memory Flashcards
CCD: What is coding?
How information is stored in various stores of memory
CCD: What capacity?
How much information can be stored in various stores of memory
CCD: What is duration?
How long information can be stored in various stores of memory
CCD: Who researched coding?
Baddeley
CCD: What was Baddeley’s research into coding and findings?
Participants split into four groups to remember different lists:
> group 1 (acoustically similar)
> group 2 (acoustically dissimilar)
> group 3 (semantically similar)
> group 4 (semantically dissimilar)
He had them recall the lists immediately and after and then 20 minutes later
Immediately after, group 1 did worse (so STM codes acoustically)
After 20 mins, Semantically did worse (so LTM codes semantically)
CCD: Who researched capacity?
Jacobs
Miller
CCD: What was Miller’s research into capacity?
He observed that most things come in 7s (days of the week, sins) so concluded we have can recall 7± 2 items in our STM
He also observed that we can recall 5 letters as easily as 5 words so concluded we chunk information
CCD: Who researched duration?
Peterson and peterson (STM)
Bahrick et al (LTM)
CCD: What was Peterson and Peterson’s research into duration and findings?
They got 24 students to count back from a 3 digit number in 3’s for an increasing amount of time them recall a nonsense consonant syllable given to them
After 3’s recall was about 80%
After 18’s recall was about 3%
STM has a duration of 18’s (18-30s)
CCD: What was Bahrick et als research into duration and findings?
Studied participants between the ages of 17-75
Recall tested in two ways:
> participants recall people from there highschool graduating class through looking at photos
~15 yrs later= 90% accuracy, 48 yrs later= 70% accuracy
> participants recall people from their highschool graduating class without photos
~ 15 yrs later= 60% accuracy, 48 yrs later= 30% recall
LTM can last a lifetime
CCD: Evaluate research into coding
Clearly shows there are two memory stores
> this is still accepted today
> helped in development of MSM
Used artificial stimuli
> reduces external validity and real world application
CCD: Evaluate research into capacity
Jacobs study has been replicated
Jacobs study had confounding variables (not fully controlled)
Millers study found to be wrong
> cowan found we can store 4 ± 1
CCD: What was Jacob’s research into capacity and findings?
He had participants recall an increasingly long list of numbers until they could no longer recall the right numbers in the right order
Mean digit span = 9.3
Mean letter span = 7.3
CCD: Evaluate research into duration
Peterson and peterson used artificial stimuli
Bahrick et al had high external validity
Who came up with the MSM
Atkinson and Shiffrin
What is the MSM
Stimuli from the environment enters the sensory register. It then enters the STM through attention being paid to it. It stays in the STM through maintenance rehearsal and enters the LTM through prolonged rehearsal. It is retrieved back into the STM through retrieval.
MSM: What is the sensory register?
Codes: modality specific
Duration: less than ½s
Capacity: infinite
MSM: What is the STM?
Codes: acoustically
Duration: 18-30s
Capacity: 7±2
MSM: What is the LTM?
Codes: semantically
Duration: unlimited
Capacity: unlimited
Evaluate the MSM
Research support
>e.g. Baddley
CA: all research support uses artificial stimuli
> jacobs, peterson, badly
Support from case study
> case of HM: had both sides of his hippocampus removed and could form new STM but not LTM
Conflicting evidence from case study
> case of KF: couldn’t form new STM after a motorcycle accident but could recall things he read better than things read to him
> STM isn’t a single store
Craik and Watkins: elaborative rehearsal is more effective than prolonged rehearsal as how you revise is more important than how long
Who came up with WMM?
Baddley and Hitch
What is the WMM?
Information enters the Central Executive where it is directed to the phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad or episodic buffer
WMM: What is the Central executive?
Monitors incoming information, divides focus and attention, and allocates tasks to each of the subsystems
Codes: modality free
Duration: N/A
(processing) Capacity: very limited
WMM: What is the phonological loop?
One of the subsystems with two sub divisions:
> phonological store: stores words you hear
> articulatory process: allows maintenance rehearsal (inner voice)
Codes: acoustically
Duration: 18-30s
Capacity: 2s worth of info
WMM: What is the visuospatial sketchpad?
