Memory : Coding, Capacity and Duration Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What’s duration of memory?

A

The length of time information can be stored in memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What’s capacity of memory?

A

The amount of information that can be stored in memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What’s coding of memory?

A

Memory encoding is a process where sensory info is modified and stored in the brain (most common forms are visual, acoustic and semantic)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What’re the different types of memory stores?

A

SM, STM, LTM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What’s SM?

A

Sensory memory → initial contact for stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What’s STM?

A

Short term memory → the info we’re currently aware of/ thinking about. Info will decay if not rehearsed and retrieved (new info pushes out old info → displacement)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What’s LTM?

A

Long term memory → continual storage of info which is largely outside our awareness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What’s the capacity of SM?

A

Very large → like recording with your senses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What’s the capacity of STM?

A

Limited capacity (between 7 +/- 2 items)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What’s the capacity of LTM?

A

Potentially unlimited capacity (haven’t discovered a limit yet)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What did Jacob’s research?

A

Jacobs (1887) was one of the first to use the digit span test to assess the capacity of STM. He found the average span for numbers is 9.3 items, and letters decreased to 7.3 items

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What did Miller’s research?

A

George Miller (1956) reviewed physiological research and concluded that “the magic number is 7 plus or minus two” (we can best remember 5-9 items) → people old recall around 7 dots, 7 letters, 7 musical notes

He also found that by chunking info our capacity for remembering info can be increased if we chunk items together → if we find links between things and group them together, we can remember more

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How is info chosen to be converted to STM?

A

Selective memory (only converts what is seen/ focused on)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What’s the digit span test?

A

Number recall test where individuals see how many digits they can immediately recall (can be done forwards or backwards)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What’s a disadvantage of the digit span test?

A

Lacks ecological validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What’s sub vocal articularity rehearsal?

A

Repeating something in your head

17
Q

What’re the disadvantages of Miller’s research? 4

A

• he may have overestimated the capacity
• he didn’t specify the size of the chunk
• the capacity isn’t the same for everyone (individual differences)
• lacks ecological validity

18
Q

Peterson & Peterson (1959) - Aim

A

To investigate the duration of STM

19
Q

Peterson & Peterson (1959) - Procedure

A

• 24 Uni students
• 8 trials
• Ps were given a consonant trigram (3 letters) and were asked to recall the letters after intervals of 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 secs. To prevent rehearsal, Ps were asked to count backwards from 100 in 3s

20
Q

Peterson & Peterson (1959) - Findings

A

3 secs - 80% successful recall
9 secs - 20% successful recall
18 secs - less than 10% successful recall

21
Q

Peterson & Peterson (1959) - Conclusion

A

The duration of STM is less than 18 secs

22
Q

Peterson & Peterson (1959) - Disadvantages

A

• may not been measuring decay, but actually displacement (lowers construct validity)
• lacks ecological validity
• counting backwards changes individuals focus onto numbers vs the letters → sub vocal articulatory rehearsal for numbers not letters

23
Q

Bahrick et al (1975) - Aim

A

To investigate duration of LTM

24
Q

Bahrick et al (1975) - Procedure

A

• 392 Ps from the Us aged 17-74
• some tested with photo recognition and some with free name recall from their highschool yearbook

25
Q

Bahrick et al (1975) - Findings

A

Photo recognition → Ps tested within 15 years or graduation were 90% accurate, after 48 years declined to 70%
Free recall → after 15 years 60% accurate, after 48 years 30% accurate

26
Q

Bahrick et al (1975) - Conlcusion

A

The duration of LTM can last a very long time (longer than STM)

27
Q

Bahrick et al (1975) - Advantages

A

• high ecological validity (remembering names and faces done in everyday life)

28
Q

Bahrick et al (1975) - Disadvantages

A

• may lack internal validity (some may have looked through yearbook on own time)
• compromises the IV (e.g. changes from 15 years to 2 weeks)

29
Q

Baddeley (1966) - Aim

A

To establish whether STM and LTM encode info differently

30
Q

Baddeley (1966) - Procedure

A

Ps were shown a list of words and asked to recall them in the correct order. To test STM, Ps recalled words immediately after hearing them. To test LTM, a time interval of 20 mins was given.
E.g.
Group 1 cat, cab, can acoustically similar
Group 2 pit, few, cow acoustically dissimilar
Group 3 great, large, big semantically similar
Group 4 good, huge, hot semantically dissimilar

31
Q

Baddeley (1966) - Findings

A

Acoustically similar words
STM → no difficulty immediately
LTM → difficulty after 20 mins

Semantically similar words
STM → difficulty immediately
LTM → no difficulty after 20 mins

32
Q

Baddeley (1966) - Conclusion

A

Info is coded acoustically in STM and semantically in LTM

33
Q

Baddeley (1966) - Advantages

A

• found there are distinct and separate memory stores

34
Q

Baddeley (1966) - Disadvantages

A

• there is contradictory research evidence
• lacks ecological validity