Memory Flashcards
Memory
The process by which the mind stores and remembers information.
Encoding
Converting information into a storable format.
Procedural Memory
Automatic memories not available for conscious inspection.
Semantic Memory
Semantic meanings or feelings available for conscious inspection.
Episodic Memory
Memories of events available for conscious inspection.
STM Capacity
7 items- Miller’s digit span technique.
STM Duration
18-30 seconds- Peterson and Peterson- remember trigram and count backward, recall decreased over time.
LTM Capacity
Limitless
LTM Duration
Supposedly a lifetime- Bahrick et al- people recalled high school year books- 70% accuracy after 48 years.
Sensory Memory
Info from senses that is stored up to 250ms (Sperling’s tachiscope- flashed symbols for 1/20 of a second and participants could only remember 3-4)
STM
If information catches attention of STM it is stored.
LTM
When information is rehearsed from the STM and stored in the LTM. Can be retrieved back to the STM.
Multi-store Model of Memory - Atkinson and Shriffrin 1968
Sensory memory > Attention > STM > Rehearsal > LTM > Retrieval > STM
MSM Evalutation
+ First model so prompted researched.
+ Simplifies complex information
+ Supported by research and case studies
- Temporal validity
- Types of LTM (Clive Wearing)
- Memory unlikely to be linear
- Reductionist
- What is rehearsal?
Forgetting
Information not successfully retrieved from LTM.
Trace Decay
Automatic loss of a memory from the sensory store.
Displacement
New memories push older ones out of the STM.
Retroactive Interference
Recent memories interfere with old.
Proactive Interference
Old memories interfere with new.
Loess
Given 3 words from a category and had to count back for 15 seconds. Each time they recalled the new list interfered with the old one.
Glanzer and Cunitz 1966- The Serial Position Effect
STM + LTM different. Partipants memorised 21 words and recalled as many as possible. Recalled more from the beginning (primacy) and more from the end (recency).
Glanzer and Cunitz Study Evaluation
+ Experiment is controlled and reliable.
- Demand characteristics
- Ecological validity
- Individual differences
- What is the start, middle and end?
Korsakoff’s Syndrome
Alcoholics often develop this, leading to brain damage with little effect on STM. Supports different STM and LTM.
Shallice and Warrington - KF
Motorbike accident - in tact LTM but damaged STM. STM for auditory information more problematic that visual.
Baddeley
Brain scanning technique shows different patterns in activity of STM and LTM. Different types of STM shown by performing multiple tasks at once.
LTM/ STM Case Study Evaluation
+ High validity
+ Ethical
+ Computers less vulnerable to human error.
- Not reliable
- Cannot be generalised
- Time consuming
- Limited technology
Working Memory Model - Baddeley and Hitch 1974
Sensory input > Central Executive > Either: Visualspatial Sketchpad, Episodic Buffer, or Phonological Loop > LTM
Central Executive
Filter that monitors and coordinates information- role unclear,
Episodic Buffer
Added in 2000- backup store to communicate with other components and LTM.
Phonological Loop
Made up of articulatory loop (inner voice) and the phonological store (inner ear- lasts 1.5-2.5 seconds without being refreshed).
Visuospatial Sketchpad
Visual and spatial information.
WMM Evaluation
+ Shows STM is made up of different parts.
+ More interactive
+ Improvements to most criticisms of MSM
+ Research and case study evidence.
- No LTM Types
- No explanation of Central Executive - addition of Episodic Buffer didn’t help.
Central Executive Case Study Criticism
EVR - cerberal tumour removed, performed well on reasoning but poorly on coordination, both contradicting each other about the functionality of the Central Executive.
Tulving and Pearlstone - Cue-Dependent Retrieval
Two groups, one given just words, the other the same with categories. Those with categories recalled more words. Retrieval depends on having a prompt.
Godden and Baddeley - Context Dependent Retrieval
Situation affects retrieval. Asked 4 divers to learn words. 1 learned on water and recalled on land, 1 learned on land and recalled in water, 1 learned in water and recalled in water and the other both recalled and learned on land. Found that different locations meant less were recalled.
Goodwin et al - State Dependent Retrieval
Psychological/ emotional state affects retrieval. University students got drunk and hid things, couldn’t remember location of the items when sober.
Loftus and Palmer 1974 - EWT
Participants shown clips of traffic accidents (5-30s) then asked to write an account. Asked specific leading questions - 5 groups of 9 people - “how fast when [smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted]. Verb affected the estimate (‘smashed’ highest at 40.8 mph, ‘contacted’ least at 31mph).
Response bias factors
Using other factors to estimate and answer.
Post-event discussion
Information provided after an event.
Loftus et al 1987 - Weapon Focus
36 students from the University of Washington (some payed, some given credits) shown a slide show of an event at a Taco Shop. Separated into 2 groups, exactly the same except 1 slide. Half were shown a man with a receipt, half a man with a gun. They were then given a questionnaire and asked to rate the accuracy of identification of the man from a set of images. The gun group were less accurate at 11% correct identification.
Yuille and Cutshall 1986
Studied a real crime - 13 out of 21 witnesses agreed to participate. Interviewed 4-5 months after the event and asked to rate the emotional stress on a 7 point scale. The more stressed group happened to be 85% accurate to their original interviews, and the less stressed group 75% accurate.
The Yerkes-Dodson Law
Stress improves performance up to a certain point.
Fisher and Geiselman 1992 - CIT
- Report everything
- Context reinstatement
- Recall in reverse order
- Recall from different perspective
Fisher and Geiselman 1985 - CIT Lab Experiment
Lab experiment- 240 participants watched a video of a store robbery. Half interviewed with CIT - 35% more facts - the other half interviewed with standard technique.
Fisher and Geiselman 1989 - CIT Field Experiment
16 detectives interviewed real witnesses, 7 with CIT. Interviews were recorded and analysed by people in California, who were blind to the conditions, finding that CIT produced 63% more facts.
Kohnken et al 1999 - CIT support
Meta analysis of 53 studies - 34% more info with CIT
Milne and Bull 2002 - CIT
Individually using the stages isn’t particularly effective, but two or more is more effective.
