Memory AO3 Flashcards
AO3 Multi store model of memory
Strengths
-One strength is that there is further supporting research conducted that demonstrates that the LTM and STM are two distinct stores.
-For example, Scoville and Milner (1957) conducted research on patient HM, who previously had to undergo surgery to remove his hippocampus due to his severe epilepsy. However, post surgery, HM was unable to form new long term memories but still retained memories from before the operation. On the other hand, his STM still remained functional, but information could not be transferred between the STM and LTM.
-Therefor, this supports the MSM’s claim that STM and LTM re separate stores, as HM could not transfer information between the two, suggesting that they work independently.
Couterpoint
-Case studies like HM are unique and lack generalisability. His memory deficits were caused by surgery which may or reflect typical memory processes.
-Another strength is evidence from brain scanning research that supports the claims of the MSM.
-For example, Beardsley (1997) conducted brain scans on participants in his study, finding that the prefrontal cortex is active during STM tasks but not during LTM tasks. Additionally, Squire et al (1992), found that the hippocampus is active when the LTM is engaged.
-These findings support the MSM by providing biological evidence that the STM and LTM are distinct systems.
Counterpoint
-Brain activity does not explain how information is transferred between stores or why some memories are forgotten despite rehearsal
Limitations
-A limitation of the MSM is that its interpretations of the STM and LTM are too simplistic.
-For example, research conducted by Baddeley and Hitch (1974), shows that the STM is divided into multiple components: the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad. This is known as part of the working memory model.
Additionally, Tulving (1985) proposed that LTM consists of separate stores: episodic memory(events) , semantic memory (facts) and procedural memory ( skills).
-This is a limitation as it challenges the MSM’s simplicity, suggesting that it does not fully explain the complexity if memory.-[
AO3 Types of LTM
Strengths
-One strength of Tulving’s theory is clinical evidence from case studies, supporting the distinction between different types of LTM
-For example, Clive Wearing was a patient who suffered from severe amnesia caused by a viral infection, which caused impairment of his episodic memory, meaning he could not recall any personal experiences. However, his procedural memory was still intact, which was demonstrated in the fact that he could still remember how to play the piano. Additionally, HM (researched by Scoville and Milner 1957) lost the ability to form new episodic and semantic memories, despite the fact that his procedural memory was intact, as a result of having his hippocampus removed to treat his epilepsy. For example, he could learn new motor skills such as mirror drawing, but had no memory of learning it.
-These cases demonstrate that episodic, semantic and procedural memories are stored in different areas of the brain, providing real life support for Tulving’s theory of separate LTM types
-Another strength of the theory is that it has the support of evidence from neuroimaging.
-For example, Tulving later conducted an experiment, in which participants were asked to perform tasks involving episodic and semantic memory while undergoing PET scans. He found that episodic tasks activated the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, while semantic tasks activated the temporal lobe. Additionally, further research on procedural memory has linked it to the cerebellum and motor cortex as these areas are involved in motor skills and actions.
-This supports and strengthens the theory as it provides scientific, objective evidence for the physical reality of distinct LTM types, linking them to different areas of the brain.
Counterpoint
-Bran scanning studies are correlations as they show which area of the brain are active during tasks, however, do not establish causation. For example, activity in the hippocampus during episodic tasks does not prove that it exclusively controls episodic memory
Limitations
-One limitation is that there are conflicting ideas surrounding whether the LTM types are as distinct as Tulving suggests
-For example, amnesia patients often show varying degrees of impairment across memory types. For instance, semantic memory can be preserved while episodic may be lost, however, researchers like Cohen and squire (1980), suggest these memories interact more than Tulving proposed they suggest a simpler distinction between declarative memory (which includes episodic and semantic memory) and non declarative memory (procedural). This challenges the theory as it suggests that semantic and episodic memory co operate with each their, while procedural memory works independently, highlighting the complexity of memory and encouraging further refinement of similar models.
AO3 The Working Memory model
Strengths
-One strength of the WMM is support from dual task performance studies.
-For example, Baddeley (1975) found that participants in these dual task studies found it more difficult when performing two visual tasks at the same time( such as tracking a light and describing the letter F) compared to performing a visual and verbal task simultaneously.
