memory Flashcards

1
Q

capacity

A

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

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

duration

A

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

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

coding

A

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

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

long term memory

A

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

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

short term memory

A

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

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

multi-store model

A

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

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

sensory register

A

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

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

central executive

A

monitors and coordinates all other mental functions in working memory

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

episodic buffer

A

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

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

phonological loop

A

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

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

visa-spatial sketchpad

A

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

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

working memory model

A

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

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

episodic memory

A

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

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

procedural memory

A

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

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

semantic memory

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

interference

A

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

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

proactive interference

A

past learning interferes with current attempts to learn something

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

retroactive interference

A

current attempts to learn something interfere with past learning

19
Q

cues

A

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

20
Q

retrieval failure

A

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

21
Q

eyewitness testimony

A

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

22
Q

leading question

A

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

23
misleading information
supplying information that may lead a witness memory for a crime to be altered
24
post-event discussion
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
25
capacity
jacobs- digit span 9.3 for digits, 7.3 for letters miller- people remember about 7 items and 7 chunks
26
capacity evaluation
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
27
duration
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
28
duration evaluation
consonant syllables not meaningful but some memory activities do involve such stimuli Reitman - auditory tones to avoid displacement, led to longer duration of STM
29
coding
Baddeley- difficulty remembering acoustically similar words in STM but not in LTM, reverse for semantically similar words.
30
coding evaluation
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
31
the multi-store model of memory (MSM)
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
32
multi store model evaluation
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)
33
the working memory model
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
34
working memory model evaluation
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)
35
type of LTM
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
36
LTM evaluation
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)
37
explanations for forgetting interference
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)
38
interference evaluation
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)
39
explanation for forgetting retrieval failure
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
40
retrieval failure evaluation
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
40
accuracy of eyewitness testimony misleading information
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)
41
misleading information evaluation
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
42
accuracy of eyewitness testimony the cognitive interview
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)
42
anxiety evaluation
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)
42
accuracy of eyewitness testimony anxiety
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
43
the cognitive interview evaluation
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