Memory.

Question 1

Memory.

Answer 1

The maximum amount of information that memory can hold.

Question 2

Central executive.

Answer 2

An important feature of the working memory model that is poorly understood, but is said to direct information to the appropriate slave systems in the model.

Question 3

Coding.

Answer 3

The way different memory systems store information, by converting that information into a suitable format for our brain.

Question 4

Duration.

Answer 4

The length of time memory stays stored.

Question 5

Episodic buffer.

Answer 5

A component from the working memory model that puts information from all the other components to make a combined, sensible memory.

Question 6

Episodic memory.

Answer 6

A type of conscious long-term memory which consists of multiple senses integrated together to form ‘everyday’ memories.

Question 7

Leading questions.

Answer 7

A type of question which when asked, encourages a certain answer.

Question 8

Long-term memory.

Answer 8

A type of memory storage that has potentially unlimited storage, in which we hold different kinds of memories for a potentially unlimited time.

Question 9

Phonological loop.

Answer 9

A component of the working memory model that holds information regarding words, composed of words we repeat to ourselves in a loop and perceiving words we hear for a short duration of time.

Question 10

Proactive interference.

Answer 10

An explanation for forgetting which suggests information we have learned previously interferes with new information we are trying to store.

Question 11

Retroactive interference.

Answer 11

An explanation for forgetting which suggests new information we learn interferes with information we already know.

Question 12

Procedural memory.

Answer 12

A type of unconscious long-term memory that stores information regarding the way we carry out actions without conscious involvement.

Question 13

Semantic memory.

Answer 13

A type of conscious long-term memory that contains information regarding ‘facts’ we have learnt. This type of memory is uncomplicated and does not include contextual information as an episodic memory does.

Question 14

Sensory register.

Answer 14

A place that holds information gathered through your senses for a very short amount of time, perceiving information before it is stored or processed by any other memory store

Question 15

Short-term memory.

Answer 15

A type of memory store lasting about 30 seconds that can hold 5-9 pieces of information. Information here can be moved to long-term memory via rehearsal.

Question 16

Visuo-spatial sketchpad.

Answer 16

A component of the working memory model in which visual and spatial information is stored for a short amount of time.

Question 17

Sperling 1960- Sensory Register.

Answer 17

Lab exp.
P/pants were shown a grid with 3 rows of 4 letters for 50 milliseconds then had to recall either the whole grid or a particular row.
Whole grid- they only recalled 4/5 letters on avg.
Row- avg of 3.
Conclusion- almost the whole grid was held in their sensory register- faded before they could recall all.

Question 18

Sperling 1960- evaluation.

Answer 18

Lab exp- highly scientific.
Variables easily controlled- easy to replicate.
Artificial setting- lacks ecological validity.

Question 19

Peterson & Peterson (1959)- Duration of STM.

Answer 19

P/pants shown nonsense trigrams, and asked to recall them after either 3,6,9,12,15 or 18 seconds. The interference task before the recall was to count down in 3s from a specific number.
After 3 seconds, p/pants could recall 80% correctly.
After 18 seconds, 10% were recalled correctly.
Very little can stay in STM for longer than 18 seconds.

Question 20

Peterson & Peterson (1959)- evaluations.

Answer 20

Lab exp- variables tightly controlled.
Trigrams are artificial- lacks ecological validity.
Only one stimulus was used- could depend on the type of stimulus.
Each p/pant saw many different trigrams- could be confusing, only the first one is valid?

Question 21

Bahrick et al (1975)- Very long-term memories (VLTMs).

Answer 21

392 people were asked to list the names of their ex-classmates (free-recall test).
Shown photos and asked to recall their names or match them to a photo of a classmate.
After 15 yrs- 90% of names & faces. 60% accurate on free recall.
After 30 yrs- free-recall declined to 30%.
After 48 yrs- name recognition was 80%, photo-recognition was 40%.

Question 22

Jacobs (1887)- The capacity of STM.

Answer 22

P/pants were presented with a string of letters or digits. They had to repeat them back in the same order.
The majority of the time they recalled 9 digits and 7 letters.
Capacity increases with age in childhood.
Concluded STM had a limited storage range of 7+- 2.
Chunking helped p/pants remember.

Question 23

Jacobs (1887)- evaluation.

Answer 23

Artificial- lacks ecological validity.

Question 24

Miller (1956)- Capacity of STM.

Answer 24

STM is seven plus or minus two- Miller’s Magic number.
Chunking.

Question 25

Baddeley (1966)- Coding in STM or LTM.

Answer 25

P/pants were given four sets of words either acoustically similar or dissimilar, semantically similar or dissimilar. Independent group design- recall either immediately or following a 20-minute task.
Struggles to recall acoustically similar words immediately and struggles after an interval with semantically similar words.
LTM is more likely to rely on semantic coding and STM on acoustic coding.

Question 26

Baddeley (1966)- evaluation.

Answer 26

Lacks ecological validity.
Other types of LTM- episodic/procedural memory and other methods of coding- visual, which this study doesn’t consider.
Independent groups design- no variables control.

Question 27

Atkinson and Shiffron (1968)- Multi-Store Memory.

Answer 27

Proposes memory consists of three stores- a sensory register, a short-term store and a long-term store.
Info from our environment (e.g. visual or auditory) goes into the sensory register. If you pay attention to it, it goes into your short-term memory.
STM has finite capacity and duration, but if info is further rehearsed then it can transfer to LTM.

Question 28

Supports for the MSM.