One of the subsystems with two sub divisions:
> visio cache: stores visual data
> inner scribe: stores where things in your field of vision are
Codes: visually
Duration: 18-30s
Capacity: 3-4 objects
WMM: what is the episodic buffer?
-temporary store of information. records ‘episodes’ (time sequences)
- codes modality free
- capacity: 3-4 chunks
- links working memory to wider cognitive processes like perception
WMM: evaluate
+ case of KF (shallice and warrington
+ dual task performance
> Baddeley had participants do:
> visual and auditory task at the same time
> visual and visual or auditory and auditory
> they could do two defend types but not two of the same type at the same time
CA: artificial stimuli
- we don’t know what the CE does with any clarity (what is attention?)
Types of LTM: who came up with it and what is it?
- Tulving
> episodic: personal events. time stamped
> semantic: world knowledge. not timestamped
> procedural: how to do stuff. difficult to explain to others
Types of LTM: evaluate
+ backed up by CW
+ research support (neuroimaging)
CA: conflicting evidence
> tulving: left prefrontal cortex= episodic encoding, right prefrontal cortex= episodic recall
> peterson and Budener: left prefrontal cortex= semantic, right prefrontal cortex= episodic
+ real world application
> helps psychologists understand amnesia
case studies: HM
- both sides of his hippocampus removed
- could form new STM but not LTM therefore memory is not one unitary store
case studies: KF
- motorcycle accident
- couldn’t really form new STM
- immediate recall for information he read himself was better than for information read to him therefore STM is not a unitary store (visuospatial sketchpad fine, phonological store damaged)
- confounding variable: trauma
case studies: CW
- brain infection leading to amnesia
- could play piano but couldn’t remember learning to play
- knew what a dog was but didn’t remember petting one halve an hour previously
- LTM not unitary store
- Episodic memory damaged, procedural and semantic fine
Forgetting (interference): what is it?
- forgetting caused by one memory blocking or distorting another:
>Proactive: older memories
>retroactive: more recent memories
Forgetting (interference): what research has been done?
- McGeoch and McDonald (had a farm)
- participants learnt a list until they could recall it with 100% accuracy
- they were then split into 6 groups and learnt another different list:
1: synonyms
2: antonyms
3:unrelated
4:triagrams
5:digits
6: control (no list) - they then had to recall the first list
- group 1 had the worst results therefore interference is strongest with similar memories
Forgetting (interference): evaluate
+ research support
> Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to recall teams they had played against that season
> those who had played more games in the same amount of time could recall fewer teams
> coenen and Luijtelaar found diazepam stop intake of new information.
> people who took it after learning information could recall it better later than those who didn’t
- temporary cause
> Tulving and psotka had participants learn one list at a time and recall them all
> more lists= worse recall but it went back up to 70% accuracy with cues
- only applies to similar memories
Forgetting (retrieval failure): what is it?
not having the right cues to access a memory
- context dependent: recall depends of external cues (weather)
- state dependent: recall depends on internal cues (mood)
Forgetting (retrieval failure): what research has been done?
Godden and Baddeley
had divers learn and recall lists under 4 different conditions:
(L) on land (R) on land
(L) on land (R) under water
(L) under water (R) under water
(L) under water (R) on land
Findings: recall was 40% when conditions of learning and recall were the same
Carter and Cassaday
- same thing but with antihistamines
- same results
Forgetting (retrieval failure): evaluate
+ research support
> Godden & Baddeley and Carter & Cassaday got the same results
+real world application
> cues can be used IRL e.g. going back into a room where you thought to do something to remember what to do
- recall vs recognition
> godden and Baddeley did the same experiment but recognising if a word was on a list rather than recalling the list
> context learnt and recalled in made no difference
EWT (Misleading information): what is a misleading question?
A question that suggests a particular answer because of how it was phrased e.g. ‘how fast was the car going when it crashed into the wall?’ vs ‘how fast was the care going when it contacted the wall’
EWT (Misleading information): what research has been done?
