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

Baddeley on the MM Model

A
  • Many studies like Baddeley’s are based off of meaningless information
  • Low external validity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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MM as outdated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  • Model is oversimplified and outdated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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

RF 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 participant sinto low/high anxiety groups based on Heart Rate
  • High anxiety disrupted participant’s recall of actors
  • Negative impact on immediat 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