memory Flashcards
topic 2/4 paper 1
different types of coding
- format info is stored
- iconic: vision
- echoic: hearing
who introduced the multi store model
Atkinson & Shiffrin
encoding of each store
- sensory: sense
- STM: acoustic (sound/pronunciation)
- LTM: semantic (associate with previous info)
capacity of each store
- sensory: 1 sensation
- STM: 7 +/- 2 items
- LTM: unlimited
duration of each store
- sensory: approx 250 milliseconds
- STM: 18-30 secs
- LTM: unlimited
AO3 Sperling [sensory register capacity]
- flashed grid of 20 letters on a screen for 1/20 of a second
- participants were asked to recall random rows of letters
- strong recall
- suggests iconic store has a large capacity as participants didn’t know what they’d be asked for
AO3 Baddeley [STM & LTM coding]
- four 10 word lists to 4 participant groups
- list 1: acoustically (sound) similar
- list 2: acoustically dissimilar
- list 3: semantically (meaning) similar
- list 4: semantically dissimilar
- list 1 had worst immediate recall as words stored as one so STM encodes on sound
- list 3 had worst recall after 20 mins as words so LTM encodes on meaning
AO3 Baddeley coding
- controlled experiment between structured lists
- limited to verbal memory
- artificial stimuli with fake word lists, do not represent real life experiences
AO3 Miller [STM capacity]
- published article “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two”
- stated we can hold 7 +/- 2 items in STM
- STM stores chunks of info rather than individually
AO3 Miller evaluation
- Jacobs: digit span test
- 443 F students 8-19
- repeat string of info in same order
- info was gradually increased until they could no longer recall it
- average of 7.3 letters & 9.3 words
- Miller did not take age etc into account, but Jacobs did, (+ with age) so is his more accurate?
AO3 Peterson & Peterson [STM duration]
- lab experiment 24 psychology students
- recall 3 letter trigrams at intervals (3 x 1-5 sec) while counting backwards
- accuracy decreased as time increased
- 10% accurately recalled at 18 sec
AO3 Peterson & Peterson evaluation
- low population validity: sample doesn’t represent wider population
- psychology students, more open to demand characteristics
AO3 MSM
- short duration of SR supported by evolutionary theory, quick reactions vital for survival
- real world application where one may recall what a speech was about rather than word for word (LTM semantically encoded)
- oversimplified,
2 types of LTM
- explicit: knowing what something is
- implicit: knowing when something happens
2 types of explicit LTM
- episodic
- semantic
episodic memory
- memory of experiences and events
- reference to time and place
- recall with conscious effort where emotions influence memory strength
- coded in prefrontal cortex, recall in hippocampus
semantic memory
- memory of facts, meanings, concepts
- knowledge of external world
- recall with conscious effort, memories stronger if processed deeply
- last longer than episodic
- perirhinal cortex
1 type of implicit memory
- procedural
procedural memory
- motor/muscle memory
- mostly unconscious
- connection to semantic through ability to say automatic language
- motor cortex, cerebellum, prefrontal cortex
AO3 Vicari (CL) episodic memory
- case study 8F
- brain damage after tumour removal
- deficiency in new episodic memories, but able to produce semantic
- episodic & semantic are separate and use different brain areas
- damage to her hippocampus
AO3 Finke (PM) procedural memory
- 68 cellist, brain damage & amnesia
- episodic & semantic memory were affected
- was still able to play cello and read/learn music
- show procedural was separate to episodic and semantic
AO3 Sacks (Clive) LTM
- Clive Wearing, retrograde amnesia (doesn’t remember past)
- can’t remember episodic, remembers other two
- can’t encode new episodic & semantic
- can encode procedural through repetition
- shows they’re separate
AO3 types of LTM
- case studies (idiographic) gain insights that wouldn’t be gained from experiments
- lack control to suggest cause & effect
- brain scanning allows for more biological research
who introduced the working memory model
Baddeley & Hitch, they thought memory was more complex than MSM
name the components in the WMM
- central executive
- phonological loop
- visuospatial sketchpad
- episodic buffer
central executive
- director of the model
- receives and filters information, then passes onto two slave systems
- limited capacity: 1 piece of info
- problem-solving, decision making, attention
phonological loop
- slave system 1
- auditory info
- limited capacity, 2 second duration
- split into two sections: primary acoustic store & articulatory process
primary acoustic store
inner ear: deals with sounds recently heard & holds in STM
articulatory process
