Memory Flashcards
Baddley’s study
group 1 and 2-acoustically similar, group 3 and 4-semantically similar
recall immediately/later
STM is acoustic, LTM is semantic
Research on capacity+duration
- Jacobs’ digit span-researcher gives increasing number of letters/digits and ask to recall them-mean digit span was 9.3 and letters was 7.3
- Miller’s span and chunking-STM was 7±2 info, but people use chunking (grouping digits) to recall more
- Peterson’s study on 24 students-given consonant syllable and 3 digit number, told to count backwards (prevent mental rehearsal of syllable), told to stop at diff amount of time (retention interval). STM has short duration
- Barrack studied 392 participants aged 17-74, tested yearbook photo recognition (some random photos and some yearbook photos) and free recall (had to recall names)-15 years within grad had 90% accuracy, 48 years reduced to 70%, for photo, 60% and 30% for free recall
Features of memory-evaluation
Strengths:
-Bahrick et al had high external validity as real life meaningful memories were studied (others found that recall was lower with meaningless words)
Weaknesses:
-Artificial stimuli (such as words) so lacks mundane realism
-Jacob’s study lack validity as cofounding variables not controlled
-Miller overestimated capacity of STM, others found that it was only 4 chunks
-Peterson used artificial stimuli so lacks external validity
-peterson-forgetting may be due to spontaneous decay (loss of memory trace due to lack of rehearsal), it could be that info is displaced
Multi store model
- Sensory register-all 5 senses
-iconic memory (visual) and echoic memory (acoustically)
-less than half a second, high capacity, pay attention - STM-acoustic
-7±2 chances, 30 seconds unless rehearsed
-maintenance rehearsal to remain, prolonged maintenance to LTM - LTM-semantic
-unlimited capacity, very long duration
-retrieval-info from LTM is transferred to STM to be recalled
Multi store model-evaluation
Strengths:
-Supported by studies such as Baddeley’s
Weaknesses:
-Simplistic as LTM has different types, and KF showed that recall was better when he read them out not others
-Other studies found that elaborative rehearsal is needed for long term (link info to existing knowledge)
-Artificial stimuli used to test memory
Types of LTM
- Episodic-events and experiences from life
-time stamped
-multiple elements (where, why, what,..)
-conscious effort - Semantic-facts and info shared
-not time stamped
-less personal and more factual
-conscious effort - Procedural-muscle memory, on how to do things
-hard to explain to someone else
-unconscious
Types of LTM-evaluation
Strengths:
-Supported by Clive wearing, damaged some memory (language) but others remained functional so they are separate
-Brain scan showed that diff memory are stored in diff parts of brain (Tulving)-episodic is right prefrontal, semantic was left prefrontal
-Real life application, such as training older people to improve episodic memory-specific treatments could be developed
Weaknesses
-Clinical studies such as Clive Wearing has lack of control due to other variables
-Episodic and Semantic may both be declarative memory
The working memory model
-explain how STM is organised
-Central executive: attentional process that monitors data, makes decisions and allocates tasks to slave systems (limited processing capacity)
-Phonological loop:
1. phonological store (stores words)
2. articulatory process (allows maintenance rehearsal, capacity of 2 sec)
-visuo-spatial sketchpad-stores visual and spatial info, limited capacity
1. visual cashe-stores visual data
2. inner scribe-records arrangement of objects
-episodic buffer-added by Baddeley, temporary store for info, records events, links working memory to LTM
Working memory model-evaluation
Strengths:
-KF had poor STM ability for verbal but could process visual info, so phonological loop was damaged but nothing else
-Dual task performance support visa spacial sketchpad, Baddeley showed that participants did worse doing 2 visual tasks than doing visual and verbal (due to competition)
-baddelely’s word length effect (harder to remember list of long words) due to limited space in articulatory process
-Braver made participants do task involving central executive, with brain scan-activity higher in left prefrontal cortex, and activity increased as the task difficulty increased
Weaknesses:
-Lack of clarity over central executive, WMM isn’t fully explained
Interference theory
-Explains forgetting in LTM
-Proactive-old memory affecting new ones being remembered
-Retroactive-new one affecting old
McGeoch and McDonald-10 words until 100% accuracy, given synonyms/antonys/random words/nonsense syllables, 3 digit number/nothing as a control, then recalled old ones
-interference strongest with synonyms, least with numbers
Interference theory-evaluation
Strengths:
-Support from lab studies such as McGeoch and McDonald’s
-Real life studies on interference ( Baddeley and Hitch asked rugby players to remember names of teams they played-recall didn’t depend on how long ago but how many times they played)
-Tulving and Psotka gave participants 24 words in 6 categories, recall was 70% for first word, decreased as they were given extra words (interference). Cued recall at the end, told categories as a clue, recall increased to 70% again
Weaknesses:
-Artificial materials
-Time within learning was too short-unlike real life
Encoding specificity principle
-If a cue is present in encoding and retrieval, it can help with recall (If not present in both, retrieval failure would occur)
-some cues linked to material in a meaningful way (mnemonic techniques)
Context dependent forgetting
Godden and Baddeley-diver study
-words learnt land/underwater and recalled land/underwater
-Recall was 40% lower when conditions didn’t match
-external cues helped retrieval
State dependent forgetting
Carter and Cassaday gave anti histamine to participants and made them drowsy (different psychological state to normal)
Participants learnt in drug/normal and recalled in drug/normal
-Recall better when internal state matched
Retrieval failure-evaluation
Strength:
-Supporting studies (diver and drug study)
-Some real world application (eyewitness testimony)
Weaknesses:
-lack of application as the diver study had 2 DISTINCT conditions but in reality conditions aren’t that different
-Godden and Baddeley replicated the study and did recognition, and performance was the same-only affects certain type of memory
-ESP can’t actually be tested so we just assume things
