Memory descriptions Flashcards
Digit span technique
(aim, brief procedure + results)
3 points
Jacobs
-measure capacity of STM
-asked pps to remember lists of numbers or digits in increasing length
-found average STM span 5-9 items
Chunking
(describe)
Miller
-amount of info STM can hold is increased by chunking
-chunk takes up only one space in STM so can hold 7 chunks at a time
Trigrams (durations STM- 18-30 seconds)
(procedure, results- percentages)
Brown; Peterson and Peterson
-pps shown trigram of consonants
-pps counted backwards in 3s from a given number (prevent rehearsal)
-after intervals of 3,6,9,12,15,18 seconds pps had to recall original trigram
-pps recalled 80% trigrams after 3 seconds
-pps recalled under 10% trigrams after 18 seconds
Year books (LTM duration)
(pps, procedure + results-percentages)
Bahrick et al.
-400 student pps
-free recall of classmate names
-photo recognition
-name recognition
-photo and name matching
-after up to 34 years pps remembered 90% of classmates
-after 48 years declined to 70%
Encoding
(procedure + findings)
Baddeley
Procedure:
-STM test pps recalled list of 5 words immediately
-LTM test pps recalled 10 words after 20 mins
-Acoustically similar (cat, mat)
-Acoustically dissimilar (dog, box)
-Semantically similar (big, large)
-Semantically dissimilar (tree, pen)
Findings:
-STM encodes acoustically
-LTM encodes semantically
Sensory register
(capacity, duration, coding)
Ca- unlimited (all that is sensed)
D- 250 milliseconds
Co- modality specific
Multistore model of memory
(describe)
Atkinson + Shiffrin
-memory made of series of stores
-information flows through a linear system
SENSORY REGISTER->attention->STM<->transfer/retrieval->LTM
Glancer + Cunitz
(procedure + results)
-asked pps to immediately recall list of words
-words at beginning were recalled (primacy effect)
-words at end were recalled (recency effect)
-words in middle forgotten (asymptote)
Henry Molaison
-severe epileptic
-surgeon took out hippocampi
-seizures reduced
-severe memory impairment eg. couldn’t learn new LTMs
-could learn motor skills like drawing a path through a picture of a maze
Clive Wearing
-viral encephalitis
-damaged temporal lobe, frontal lobe and hippocampus
Semantic memory
what branch (Declarative/implicit) + definition
Declarative
-knowing facts that aren’t time stamped
Episodic memory
what branch (Declarative/implicit) + definition
Declarative
-knowing about life events + is time stamped (eg. 9th bday party)
Procedural memory
what branch (Declarative/implicit) + definition
Implicit
-know how without conscious awareness (eg. riding a bike)
Working model of memory
(describe)
Baddeley + Hitch
-active nature of STM
-central executive and 2 slave systems: phonological loop (articulatory control loop-voice + phonological store- ear) + visuo-spatial sketchpad
-phonological loop for acoustic encoding (2 second time based capacity)
-visuo-spatial sketchpad is the inner eye
-episodic buffer links info across systems eg. a movie scene
Proactive interference (definition)
earlier learning interferes with what you are trying to learn
eg. fluent in spanish trying to learn french
Retroactive interference (definition)
recent learning interferes with recall of earlier material
eg. knowing your new phone number but forgetting your old one
Retroactive interference (research)
method + results
Underwood and Postman
-pps divided into 2 groups
-group A had to remember two word pair lists and recall first list
eg. cat-tree + cat-glass
-group B only had to remember one list
group B recall was more accurate than group A
Baddeley + Hitch
(procedure, conclusions)
-asked rugby players for names of teams recently played
-some players had missed games due to injuries etc.
-found recall wasn’t dependent on time, is dependent on no. of interfering games
2 explanations of forgetting
Interference( retroactive + proactive), retrieval failure due to absence of cues
Context dependent forgetting
(aim, pps, conditions + results)
Godden + Baddeley
-investigate effect of enviro. on recall
-18 divers learnt lists of 36 words in either 4 conditions:
-learn + recall on beach
-learn beach, recall water
-learn + recall in water
-learn water, recall beach
-recall is better if it takes place in same location it was learnt
Evidence for state dependent forgetting
(pps, procedure, results)
Goodwin et al.
-48 male medical students
-random assigined to 4 groups:
-sober both days (SS)
-drunk both days (AA)
-sober day 1, drunk day 2 (SA)
-drunk day 1, sober day 2 (AS)
-drunk 111mg/100ml blood
-found more errors made on day 2 in SA and AS conditions.
-SS performed best in all tasks
Overton
(pps, procedure)
-two groups of rats
-one given mild barbiturate
-placed in simple maze where they had to avoid electric shocks
-rats who were given the drug first time round couldn’t remember how to escape when without drug
Yerkes Dodson law
Performance is related to arousal
-low arousal= low performance
-too high arousal= low performance
-medium arousal= best performance
Weapon focus phenomenon
(aim, procedure, results)
Loftus
-test effect of anxiety on EWT
-2 situations
-either overhear a discussion about lab equipment failure and someone walks out with a pen
-or overhear an argument and hear glass smashing before someone appears with a bloody paper knife
-pps were given 50 photos and had to recognise the person who came out of the lab
-pen group identified 49% of times
-knife group identified 33% of times
A real life event
(pps, procedure, findings)
Yuille + Cutshall
-interviewed 13 witnesses to a shooting in Canada
-misleading questions had no effect on accuracy
-closer to the event= more details
-found EWTs very accurate several months later
Effect of leading questions on EWT
(pps, procedure, results)
experiment 1
Loftus + Palmer
-45 students split into 5 groups of 9
-‘how fast were the cars going when they…… each other’
-verbs: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted
-smashed gave highest estimated speed (41mph)
-contacted gave lowest (32mph)
Effects of leading questions on EWT
(pps, procedure, results)
experiment 2
Loftus + Palmer
-150 pps split into 3 groups
-shown video of car accident
-‘how fast were the cars going when they….. each other’
-smashed or hit
-one group wasn’t asked for control
-1 week later asked was there broken glass (there wasn’t)
-smashed condition stated there was broken glass the most
Post event discussion
(procedure, result)
Gabbert et al.
- 2 groups of pps
-watched crime scene from different angles
-led to believe they’d watched the same
-asked to recall event alone or in pairs
-71% of witnesses who had discussed reported at least one wrong detail
Cognitive interview
(4 principles)
Geiselman (CRRR)
-Context reinstatement- recall image of setting including details like weather etc.
-Report everything- report any info. even if not relevant
-Recall in reverse order- start with most memorable thing and work backwards from there
-Recall form changed perspective- recall from other perspectives of people who were there
Effectiveness of cognitive interview
(pps, procedure, results)
Geiselman
-51 pps
-shown police training videos of violent crimes
-48 hrs after interviewed either using standard interview or cognitive
-more correct items recalled when using cognitive interview