inner voice: keeps info in your mind by subvocal repetition
visuospatial sketchpad
- slave system 2
- limited capacity & 2 sec duration
- inner eye: stores visual & spatial info
- consists of visual cache (visual info) & inner scribe (recording info)
episodic buffer
- Baddeley needed a separate buffer to integrate all subcomponents info into one
- temporary store for info before being passed on to LTM
testing WMM & MSM
- lab studies (interference & dual tasks) are well controlled & have large samples; increasing internal validity & replicability
- lack ecological validity & mundane realism (not a natural environment)
- fMRI scans show brain activation in separate areas during LTM or STM tasks
- most research was done by Baddeley himself, increasing subjectivity
AO3 Shallice & Warrington WMM; patient KF
- brain damaged patient KF could recall verbal info, but not visual info immediately
- support WMM claim of separate STM stores
AO3 Baddeley; central executive
- participants asked to verbally generate random lists of numbers while switching from typing letters & numbers
- found participants were worse at completing two tasks at once
- shows central executive can only handle 1 piece of info at once
AO3 Klauer & Zhao; visuospatial sketchpad
- visual task of remembering ideographs
- or spatial task of remembering locations of dots on a screen
- along with visual/spatial task accordingly (interference task)
- spatial more disrupted
- visuospatial sketchpad has distinct visual/spatial components as spatial more disrupted than visual
AO3 Baddeley; phonological loop
- visually shown 5 word lists
- asked to write down in same order
- condition 1: monosyllabic words (yes, no, sure)
- condition 2: polysyllabic words (banana, picnic)
- increase in recall in condition 1
- word length effect: words take longer than 2 sec are harder to remember
AO3 WMM
- views STM as an active process rather than MSM
- real-world application to treatment therapy: explains reading difficulties etc
interference
info that is similar gets in the way of recall, they get confused with each other (more likely if info learnt at the same time)
what are the two kinds of interference
- proactive
- retroactive
proactive interference
previously learnt info gets in the way of new info
retroactive interference
newly learnt info gets in the way of previously leant info (overwrites/blocks old info)
response competition
a stimulus causes multiple memories triggered, and they compete for dominance
AO3 Schmidt; retroactive interference [childhood streetnames]
- 211 11-79 year olds responded to questionnaire of map
- asked to name streets from memory
- more times individual moved home, the fewer street names they recalled
AO3 interference
- loss of info may be temporary, so it’s not a true explanation for forgetting as that’s more permanent
- not valid, interference evaluation comes from artificial lab experiments
- only explains forgetting if two sets of info are similar, not applicable to day-to-day forgetting
retrieval failure
problem with retrieving the memory as we forgot the (schema) cues to recall it
context-dependent cues
situation around you as you encode the info. harder to recall without environmental cues
state-dependent cues
mood or physical state when learning new info. different moods change recall
category/organisational-dependent cues
easier to find a memory by knowing the category the info is in
AO3 Godden & Baddeley; context-dependent cues
- divers learning new material on dry land or underwater
- learnt & tested on dry land/underwater
- recall worse in different environments
- real world applications: better to teach divers underwater so they remember in emergencies
AO3 Overton; state-dependent cues
- participants learnt drunk/sober
- recall worse with different internal state
- recall best with same internal state
AO3 Tulving & Pealstone; category dependent cues
- participants given 48 words to learn
- free recall group (no categories) were worse than group with four 12 word categories
- categories acted as a cue
eyewitness testimony
observers of events are asked to recall memories of it
EWT: 3 factors in misleading information
- impact on memory (reconstructive: not accurate of event)
- leading questions
- post-event discussion
AO3 Loftus & Palmer; leading questions
- 45 American students into five groups of 9
- watched video of car crash then asked a specific question about car speed
- manipulated verb in questions
- “how fast were the cars going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted”
- estimate speed affected by verb
- “smashed” 40.5mph
- “contacted” 31.8mph
AO3 Loftus & Palmer; experiment 2
- 150 American students into 3 even groups
- watch 1 min video of car accident
- “how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?”