-This happened because the two visual tasks competed for the visuospatial sketchpad, while a verbal task nagged with the phonological loop so neither store was overwhelmed.
-This demonstrates that the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad are separate systems, supporting the WMM
Counterpoint
-Dual task studies often take place in artificial settings, reducing ecological validity. Multitasking in real life settings may involve more complex interactions than those tested in the lab
-Another strength of the WMM is support from clinical evidence.
-For example, Shallice and Warrington (1970), who conducted research on brain damaged patients. Patient KF had impaired STM for auditory information but normal STM for visual information, suggesting separate stores for verbal (phonological loop) and visual (visuospatial sketchpad) processing. Additionally, Farah (1988) found that patient LH performed better on spatial tasks than visual imagery tasks, supporting the distinction between visual and spatial subsystems in the visuospatial sketchpad.
-This evidence further supports the WMM by providing real life evidence for the STMs distinct components
Counterpoint
-Case studies often lack generalisability
Limitations
-One limitation is that the central executive is often criticised for being overly simplistic
-For example, Eslinger and Damasio (1985), studied patient EVR, who had a cerebral tumour removed. EVR performed well on reasoning tasks, suggesting their central executive was intact, however, they had poor decision making skills, suggesting a dysfunction
-This suggests that the central executive may involve multiple subcomponents, reflecting the complexity of attention control.
Counterpoint
-The central executives role is poorly defined and there is little evidence for its structure beyond being a general ‘control system’, implying its need for further improvement and research.
AO3 Forgetting- Retrieval failure
Strengths
-One strength of the retrieval failure theory is that retrieval cues can be applied to real world situations
-For example, people often go to another room in order to get an item, but forget what they wanted when they get there. However, they may remember again when they go back to the original room that they were in. his is because the cue is context dependent and so the original room will trigger the memory to remember.
-This shows how understanding retrieval cues can help us to develop strategies to enhance memory performance in various contexts, highlighting the value of retrieval failure research in everyday life.
-Another strength is that a wide range of studies have been conducted in support of the theory.
-For example, Godden and Baddeley’s study with divers, who were asked to learn word lists and a week later were asked to recall them using the encoding specificity principle; either they learnt and recalled the word lists in the same environmental context or in different environmental context (e.g learn underwater, recall on land). When the environmental cue was present during encoding and retrieval, the accuracy of recall was higher than when the environmental cue for encoding and retrieval were different.
-This supports the retrieval failure theory as it demonstrates that a lack of cues present during recall and encoding, leads to everyday forgetting.
Limitations
-A limitation of the retrieval theory is that cues does not always work in triggering the memory.
-For example, the outshining hypothesis; where the presence of better cues reduces the effectiveness of context cue. This occurs because the information learned is often more complex than simple cues have the ability to trigger. Smith and Vela (2001) conducted further research finding that context effects are largely eliminated when learning meaningful material.
-This is a limitation as it suggests that while retrieval cues can explain some instances of forgetting, they are not responsible for al types of forgetting, particularly with more complex information.
-
AO3 Forgetting- Inference
Strengths
-One strength of the interference theory is support from real world situations
-For example, Baddeley and Hitch (1977), conducted an experiment with rugby players, asking the to recall the names of teams that they had played against during a rugby season. However, because not all of the players played the same number of games as eachother, due to factors like injury, those who played the mist games had the poorest recall as they had more interference of information.
-This shows that interference can be applied to everyday situations and can reflect typical memory processes, increasing the validity of the theory.
-Another strength is support from drug studies.
-For example, in one study, material that was learned just before taking diazepam was easier to recall than a placebo group a week later- this is called retrograde facilitation. The drug stop new information from reaching the areas of the brain that process memories and so that it couldn’t retroactively interfere with stored information.
-This shows that the forgetting is due to interference as reducing the interference reduced the forgetting process
Limitations
-One limitation of the interference theory is that inference effects may be overcomed using cues
-For example, Tulving and Pstoka (1971), gave participants lists of words organised into categories And were not told what these categories were. they found that recall of the first list had a 70% accuracy, but fell with each new list, demonstrating proactive interference. However, when given a cued recall test, with the names of the categorise, recall rose again to 70%.
-This is a limitation as it shows that interference causes only a temporary loss of access to material in the LTM, which is not explained in the theory
AO3 Eyewitness testimony
