memory

Question 1

capacity

Answer 1

this is a measure of how much can be held in memory. it is represented in terms of bits of information, such as number of digits

Question 2

duration

Answer 2

a measure of how long a memory lasts before it is not longer available

Question 2

coding

Answer 2

the way information is changed so that it can be stored in memory. information enters the brain via the sense it is then stored in various forms, such as visual codes, acoustic codes or semantic codes

Question 3

long term memory

Answer 3

your memory for event that have happened in the past. this lasts anywhere from 2 minutes to 100 years. LTM has potentially unlimited duration and capacity and tends to be coded semantically

Question 4

short term memory

Answer 4

your memory for immediate events. STMs are measured in seconds and minutes rather than hours and days, i.e. a short duration. they disappear unless they ae rehearsed. STM also has a limited capacity of about four items or chunks and tends to be coded acoustically. this type of memory is sometimes referred to as working memory

Question 5

multi-store model

Answer 5

an explanation of memory based on three separate memory stores, and how information is transferred between these stores

Question 6

sensory register

Answer 6

this is the information at the senses. information is retained for a very brief period by the sensory registers. we are only able to hold accurate images of sensory information momentarily, less than half a second, the capacity of sensory memory is very large, such as all the cells on the retina of the eye. they method of coding depends on the sense organ involved

Question 7

central executive

Answer 7

monitors and coordinates all other mental functions in working memory

Question 8

episodic buffer

Answer 8

receives input from many sources, temporarily stores this information, and then integrates it in order to construct a mental episode of what is being experienced

Question 9

phonological loop

Answer 9

codes speech sounds in working memory, typically involving maintenance rehearsal (repeating the words over and over again). this is why this component of working memory is referred to as a loop

Question 10

visa-spatial sketchpad

Answer 10

codes visual information in terms of separate objects as well as the arrangement of these objects in ones visual field

Question 11

working memory model

Answer 11

an explanation of the memory used when working on a task. each store is qualitatively different

Question 12

episodic memory

Answer 12

personal memories of events, such as what you did yesterday or a teacher you liked. this kind of memory includes contextual details plus emotional tone

Question 13

procedural memory

Answer 13

memory of how to do things, for example riding a bicycle or learning how to read. such memories are automatic as the result of repeated practice

Question 14

semantic memory

Answer 14

shared memories for facts and knowledge. these memories may be concrete, such as knowing that ice is made of water, or abstract, such as mathematical knowledge

Question 16

interference

Answer 16

an explanation for forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another. this is most likely to occur when the two memories have some similarity

Question 17

proactive interference

Answer 17

past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something

Question 18

retroactive interference

Answer 18

current attempts to learn something interfere with past learning

Question 19

cues

Answer 19

are things that serve as a reminder. they may meaningfully link to the material to be remembered or may not be meaningfully linked such as environmental cues or cues related to your mental state

Question 20

retrieval failure

Answer 20

occurs due to the absence of cues. an explanation for forgetting based on the idea that the issue relates to being able to retrieve a memory that is there but not accessible. retrieval depends on using cues

Question 21

eyewitness testimony

Answer 21

the evidence provided in court by a person who witnesses a crime with a view to identifying the perpetrator of the crime

Question 22

leading question

Answer 22

a questions that, either by its form or content, suggests to the witness what answer is desired or leads him or her to the desired answer

Question 23

misleading information

Answer 23

supplying information that may lead a witness memory for a crime to be altered

Question 24

post-event discussion

Answer 24

a conversation between co-witnesses or an interviewer and an eyewitness after a crime has taken place which may contaminate a witness memory for the event

Question 25

capacity

Answer 25

jacobs- digit span 9.3 for digits, 7.3 for letters
miller- people remember about 7 items and 7 chunks

Question 26

capacity
evaluation

Answer 26

Cowan- 4 chunks probably the limit. same for visual information (Vogel et al)
simon- larger chunks means fewer recalled
Jacobs - 19-year-olds have longer digit span than 8-year-olds

Question 27

duration

Answer 27

Peterson and Peterson - used consonant syllables prevented verbal rehearsal. Stm lasted 18 seconds
Bahrick et al- after 48 years participants were 70% accurate in face recognition of classmates and 30% for names

Question 28

duration evaluation

Answer 28

consonant syllables not meaningful but some memory activities do involve such stimuli
Reitman - auditory tones to avoid displacement, led to longer duration of STM

Question 29

coding

Answer 29

Baddeley- difficulty remembering acoustically similar words in STM but not in LTM, reverse for semantically similar words.

