Memory Flashcards
Cowan (2001)
STM is limited to 4 chunks.
Vogel et al. (2001)
STM for visual stimuli limited to 4 items.
Simon (1974)
Size of chunks affects how many can be remembered.
Jacobs (1887)
Digit span test, it is easier to recall digits than letters
+
Recall improves with age.
Reitman (1974)
Peterson and Peterson (1959) actually found evidence for displacement, not decay.
Nairne et al. (1999)
Items can be remembered in STM for 96 seconds.
Brandimote et al. (1992)
Encoding for STM can also be visual.
Wickens et al. (1976)
Encoding for STM can also be semantic.
Frost (1972)
Encoding for LTM can also be visual.
Nelson and Rothbart (1972)
Encoding for LTM can also be acoustic.
Miller (1956)
7 +/- 2 is the magic number of items that can be recalled in STM.
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Trigram experiment (THX 512, for example): Recall was 90% accurate after 3 seconds but only 2% after 18 seconds.
Bahrick et al. (1975)
Photo memory test. LTM decreases over time.
Baddeley (1966)
STM is mainly encoded acoustically whilst LTM is mainly encoded semantically.
Beardsley (1997)
The prefrontal cortex is active during STM.
Squire et al. (1992)
The hippocampus is active during LTM.
Scoville and Milner (1957) [case study of HM]
HM had his hippocampus removed and could not form new LTMs.
Craik and Lockhart (1972)
Deep processing is more important than maintenance rehearsal for forming lasting memories.
Craik and Tulving (1975)
Participants remember nouns better when they have to fit them into sentences (deep processing).
Logie (1999)
STM relies on LTM and therefore cannot come before it in the MSM.
Ruchkin et al. (2003)
Brain scans showed that LTM is used for STM tasks as Logie (1999) had said it would.
Hitch and Baddeley (1976)
Dual task performance supports the WMM.
Shallice and Warrington (1970) [case study of KF]
KF lost STM for auditory but not visual information.
Trojano and Grossi (1995) [case study of SC]
SC was fine apart from being unable to learn word pairs out loud.
Farah et al. (1988) [case study of LH]
LH performed better on spatial tasks than visual imagery tasks.
Eslinger and Damasio (1985) [case study of EVR]
EVR performed well at reasoning tasks but not decision making, showing that there may not be a singular Central executive.
Baddeley et al. (1975)
Phonological loop can only hold 2 seconds-worth of information.
Corkin (2002) [case study of HM]
HM could learn new procedural LTMs but not episodic or semantic LTMs.
Hodges and Patterson (2007)
+
Irish et al. (2011)
Some Alzheimer’s patients can form new episodic LTMs but not semantic LTMs.
+
Some Alzheimer’s patients can form new semantic LTMs but not episodic LTMs.
Spiers et al. (2001)
Amnesiac patients lost episodic and semantic LTMs but retained their procedural LTMs and the perceptual-representation system (PRS) that allows for ‘priming’.
Müller and Pilzeccker (1900)
First study to find retroactive interference.
Underwood (1957)
Found proactive interference.
McGeoch and McDonald (1931)
The more similar the materials, the more interference.
Baddeley and Hitch (1977)
Rugby players study: the more games played, the more interference and thus less recall.
Anderson (2000)
Interference is uncommon and an unimportant explanation of forgetting.
Ceraso (1967)
Recognition (but not recall) makes a spontaneous recovery after 24 hours and so memories interfered with are just unavailable not lost.
Danaher et al. (2008)
Interference is common when similar brands are advertised to people in a short space of time.
Kane and Engle (2000)
People with greater working memory are less affected by proactive interference.
Tulving and Thomson (1973)
Encoding specificity principle: memory is most effective if information at the time of encoding is present at the time of retrieval.
Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)
It is easier to remember words if the category is given (acting as a cue).
Abernethy (1940)
Tests are easier if the room is the room you learnt the material in.
Godden and Baddelely (1975)
Scuba divers study: if the location (context) is the same at the time of encoding and retrieval then retrieval is more effective.
Goodwin et al. (1969)
Drunk study: learning words drunk or sober makes it easier to to retrieve them drunk or sober respectively.
Smith (1979)
Thinking of the room the learnt the material in is enough to help you remember it.
Smith and Vela (2001)
Context effects are eliminated when learning meaningful information.
Nairne (2002)
Relationship between cues and retrieval is correlational not necessarily causal.
Baddeley (1997)
Encoding specificity principle is circular.
Tulving and Psotka (1971)
Cues eliminate interference effects.
Gabbert et al. (2003)
Post event discussion and conformity effects reduce accuracy of eye-witness testimony (EWT).
LaRooy et al. (2005)
Repeat interviewing is especially damaging for the EWT of children.
Braun et al. (2002)
Seeing a cut-out of Bugs Bunny made participants more likely to report shaking hands with him at Disneyland. Bugs is not Disney and so this could not be true.
Foster et al. (1994)
Testimony is more accurate if witnesses think what they are witnessing is real.
Yuille and Cutshall (1986)
Real-life eye-witnesses in Canada were very accurate despite being fed misleading information.
Wells and Olson (2003)
DNA exoneration has revealed that many people have been falsely convicted due to inaccurate EWT.
Schatcher et al. (1991)
Older people are more susceptible to misleading information.
Berkerian and Bowers (1983)
Response bias may account for apparent effects of misleading information on EWT.
Loftus et al. (1987)
Anxiety focuses attention on central features of a crime.
Christianson and Hubinette (1993)
The most anxious witnesses (victims) had the best recall of all witnesses.
Christianson (1992)
Memory for negative emotional events is better than for neutral events.
Deffenbacher (1983)
Yerkes-Dodson effect accounts for mixed research findings into anxiety. There is an optimal stress level.
Pickel (1998)
Surprise is more important than anxiety for weapon focus. The higher the surprise, the lower the recall.
Halford and Milne (2005)
Victims of violent crimes have better recall than victims of non-violent crimes.
Bothwell et al. (1987)
Neurotics show falling accuracy as stress increases whereas stable witnesses show an increase in accuracy in these conditions.
Fazey and Hardy (1988)
Catastrophe theory: after an optimum point, increased physiological arousal results in catastrophic performance and memory failure.
Geiselman et al. (1984)
Developed the cognitive interview (CI).
Köhnken et al. (1999)
CI results in an average increase in the amount of correct information by 34%.
This was a 80% increase in correct information but also a 60% increase in incorrect information.
Milne and Bull (2002)
The ‘report everything’ and ‘mental reinstatement’ components of the CI result in significantly higher recall.
Kebbell and Wagstaff (1996)
CI requires more training and more time than standard interview. Most police forces that do use the CI only use 1 or 2 components such as the ‘mental reinstatement’ and the ‘report everything’ component.
Mello and Fisher (1996)
The benefits of the CI are greater for older witnesses.