- group 1: “smashed”
- group 2: “hit”
- group 3: not asked about speed
- one week later asked “did you see any broken glass?” (there was none)
- group 1: 32%. group 2: 14%. group 3: 12%.
AO3 Loftus & Palmer evaluation
- low ecological validity: people rarely see full views of car accidents, participants saw it all
- lacks population validity: students don’t usually have experience so estimates are less accurate
- highly controlled, easy to replicate
AO3 Gabbert; post-event discussion
- participants watched a video of a girl stealing money from a wallet
- tested individually (control group) 1
- or tested in pairs (co-witness group) 2
- group 1: 0% of info wasn’t in video
- group 2: 71% included aspects that weren’t previously in the video
AO3 Gabbert evaluation
- an attempt to seek social approval/conform
- video was less emotionally arousing than possible other situations
- lab experiment, lacks internal validity
- low mundane realism
anxiety
mental state of arousal that exerts feelings of tension, usually comes with physiological changes like increased breathing
EWT: anxiety
- high levels of anxiety produces poor recall
- possibly due to Weapon focus (weapons cause anxiety, distract witness, focus attention on weapon)
- some anxiety increases recall in its state of arousal, improving general alertness
AO3 Loftus; anxiety on EWT
- placed participants outside a lab so they could listen to conversations
- condition 1: conversation about equipment failure, man comes out holding greasy pen
- condition 2: argument and sounds of breaking glass and knocked over furniture, man comes out bloody and holding a knife
- participants given 50 photographs and asked to identify the man
- condition 1: 49% identified him
- condition 2: 33% identified him
Yerkes-Dodson Law of arousal
conflicting results are explained by accuracy increasing as anxiety raises EWT accuracy up to a point where it becomes too much stress (optimal), causing lower accuracy
AO3 Clifford & Scott; anxiety on EWT
- people who saw films of violent attacks
- remembered >40 items of into
- control group saw less stressful version and remembered more
AO3 Yuille & Cutshall; stress on EWT
- 13 witnesses of real Canada shooting after four months
- recall as high as 88% despite leading ques
- higher stress levels had higher memory recall
AO3 Yuille & Cutshall evaluation
- higher stressed people may have been closer to the crime scene
- supported by a study of 110 victims threatened by 22 bank robbers were more accurate than bystanders
AO3 EWT
- real-life applications: development of CI
- ## Warren et al: misleading information is more effective on children (children are also treated as witnesses)
Fisher on cognitive interview
- studied techniques used by police
- found:
- witnesses given large number of closed questions
- order of questions was not matched to witnesses’ mental representation
- witnesses were not allowed to talk freely and were often interrupted
Fisher & Geiselman’s cognitive interview
- context reinstatement (mentally return scene of the crimes, including environmental and emotional state)
- report everything (report details even if they seem irrelevant)
- recall from another perspective (such as another witness or perpetrator)
- recall in reverse order (beginning to end etc)
Fisher & Geiselman’s enhanced cognitive interview
- focused on building trust between interviewer and witness
- interviewer not distracting witness
- witness controlling flow of info
- asking open-ended questions
- getting witness to speak slowly
- remind witness not to guess
- reduce anxiety and getting them to relax
AO3 cognitive interview
- 16 detectives divided into 2 matching pairs groups based on previous performance at interviews
- group 1: received CI training
- group 2: control group (no training)
- group 1: received 63% more info
- however, CI is time consuming and costly