Question 30

coding
evaluation

Answer 30

STM not always acoustic - Brandimote et al (can be visual), Wickens et al (can be semantic)
LTM not always semantic - frost (can be visual), Nelson and Rothbart (can be acoustic)
in Baddeleys study LTM was tested by waiting 20 mins not really LTM

Question 31

the multi-store model of memory (MSM)

Answer 31

sensory register- large capacity, very short duration (milliseconds)
attention transfers information from sensory register to STM
STM- limited capacity (5 items/chunks) so information decays, limited duration (a few minutes) unless rehearsed.
maintenance rehearsal eventually creates a LTM
LTM- potentially unlimited capacity and duration, forgetting may be due to a lack of accessibility
retrieval from LTM goes through STM

Question 32

multi store model
evaluation

Answer 32

support from Jacobs, Miller, Peterson and Peterson, Bahrick, Baddeley and also brain scans show STM- prefrontal cortex (Beardsley) LTM- hippocampus (Squire et al)
case studies- HM, loss of hippocampus- no new LTMs (Scoville and Milner)
too simple- STM and LTM subdivided, emgm components of working memory and LTM subtypes
more than maintenance rehearsal- elaborative processing (Craik and Lockhart)
STM not independent of LTM- different brain activity for words and pseudo-words (Ruchkin et al)

Question 33

the working memory model

Answer 33

central executive (CE) acts as attention allocates tasks to slave systems, no storage
phonological loop (PL) preserves order of auditory information
phonological store holds the world for the PL inner ear
articulatory process performs maintenance rehearsal for PL inner voice
visa spatial sketchpad (VSS) for planning and processing visual and/or spatial tasks
visual cache for form and colour
inner scribe for spatial relations
episodic buffer records events (episodes) as they happen, link to LTM

Question 34

working memory model
evaluation

Answer 34

Hitch and Baddeley- participants slower when doing dual tasks (CE + CE and articulatory loop) demonstrates CE
brain-damaged patients - KF- damages to PL problems with verbal material (words not sounds) (Shallice and Warrington) SC - savage to PL unable to learn word pairs presented out loud (Trojano and Grossi) LH - damage to spatial system (Farah et al)
case studies limited e.g. trauma itself may cause problems, individual not typical and not generalisable
word-length effect - longer words can be rehearsed (supports phonological loop) articulatory suppression task cancels out word- length effect (supports articulatory process)
CE doesn’t explain anything and more complex than currently represented, evidence from EVR (Eslinger and Damasio)

Question 35

type of LTM

Answer 35

episodic memories- personal memories for events forming a sequence
they include details of context and emotion
semantic memories- knowledge shared by everyone, abstract and concrete
they are acquired via episodic memories
procedural memories- knowing how to do something
they become automatic through repetition and are disrupted if you think about them

Question 36

LTM evaluation

Answer 36

brain scans - episodic memory - frontal and temporal lobe (including hippocampus) semantic memory - temporal lobe procedural memory - cerebellum, basal ganglia and limbic system
procedural vs declarative memories- HM formed new procedural memories but not semantic and episodic ones,
brain damage evidence unreliable- can’t be certain that causal part of brain identified
episodic vs semantic memories can form independently, double dissociation demonstrated in Alzheimer’s patients (Hodges and Patterson, Irish et al)

