Memory Flashcards
3 types of memory stores in the MSM
- Sensory store
- Short term
- Long term
AO1 for MSM
- Made by atkinson and shiffrin
- Information flows through the sensory, short term memory and long term memory stores
- Information is transferred from the sensory store to the STM store if we pay attention to it
- Information is transferred from the STM store to the LTM store if it’s rehearsed
- In the sensory store, capacity is potentially unlimited and duration is less than half a second unless paid attention to
- In the short term store, info is coded acoustically, capacity is about 7 +-2 items and has a duration of less than 30 seconds unless rehearsed
- In the long term store, info is coded semantically, capacity is unlimited and duration is up to a lifetime
AO3 for MSM
The multi-store model of memory does not explain how you can remember some information even though you have not rehearsed it and also struggles to explain why we can forget information that we have practised and rehearsed.
There is research that criticises the MSM’s view that the LTM is unitary. Clive Wearing contracted a viral infection causing extensive brain damage. He lost his long-term declarative memory, e.g. has no memory of his wedding. But he still has use of his long-term procedural memory, e.g. he can still play piano. The MSM believed that the LTM store was unitary. Clive Wearing contradicts this view because he demonstrated that our LTM is compartmentalised into declarative and procedural memory. In Clive Wearing’s case he had lost declarative memory and retained his procedural memory because the LTM contains separate sub-sections. A view that isn’t acknowledge by the MSM. Therefore, reducing the validity of the MSM
There is research to support the notion that the short term and long term memory stores are separate as suggested by the multi-store model of memory. KF suffered brain damage as a result of a motorcycle accident. It had no effect on LTM, but led to poor performance on many STM tasks. If the short and long term memory existed as a combined memory store than KF would have lost all of his functioning memory.
However, this was not the case, which suggests these stores are separate and exist independently as identified by the MSM. Therefore, increasing the validity of the MSM
don’t explain how u can remember info, clive, KF
What systems are in the WMM
- Central executive
- Visuo spatial Sketchpad
- Phonological loop
- Episodic buffer
AO1 for Working Memory Model
CE VS PL EB = slave systems
- Proposed by Baddeley and Hitch as an addition to MSM, argued that the STM was too simplistic and is not a single store.
- Consists of: Central Executive, VisuoSpatial Sketchpad, Phonological Loop and the Episodic Buffer
- CE - oversees and coordinates the other slave components, acts as a filter and detemines which info is paid attention to
Capacity: limited - no more than 4 items at once
Coding: stores any type of info - VS - stores visual and spatial info aka inner eye, consists of visual cache (passively stores visual info) and inner scribe (processes spatial and movement info)
Capacity: 3-4 objects
Coding: visually - PL - deals with auditory info in speech form, divided into phonological store (stores the words you hear) + articulatory process (allows us to repeat words in loop aka inner voice)
Capacity: words that can be said in 2 seconds - single syllabale words ie harm
Coding: acoustically - EB - acts as a backup store, added bc the CE has no storage for visual and verbal, they can be temporarily stored, links LTM and the working model
Capacity: limited to 4 chunks
Coding: visual + verbal
AO3 of Working Memory Model
- A strength of the WMM is the case study of KF, this case study supports WMM because KF was in a motorcycle accident and it had damaged his STM which resulted In him having poor verbal STM recall but normal visual STM recall, this supports WMM stating that there indeed is different stores for hearing and watching( PL and VS in the WMM). However, since this is a case there may be some issues with generalizing it to the general population as it is such a unique circumstance.
- A strength of the working memory model is that it has practical application to the real life. The model has been used to aid children with ADHD. Those children have deficits in their working memory and the model has helped provide practical suggestions such as breaking tasks into manageable sections with frequent repetition, this increases the ecological validity of the model as it can be applied to real world situations
- A weakness of the notion of the central executive (CE) is that it is oversimplified and not very well understood. There is not enough detail about how the central executive actually controls the entire WWM or how it works modality free. The central executive is the master component in the working memory model. Yet, there isn’t sufficient detail to explain how the central executive actually carries out these processes. This could be because the central executive isn’t very well understood. Therefore, the central executive has been oversimplified and not very well explained. Thus, reducing the validity of the WMM
Declarative vs Non-Declarative Memory
Definition
- Declerative Memory (explicit): A concious effort has to be made to recall memory
- Non-declerative Memory (implicit): No effort has to be made to recall information
3 types of memory
- Episodic (declerative memory)
- Semantic (declerative memory)
- Procedural (non declerative memory)
Episodic Memory
- The ability to recall past experiences and events (episodes) e.g. prom
- You have to make a conscious effort to recall the information; you are able to search your memory for information of the event
- They can be put into words (declerative)
- The strength of the memory depends on the emotions present at the time it is coded e.g. a traumatic event is often recalled due to high emotional content
- The memories are time stamped
Procedural Memory
- This is a memory store for actions and skills
For example, riding a bike depends on a developed skill, which we automatically access from our procedural memory - This memory cannot be put into words (non-declarative)
- Many procedural memories occur early in life, involving the learning of important motor skills like writing, brushing your teeth, getting dressed etc. (its unconscious)
Semantic Memory
- This store contains facts about the world and is always being added to
- You also have to make a conscious effort to recall this type of information as you have to make an effort to recall a particular memory
- It can be put into words (declerative)
- Your semantic memories is your knowledge base for everything you know - it is less personal and not time stamped
AO3 for types of LTM
- One strength of different types of long-term memories is that they are supported by case studies of amnesiacs. For example, Clive Wearing, who contracted from a viral infection, lost most of his episodic memory but not his procedural memory as he could still play the piano. This demonstrates that LTM isn’t one single component. On the contrary, the long term memory consists of different types of memories where one can be damaged, while the other can function adequately. Therefore, increasing the validity of the theory of types of LTM
- Another strength of the idea of different types of long-term memories is that brain scans show that different types of LTM relate to different brain locations. For example, episodic memory is found in the right prefrontal cortex whereas semantic memory is associated with the left prefrontal cortex. This supports the idea that that there are different types of LTM.
