Memory Flashcards
Clive Wearing
Showed that STM and LTM are separate as he could not learn any new info (damaged STM) but could remember some LTMs e.g. his wife’s name
Patient HM
Supports WMM as LTM is diff stores here- hippocampus removed and afterwards was unable to form new declarative memories (episodic and semantic) , but able to form new procedural memories
Patient KF (K like Kinge-Kouta)
Supports WMM as STM has different stores- Had motorcycle accident and afterwards had a normal visual STM capacity but an abnormally low verbal STM capacity
Who made the WMM?
Baddeley and Hitch
Who made the MSMM?
Atkinson and Shiffrin
Study that found how STM and LTM are coded
Baddeley- list of acoustically similar words, acoustically dissimilar, semantically similar, and semantically dissimilar. The list that could be remembered best immediately was the semantically similar words (shows STM coded acoustically so semantic word list did not get confused) and list best remembered after an hour* was acoustically similar (so LTM coded semantically).
Study that found the duration of LTM
Bahrick- high school photo album, nearly 50 years later they all could remember 70% of the first names of people in their high school year book
Study showing capacity of STM
Miller- determined the capacity was 7+-2 items using a serial recall task
How was duration of STM discovered
Peterson and Peterson- trigrams, 90% could recall a 3-consonant trigram after 3 seconds (while counting backwards to prevent rehearsal) but only 2% could remember the trigram after 18 seconds
Serial position effect
Glanzer and Cunitz (guy Crosby eats cereal) Supports MSM as shows STM and LTM are separate- Discovered serial position effect, primary and recency effect means we remember the first few items and the last few items of a list
Dual task study
Gathercole and Baddeley (you can see and hear Cole MLWTWB badly because he mumbles) Dual task technique, found that we can do visual and verbal tasks simultaneously but not 2 visual tasks/2 verbal tasks
Supports proactive interference
Underwood- people who memorised one list could recall 70% of it the next day but if they memorised 10+ lists they only recalled 20%
Supports retroactive interference
Muller (fuller house is retro) Recall of nonsense syllables was worse for participants given a distraction during retention interval
Godden and Baddeley
Supports context dependent forgetting- (Could of gone badly) Participants learnt word lists on ground or underwater. Recall was best if conditions for retention interval were same as when they learnt them
Goodwin et al
Supports state dependent forgetting (good win to get drunk) Participants who were drunk when learning word lists better recalled them if they were drunk again. If sober learning, recall was best when sober again.
