Memory Flashcards
Types LTM
- Endel Tulving suggested three types
1. Episodic Memory
2. Semantic Memory
3. Procedural Memory
Episodic Memory
- Memory of personal events (e.g., birthdays, experiences).
- Involves recollection of context (time, place, feelings).
- E.G Remembering a trip to the beach.
Semantic Memory
- General knowledge about the world (e.g., facts, concepts).
- Not tied to a specific time or place.
- Knowing that Paris is the capital of France.
Procedural Memory
- Memory for skills and actions (e.g., how to ride a bike).
- Does not require conscious effort.
- Walking, swimming.
- Episodic Memory-Long-term memory for specific events.
- Semantic Memory-General world knowledge.
- Procedural Memory-Memory for skills and procedures.
Evaluation:
1. Clinical Evidence (HM Case Study):
- Strength: Evidence from case studies (e.g., Henry Molaison (HM)) shows how different types of memory are affected by brain damage.
- Weakness: Case studies lack generalizability (can’t apply findings to all people).
-
Conflicting Neuroimaging Evidence:
- Study: ** Buckner and Peterson 1996 evidence location semantic left prefrontal episodic left hard pinpoint
- Issue: Some studies suggest overlap between brain regions, making it difficult to pinpoint distinct locations for each type of memory.
-
Real-World Application:
- Understanding types of memory can help psychologists treat memory disorders like Alzheimer’s.
- Example: People with Alzheimer’s disease may have procedural memory intact but struggle with episodic memory.
Clive Wearing Case:
-Clive Wearing:Man with severe amnesia due to a viral infection. Lost episodic memory, but his semantic and procedural memories remain intact.
- His case supports the distinction between different types of long-term memory.
Working memory model
Baddeley & Hitch (1974).-Explains STM as a dynamic processor with different types of information managed by multiple components.
Key Components
Central Executive (CE)
Supervisory role: monitors incoming info, directs attention, and allocates tasks to subsystems.
Limited processing capacity; no information storage.
Phonological Loop (PL)-Manages auditory info; subdivided into: Phonological Store: Stores words heard. Articulatory Process: Allows for maintenance rehearsal (repeating info to keep it in memory).
Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (VSS)-Handles visual and spatial information.
Suggested by Baddeley (2003) to have a limited capacity of about 3-4 objects.
Subdivided by Robert Logie (1995) into:
Visual Cache: Stores visual data (e.g., form and colour).
Inner Scribe: Records spatial arrangement of objects in the visual field and transfers info to the CE.
Episodic Buffer (EB)-Added in 2000 by Baddeley.
Combines information from PL, VSS, and LTM.
Temporary store with limited capacity of about 4 chunks.
Evaluation of the WMM
Clinical Evidence-Case Study: KF (Shallice & Warrington) KF had poor verbal STM but intact visual memory, suggesting separate stores.Counterpoint: Unclear if KF’s cognitive impairment was purely WMM-related.
Dual-task Performance-Studies show tasks requiring both the VSS and PL are easier than tasks demanding both use the same system.Supports the idea of distinct components.
Nature of the Central Executive-Criticized for being vague; unclear on how it functions or allocates resources.
Validity of the Model-WMM explains real-life tasks (e.g., multitasking). Dual-task studies support the WMM by showing that tasks sharing a subsystem (e.g., VSS and PL) are harder to perform together, proving distinct memory components. However, artificial tasks in controlled settings may limit real-world relevance.
Brain scan evidence shows different parts of the brain are active for verbal and visual tasks, reinforcing the idea of separate stores.
Explanations forgetting = interference theory
Interference Theory
- Forgetting occurs when two pieces of information conflict, resulting in distorted or forgotten memories.
- Proposed mainly for long-term memory (LTM) though less likely in STM
- Forgetting is worse when memories are similar
-Types of Interference
Proactive Interference (PI)
- Old memories disrupt new memories.
- Example: Struggling to learn new names at school because of previously learned names.
Retroactive Interference (RI)
- New memories disrupt old memories.
- Example: Learning a new language (like Spanish) and then struggling to recall previously learned German words.
Research on Similarity
- McGeoch & McDonald (1931)studied how memory interference worsens when memories are similar.