- A limitation of LTM is on individual patients. For example, H.M & Clive wearing are highly detailed case studies & provide lots of info but they are isolated only on individual LTM damage, suggesting that findings can’t be generalised to everyone as they have been through unique circumstances.
Therefore, reducing the validity of the model.
amnesiacs, brain scans, individual patients -> case study+unique
AO1 for Misleading Info
loftus and palmer, gabbert et al
- Misleading info is the info given to the eyewitness usually after the event, it can take form either by leading questions or post event discussions (or both)
Loftus and Palmer
- A: To investigate the effect of leading questions in distorting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony
- M: 45 Participants were shown clips of traffic accidents.
After watching the clip they where asked the following critical (leading) question;
“how fast were the cars going when they _ _ _ into each other. They varied the words used to describe the crash with five diff variations: hit, bumped and smashed were three of them.
- R: It was found the more extreme the verb the faster the estimation of MPH. Contacted = 31.8mph and smashed = 40.8mph.
- C: This suggests misleading information in the form of leading questions can influence the recall of eyewitness testimony
Gabbert et al (2003)
- A: To investigate the effect of post event info in distorting the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies
- M: Videos of crimes shot from different perspectives were shown to pairs of participants with unique info available in each film.
- R: It was found 71% of pairs who discussed w each other what they had seen included aspects of the film they had not seen in their recollection of the video. This is compared to 0% in pairs who were not allowed to discuss what they had seen.
- C: This suggests that witnesses will change their account of crimes to match other witnesses testimony.
AO3 of Misleading info
- A strength of research on EWT is that it has practical applications for the real world where the consequences of inaccurate EWT can be very serious. For example, Loftus’ research revealed that leading questions can lead to significant distortions in memory. This is a strength as understanding this informs interviewers of the need to avoid biased questions when trying to gather information from witnesses. This is particularly important when interviewing eyewitnesses in the legal system, this understanding should help improve their accuracy of recall of events. Therefore the findings from Loftus’ research is useful as it makes an important positive contribution to the real world
- A limitation of Loftus research is that the tasks used are artificial. For example, Loftus used a video of a car accident and this not the same as experiencing a real incident. It is difficult to reproduce real life EWT conditions in a laboratory for practical and ethical reasons. This is a problem as real life events often take place unexpectedly and in an atmosphere of high tension, meaning they may be recalled significantly different to laboratory settings. Furthermore, Foster et al. found that if participants thought they were watching a real life robbery important to a real trial, their identification of the robber was much more accurate. Therefore controlled research settings such as Loftus’ may lack ecological which in turn may undermine the findings
practical app+consequences on inaccurate EWT, tasks used are artificial
AO1 of Cognitive Interviews
CRRR
- The cognitive interview is a technique used to encourage eyewitnesses to recreate the original context using 4 structures stages:
Context Reinstatement is when the witness is encouraged to mentally recreate the environment and how they were feeling at the time of the event. It works because there is mental consistency between the actual incident and the recreated situation, this therefore gives an increased likeliness that the witness will recall more details.
Report Everything is when the witness is asked to report every detail about the event that you can recall even if it seems trivial and unimportant, the information should be reported even if it does not seem to have a bearing on the crime. This is used because this unrestrained recall may throw up details, which might otherwise be mentally ‘edited out’ unintentionally. It is the interviewer’s responsibility to decide what is important.
Recall from changed perspecive is when the witness is asked to mentally recreate the situation from a different perspective, describing the event from another viewpoint. This works because it prevents the use of schemas which can affect the way in which the situation is perceived
Recall in reverse order is when the witness is encouraged to describe the event in reverse order or to start with an aspect of the scene which seems most memorable and work backwards, this works because it also prevents the use of schemas
