Memory [U2] Flashcards
1
Q
Baddeley’s work against time
A
- Exceptions to Baddeley’s findings, such as coding types
- Otherwise stood the test of time
- Good temporal validity
- Important understanding that led to MMM
2
Q
Baddeley & Artificial Stimuli
A
- No personal meaning to the words
- Doesn’t extrapolate to everyday life
- May use semantic in STM when more meaningful
- Limited application to real world memory
3
Q
Jacobs as a replicable study
A
- Poor control in older studies
- Confounding variables, like distractions
- Been confirmed by other better studies since
- Valid test of STM digit span
4
Q
Cowan & Vogal et al.
A
- Miller overestimated STM capacity
- STM capacity is 4±1 (Cowan)
- 4 chunks is the STM limit for visual information (Vogan)
- 5 chunks as AVG more appropriate than 7
5
Q
Bahrick’s external validity
A
- Memories were meaningful
- Other research on meaningless pictures shows lower recall
- High external validity
- More reflective of real life
6
Q
Peterson & Artificial Stimuli
A
- Low external (ecological) validity
- Rarely we do remember meaningless things (Postcodes)
- But mostly we remember relevant things
- Not possible to generalise the findings to real life
7
Q
Baddeley on the MM Model
A
- Many studies like Baddeley’s are based off of meaningless information
- Low external validity
8
Q
Shallice and Warrington on patient KF
A
- STM for digits poor when read aloud to him
- STM for digits good when read to himself
- Two types of STM
- Challenges model of a unitary store
9
Q
MM as outdated
A
- Model is oversimplified and outdated
- WMM
- Evidence the stores aren’t unitary
- Different types of long term memory
- Evidence of more than one type of rehearsal
10
Q
Patient HM & Clive Wearing
A
- Normal functioning in semantic (HM)
- Poor functioning in episodic (HM)
- Could play the piano (Procedural - CW)
- Couldn’t remember how he learnt (Episodic - CW)
- Clearly separate stores
11
Q
Flaws with clinical case studies
A
- Clinical case studies lack variable control
- No control comparison, due to unexpected damage
- Difficult to judge the before & after
12
Q
Tulving et al.
A
- Brain studies suggest different stores
- Tasks while in a PET scanner
- Semantic memories in left prefrontal cortex
- Episodic memories in right prefrontal cortex
- Physical reality to theory, confirmed by later research
13
Q
Belleville et al.
A
- Development of treatments
- Compared mildly-cognitively-impaired old people who’d received memory training against those who didn’t
- Better on episodic memory test
- Different LTM store understanding allows these techniques to exist
14
Q
Baddeley et al. on WMM
A
- Dual Task performance backs model
- Visual & Verbal performance was similar to tests done in isolation
- Visual-Visual and Verbal-verbal was poor
- Due to competition over slave systems
- Must be separate systems with limited capacity
15
Q
Patient KF for the WMM
A
- Injured in motorcycle accident
- Issues with STM
- Remembers visual, like faces, but not auditory
- Two separate slave systems therefore
16
Q
Esslinger & Damasio on Patient EVR
A
- Oversimplified CE / No clarity
- Patient EVR could reason, but could not make a single decision, which are both CE controlled
- Suggests different systems for those roles
- Baddeley says least understood store
17
Q
Baddeley & Hitch on interference
A
- Rugby players asked to recall teams played against
- More games played = poorer recall
- Some were missed due to injury, but took place over same time period
- Supports interference theory
18
Q
Tulving & Psotka on interference
A
- Limited explanation
- Participants asked to learn a list. Recall was 70%
- Additional lists under different categories were added. Recall dropped
- When reminded of categories, recall rose back to 70%
- Importance of cues, alt explanation
19
Q
Wixted & Coenen & Van Luijtelaar
A
- Diazepam prevents information processing of new memories (Wixted)
- Gave participants a list to learn, then diazepam or placebo (C & VL)
- Diaz before learning was poorer, Diaz after was better
- In 2nd condition interference was impossible, which backs theory
20
Q
Research into Retrieval Failure
A
- Godden & Baddeley / Carter & Cassaday
- State & Context dependent forgetting found in everyday life
- Real world situations and lab experiments
- Wide range of support
21
Q
Baddeley on retrieval failure
A
- Contexts aren’t as relevant
- Have to be very different to affect recall
- Land Vs. Underwater isn’t Room 1 Vs. Room 2
- Less relevant in explaining every day forgetting
22
Q
Retrieval Failure use in CI
A
- Practical Application
- Informs cognitive interview
- Scene reconstruction techniques improve testimony accuracy
- TV like Crimewatch broadcasts reconstructions (Helped in Danielle Jones murder 2001 to convict her Uncle)
- Positive impact on many court cases & leads to more JUSTICE
23
Q
Application of misleading information
A
- Has devastating effects in real world
- Has been used to inform police questioning techniques
- Positive impact on workings of judicial system
- Improves eyewitness reliability and decreases wrongful convictions
24
Q
Sutherland & Hayne on Substitution
A
- Showed participants a clip, then asked misleading question
- Recall was better for central details, poorer in peripherals
- Focus makes memories resistant to misleading information
- Substitution theory doesn’t account for central memories resisting distortion
25
Q
Skagerberg & Wright on Memory conformity
A
- Showed participants one of two clips
- Manager’s hair was either light/dark brown
- Participants discussed in pairs (Seen different versions)
- Participants then reported a mix of what they’ seen personally and heard (i.e. a medium brown)
- Memory contamination over conformity
26
Q
Christiansen & Hubinette
A
- Interviewed 58 Swedish bank robbery witnesses
- Some were directly involved (employees), others weren’t (Bystanders)
- More Involvement = More Anxiety
- 75% accuracy across all witnesses
- Increased recall accuracy with involvement
BUT
- 4-15 months after incident
- No control over confounding variables and intervening events
- Other factors could have overwhelmed anxiety’s impacts
- Poor base assumption
27
Q
Valentine & Mesout on WFE
A
- Horror Labyrinth, London Dungeons
- Divided participants into low/high anxiety groups based on Heart Rate
- High anxiety disrupted participants’ recall of actors
- Negative impact on immediate recall
28
Q
Pickel on Anxiety
A
- Focus is due to surprise over fear
- Scissors / Handgun / Wallet / Raw Chicken in hairdresser salon video
- Accuracy was poorer in unusual conditions (Handgun & Chicken)
- Tells us nothing about effects of anxiety, just unusualness
29
Q
Fisher et al. on the CI
A
- 16 detectives recorded their interviews using standard technique
- Half were then taught CI techniques
- Subsequent interviews were then analysed
- 46% increase in information gained compared to control
- 90% was accurate, where possible to confirm
30
Q
Kohnken et al. on the CI
A
- Meta-Analysis
- Collated 55 studies comparing standard technique to CI technique
- Average increase of 41% accurate information
- 4 studies showed no change
31
Q
Quality of CI info
A
- More quantity than quality
- In Kohnken et al., amount of inaccurate info recalled also increased
- CI cannot be guaranteed as accurate
- Particularly an issue in the enhanced cognitive interview
