence to support types of memory as there is poor agreement on where each type might be located
STRENGTH: real-world application
- memory loss experienced in old age, but research has shown this seems to be specific to episodic memory
- Belleville et al (2006) devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people
- the trained ptps performed better on a test of episodic memory after training than a control group
~~> shows that distinguishing types of LTM enables specific treatments to be developed
TYPES OF LONG-TERM MEMORY
Match the researcher to the research
Tulving (1985)
Buckner and Petersen (1996)
Belleville (2006)
_______________________________________________________________________
- devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people; the trained ptps performed better on a test of episodic memory after training than a control group
- felt the MSM was too simplistic and inflexible so proposed 3 stores of LTM
- said that semantic memory located in left prefrontal cortex, episodic on the right, which contrasts other research which links left prefrontal cortex with encoding episodic memories and the right with episodic retrieval
Tulving (1985): felt the MSM was too simplistic and inflexible so proposed 3 stores of LTM
Buckner and Petersen (1996): said that semantic memory located in left prefrontal cortex, episodic on the right, which contrasts other research which links left prefrontal cortex with encoding episodic memories and the right with episodic retrieval
Belleville (2006): devised an intervention to improve episodic memories in older people; the trained ptps performed better on a test of episodic memory after training than a control group
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
What is Interference?
- interference is forgetting because one memory blocks another, causing one or both to be forgotten
- proposed mainly as an explanation in LTM
- once a memory reaches the LTM it is more-or-less permanent; any forgetting of LTMs is likely because we can’t get ACCESS to them even though they’re AVAILABLE
- interference between memories makes it harder for us to locate them, which is experienced as forgetting
EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING: INTERFERENCE
Outline the types of interference, with an example for each
PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE (PI)
- old memory interferes with new memory
- “pro” meaning working forwards; old memories move forwards to interfere with the recall of new memories
- e.g. teacher has learned so many names in the past that she struggles to remember new names
RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE (RI)
- new memories interfere with old ones
- “retro” meaning backwards; new memories move backwards to interfere with the recall of new memories
- e.g. teacher has learned so many new names that she struggles to remember old ones
MULTI-STORE MODEL OF MEMORY (MSM)
Match the researcher to the research
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
Baddeley (1966)
Shallice and Warrington (1970)
Craik and Watkins (1973)
_______________________________________________________________
- found that elaborative rehearsal is needed for long-term storage rather than prolonged rehearsal
- their research on coding provided support for the MSM by showing that the STM and LTM were separate stores
- studied amnesia patient KF, whose STM was poor when digits were read TO him but better when HE read the digits to himself
- created the MSM, which describes how info flows through the memory system, suggested to be comprised of the SR, STM and LTM
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968): created the MSM, which describes how info flows through the memory system, suggested to be comprised of the SR, STM and LTM
Baddeley (1966): their research on coding provided support for the MSM by showing that the STM and LTM were separate stores
Shallice and Warrington (1970): studied amnesia patient KF, whose STM was poor when digits were read TO him but better when HE read the digits to himself
Craik and Watkins (1973): found that elaborative rehearsal is needed for long-term storage rather than prolonged rehearsal