- Participants learned a list of 10 words with 100% accuracy, then learned a new list:
- Group 1:Synonyms (similar meanings) — Worst recall
-Group 2:Antonyms (opposite meanings)
- Group 3:Unrelated words
-Group 4:Nonsense syllables
- Group 5:Three-digit numbers
- Group 6:No new list (control) — Best recall
-more similar the material, the greater the interference.
-Evaluation of Interference Theory
Real-World Interference
- Baddeley & Hitch (1977):Rugby player study
- Players recalled teams they played against in the season.
- Recall was worse if players had played more games — proving interference affects memory in real-life.
- Increases validity of the theory by showing it applies to everyday memory situations, not just in lab settings.
Counterpoint
- Conditions for interference (e.g., similarity) are rare in everyday life.
- Thus, interference theory may explain forgetting only in specific situations rather than common experiences.
Interference and Cues
- Interference is often temporary.
- Tulving & Psotka (1971)Participants learned 5 lists of 24 words, each categorized.
- Recall worsened with more lists (interference), but improved when given cues
Support from Drug Studies
- Ceraso (1967):Found interference caused memories to become inaccessible rather than erased.
- Kane & Engle (2000):Found that individuals with better working memory were less affected by proactive interference.
- Suggests some people are naturally more resistant to interference.
Driving Example
- Forgetting how to drive on the left side after practicing driving on the right side in another country.
- Proactive Interference:Old habits (right side driving) disrupt new learning.
- Retroactive Interference New learning (left side driving) disrupts old knowledge.
Validity Issues
- Most studies are lab-based limiting real-life generalization.
- Studies using meaningful information like the rugby study provide stronger real-world evidence.
Retrieval failure theory
- Forgetting when info stored in (LTM) but cant be accessed lack of cues.
- Info still present issue with accessibility rather than memory loss.
Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP)
- Tulving (1983) proposed encoding specificity principle.
- says cue must be present both during learning during recall for successful memory retrieval.
- If cues different or absent at recall, forgetting is likely.
- Meaningful cues (like mnemonic devices) effective, but cues can also be external (context) or internal (state).
Types of Cues
- Context-Dependent Forgetting (external cues)
- Recall depends on environment (e.g., being in the same room or place).
- State-Dependent Forgetting (internal cues)
- Recall depends on mental/emotional/physical state (e.g., feeling drunk, tired, or upset).
Research on Context-Dependent Forgetting
- Godden & Baddeley (1975): Divers -learned a list of words either on land or underwater, then recalled list in either same or different environment.
- Findings: Recall 40% lower when learning+recall occurred in different environments.
Conclusion: External cues were missing when contexts didn’t match, resulting in retrieval failure.
Research on State-Dependent Forgetting
- Carter & Cassaday (1998): Anti-histamine study
- Participants learned list of words either on anti-histamine drugs (which induced drowsiness) or in normal alert state.
- Recall conditions were then either same state or different state.
- Findings: Recall was significantly worse when learning and recall states didn’t match.
- Conclusion: Forgetting occurred due to absent internal cues.
Evaluation
Real-World Application theory helps explain real-world forgetting-validity. Baddeley (1977) argues context effects are weak in everyday life because environments rarely entirely different (e.g., rooms at home).However, learning techniques like cognitive interviews use this knowledge to improve memory recall.
Research Support
- research evidence from studies by Godden & Baddeley Carter & Cassaday supports theory.These studies demonstrate effects of context-dependent +state-dependent forgetting both in labs in real life, strengthening theory’s validity. But Godden & Baddeley (1980) repeated diver study with recognition test instead of free recall, was no context-dependent effect.suggests retrieval failure occurs in free recall rather than recognition tasks, limiting the explanation’s scope.
Recall vs Recognition
- Godden & Baddeley (1980) found context effects not significant in recognition test where participants only had to identify learned words.This shows retrieval failure theory applies mainly to free recall rather than recognition.
Evaluation eXtra: Problems with the ESP
-Encoding Specificity Principle cant be tested independently impossible to confirm whether a cue was encoded during learning assume was encoded if successful recall happens.makes ESP theory unfalsifiable, reducing scientific credibility