Question 37

explanations for forgetting
interference

Answer 37

retroactive interference - new interferes with old
Müller and Pilzecker - recall was less good if there was an intervening task (describing paintings)
proactive interference- old interferes with new
underwood - analysed many studies, the more lists learned the lower percentage of recall
McGeoch and McDonald - learn list of words + list of synonyms - 12% recall , learn list of words + list of digits - 37% recap similarity matters
Baddeley and Hitch - Rigby players who played fewer games had better recall of teams played against (less interference)

Question 38

interference
evaluation

Answer 38

artificial research - words and nonsense syllables, and low motivation doesn’t represent everyday memory
only explains some situations of forgetting, where two sets of stimuli are quite similar
accessible not available- suggested by spontaneous recovery of recognition memory after interference (Ceraso)
individual difference - people with greater working memory span less susceptible to proactive interference (Kane and Eagle)

Question 39

explanation for forgetting
retrieval failure

Answer 39

encoding specificity principle - material present at encoding is present at retrieval (Tulving and Thomson)
Tulving and Pearlstone - category + word learned free recall was 40% cued recall was 60%
some cues are not meaning fully linked at encoding but also act as cues
context-dependent forgetting : Abernathy - recall best with same instructor in same room
context- depending forgetting: Baddeley and Godden - recall best when initial context (land or water) matched recall envionemtn
state-dependant forgetting: Goodwin et al - recall best when initial state (drunk or sober) matched state at recall

Question 40

retrieval failure
evaluation

Answer 40

research support, e.g. Tulving and Peralstone (lab experiment), Abernathy (field experiment)
real world application - to revising and the cognitive interview
retrieval cues don’t always work- not useful when learning meaningful material (Smith and Vela)
retrieval failure can explain interference effects- thus is the more important explanation of forgetting

Question 40

accuracy of eyewitness testimony
misleading information

Answer 40

leading questions suggest the desired answer
Loftus and Palmer - critical question containing hit, smashed, collided, bumped or contacted, speed estimates highest with the verb smashed
Loftus and palmer- the verb altered the actual memory of the event; participants more likely to report broken glass
post-event discussion may contaminate eyewitness memory of an event
conformity effect- participants’ recollection influenced by discussion with others (Gabbert et al)
repeat interviewing - especially problematic with child witnesses (LeRooy et al)

Question 41

misleading information
evaluation

Answer 41

supporting evidence- misleading information (Bugs Bunny) altered participant recall (Braun et al)
EWT in real life may be more accurate - lab studies not taken seriously
Foster et al - film of supposed robbery, high accuracy
Yuille and Cutshall - witnesses to real crime fed misleading information but still accurate recall
real world application - mistaken EWT largest factor in conviction of innocent people (Wells and Olson)
older people more susceptible to misleading information

Question 42

accuracy of eyewitness testimony
the cognitive interview

Answer 42

based on psyychological research:
mental reinstatement of original context- physical and psychological, cued recall
report everything- even seemingly insignificant details, may cue recall
change order - reduces effect of schemas
change perspective- disrupts schema supported by Anderson and pitchers study
(Burglar and house buyer perspective)

Question 42

anxiety
evaluation

Answer 42

may not be anxiety - weapon focus effect due to surprise (pickle)
real life studies show less accuracy than lab studies
no simple conclusion- victims of violent crime more accurate than non violent crimes (Halford and Milne)

Question 42

accuracy of eyewitness testimony
anxiety

Answer 42

stress (psychological arousal) reduces performance on complicated cognitive tasks
Johnson and Scott - weapon focus effect reduces accuracy of face identification
Loftus et al - monitored eye movements during weapon exposure, focus was on a weapon
evolutionary argument - it is adaptive to remember stress-inducing events
Christiansen and Hubinette - high anxiety victims (bank tellers) remember most accurately
Deffenbacher et al

Question 43

the cognitive interview
evaluation

Answer 43

effectiveness- review of 53 studies found 34% more information from (Köhnken et al) most due to report everything and mental reinstatement components (Milne and bull)
quality may suffer- 81% increase in correct recall but 61% false positives (Köhnken et al)
CI in practice - police dislike because time consuming and inadequate training
comparisons difficult- police forces use different versions of CI