Answer 28

Primacy effect- recall the first few on the list better than the middle, MSM explains it as earlier items will have been rehearsed more and moved to LTM.
Recency effect- recalled the last few items better than those in the middle. if they are not rehearsed they are replaced from STM

Question 29

Limitations for the MSM.

Answer 29

1. In the model info is transferred from the STM to LTM through rehearsal, in real life people don’t always spend time rehearsing but the info still goes into LTM.
2. The model is oversimplified, it assumes there is only one long-term store and one short-term store. This has been disproved by brain-damaged patients.

Question 30

Baddeley & Hitch (1974) WMM.
Aim-

Answer 30

They proposed that the STM is not a single store but an active processor which contains several stores.

Question 31

Baddeley & Hitch (1974) WMM.
Findings-

Answer 31

-Central executive is a key component and can be described as attention: limited capacity and controls the ‘slave’ systems.
-Phonological loop holds speech-based information: made up of a phonological store and an articulatory process (inner ear, and inside head voice).
-The visuo-spatial sketchpad deals with the temporary storage of visual and spatial info.
-The episodic buffer briefly stores info from the other subsystems and integrates it with info from the LTM to make complete scenes or ‘episodes’.

Question 32

WMM came from what evidence? What studies did they use to model their results?

Answer 32

Experimental evidence.
Studies that used the interference task.

Question 33

What did Baddley and Hitch find?

Answer 33

If p/pants perform 2 tasks simultaneously that use the same system their performance will be affected.
Speaking while reading is an example as they both use the phonological loop, which has limited capacity.
2 tasks involving different systems show that performance isn’t affected on either task.

Question 34

Strengths of WMM.
1) Shallice and Warrington (1974)- Case study of KF

Answer 34

KF was a brain-damaged patient who had an impaired STM. His problem was with immediate recall of words presented verbally but not with visual info.
This suggested he had an impaired articulatory loop but an intact visuospatial sketchpad- providing evidence for the WMM as it shows STM as multiple systems.

Question 35

Strengths on WMM.
Less emphasis on rehearsal.

Answer 35

Rather than being a key process, rehearsal is one possible process in the WMM. This therefore explains why some things end up in our LTM in real life without rehearsal- other processes.

Question 36

Strengths of WMM.
2) Gathercole and Baddley (1993)- Lab study.

Answer 36

P/pants were split into 2 groups.
All were asked to carry out a task following a moving spot of light- visuo-spatial sketchpad.
1 group of p/pants also had to describe the angles on a letter- visuo-spatial sketchpad. The other group were given a 2nd task using the phonological loop-verbal task.
G&B found performance was better when p/pants used separate systems.

Question 37

Weakness of WMM.
( there’s 3)

Answer 37

-Simplistic and vague- exactly what is the central executive?
-Only explains STM, not how is info transferred to LTM.
-Lab studies- reduce ecological validity.

Question 38

STM in forgetting:

Answer 38

Limited capacity/duration- Can be displaced or decyaed.

Question 39

LTM in forgetting:

Answer 39

Decaying, hard to retrieve, or confused because of interference.

Question 40

Who came up with retroactive interference?

Answer 40

Underwood and Postman

Question 41

Who came up with proactive interference?

Answer 41

Underwood.

Question 42

Evaluation of proactive and retroactive interference:

Answer 42

+ Lots of studies
+ Controlled lab experiment.
+ IRL application.
- Artificial
- Tells us why, but not the process.

Question 43

Tulving and Pstoka (1971)- forgetting.

Answer 43

Categorised word lists.
Free recall and free cued recall (they would be told the category).
Free recall- experienced retroactive interference.
Free cued recall- no interference- 70%.

Question 44

Tulving and Pstoka (1971)- forgetting.
Evaluations.

Answer 44

+ Lab experiment.
+ Controlled variables.
- Ecological validity
- Artificial
- Not generalisable to all memory.

Question 45

Loftus and Palmer- Leading questions.

Answer 45

Exp 1- Smashed, collided, bumped, contacted.
Smashed 41mph.
Contacted 32mph.
Exp 2- Smashed/hit: ‘Did you see broken glass?’
Smashed were more likely to say yes.

Question 46

Loftus and Zanni (1975)- Leading questions effect on EWT.

Answer 46

“Did you see a/the broken light?’
The- 17% said yes.
A- 7% said yes.

Question 47

Shaw et al- Post-event discussion.

Answer 47

Paired p/pants with confederates in a staged robbery.
-They got questioned after, in their pairs, when the p/pant answered first accuracy was 58%.
-When the confederate went first and answered accurately, recall was 67%.
-When the confederate went first and answered inaccurately, recall fell to 42%.

Question 48

Loftus (1979)- Weapon focus.

Answer 48

-Pen + grease or knife + blood.
-asked to identify him out of 50 pictures.
-Pen and grease people- 49% accurate.
-Knife and blood- 33% accurate.

Question 49

Loftus (1979)- Weapon focus.
Evaluation.

Answer 49

-High ecological validity.
-P/pant protection?
-Informed consent.

Question 50

Cognitive interview- Geiselman et al.

Answer 50

-Relaxation.
-Use environmental context.
-Use internal context.
-Say everything even if you think it is irrelevant.
-Try recalling in different orders.
-Different perspectives.
-Interviewer avoids personal comments.

Question 51

Cognitive interview- Geiselman et al.
Evaluations:

Answer 51

+ Reduces the effect of leading questions.
+ High ecological validity