- Loftus and Palmer
- 45 participants were shown a video of a car crash then split into 5 groups and asked the question ‘how fast were the cares going when they ____ each other’
- the verb would interchanged with: contacted, bumped, collided, hit, smashed
- each group gave a different speed with the mean for ‘contacted’ being 31.8 mph and the mean speed for ‘smashed’ being 40.5 mph
- therefore leading question cause bias in eyewitness recall
EWT (Misleading information): why do misleading questions affect EWT?
substitution witness give the answer they think they should (social pressure)
- in a follow up interview, participants who originally heard ‘smashed’ were more likely to think there was broken glass when there wasn’t
EWT (Misleading information): Evaluate
+ real world application
> in a court or investigation
CA: may not work as research was done in a lab
- ewt was more accurate in some areas than others
> tunnel vision
Post event discussion: what is it?
when witnesses discuss an event before being questioned on it
Post event discussion: who researched it?
Gabbert et al
Post event discussion: what research was done and findings
- two groups of participants saw the same clip from different views, discussed it with each other then took individual recall tests
- 71% mistakenly recalled aspects they didn’t see
- corresponding figure for control group was 0%
Post event discussion:why does it affect EWT?
- Memory contamination: EW combines misinformation with there won memory
- memory conformity: EW goes along with co-witness either because they believe they are wrong or because they seek social approval
Post event discussion: evaluate
-memory conformity
>skagerberg and wright: participants saw two different clips of a mugging being told they were watching the same clip. They would mix details together rather than go with one over the other (one participant sees victim with light brown hair, the other dark brown hair so they right that the victim had medium brown hair)
EWT (anxiety):who researched it?
- Parker et al (hurricane andrew)
- valentine and mesout (london dungeons)
- Johnson and scott (weapon focus)
- Yuille and cutshall (fight or flight)
EWT (anxiety): parker it al
- interviewed people affected by hurricane Andrew to see how anxiety impacted EWT
- defined anxiety as how much damage was done
- found a link between anxiety and EWT in line with the inverted-U theory
EWT (anxiety): Valentine and mesout
- had random volunteers go through london dungeon wearing a heart monitor in return for reduced entry fee
- then had participants recall which actors they had seen out of a line up of actors
- High anxiety group correctly ID 17% of the time, Low anxiety group correctly ID 74% of the time
- anxiety decreases EWT accuracy
EWT (anxiety): Johnson and Scott
- participants thought they were waiting to start the experiment in a waiting room
- group 1 overhears a conversation happen in a room then sees someone walk out with a pen
- group 2 overhears an argument then sees (the same person) walk out with a bloody knife
- they were then asked to correctly pick him out of 50 pictures
- correct ID: 49% of group 1, 33% of group 2
- EWT less accurate with presence of a weapon (weapon focus)
EWT (anxiety): Yuille and Cutshall
- Interviewed 13 witnesses to a real school shooting
- accuracy was measured by amount of details recalled
- EWT were very detailed, accurate and similar
- more anxious participants
- did not better or worse than less anxious
- anxiety has no impact on EWT
EWT (anxiety): what is the yerks-dodson law?
anxiety will increase accuracy to a point (optimum) then decrease it
EWT (anxiety): evaluate
+ negative effect of anxiety
> Valentine and mesout
+ positive effect of anxiety
>christianson and Hubinette
> interviewed victims of a bank robbery
> more anxious victims were 75% more accurate
CA: participants were interviewed months later
> confounding variables
- Johnson and scot may have been testing shock not anxiety
- inverted-U/ yerkes-Dodson law ignores cognitive, behavioral and emotional impacts of anxiety
EWT (CI): who came up with it?
Fisher and Geiselman
EWT (CI): what are the four techniques?
- Report everything: encourage witness to give every detail, even unimportant seeming ones, as they may cue other memories or be important
- reinstate the context: mentally return to the seen of the crim using 5 senses
- reverse order: describe event from end or middle to start
- change perspective: explain what someone else may have seen
EWT (CI): what is enhanced CI?
witness and interviewer should retain a comfortable relationship
EWT (CI): evaluate
+ evidence it works
CA: Kohen: it also increases misinformation
- some elements are not as useful/ effective
> reinstate context and report everything works best
- police don’t want to use it as it is a slow process
