Models of memory

Question 1

Define the multi store model

Answer 1

Cognitive process used to store and retrieve info
Consists of:
Sensory memory
Doesnt process info. Detects info and holds it until it is transferred further into STM or lost. Made up of diff components such as:
Iconic memory- visual info (lasts 1 sec)
Echoic memory- auditory info (lasts 2-5 sec)
Capacity limited by perception, e.g iconic memory can keep everything in visual field, echoic memory can hold everything we acoustically perceive at that moment
Has potentially unlimited capacity
WHICH GOES INTO STM DUE TO ATTENTION. OTHERWISE IT IS LOST
Short term memory
Can hold 7 ± 2 pieces of info
Duration- approx 30 sec
If info left unattended, info fades away
Long term memory
For storing large amounts of info for indefinite periods of time
Capacity is potentially unlimited
Duration- lifetime
Rehearsal needed to keep info in LTM

Immediate (sensory) memory to Short term memory to long term memory

Question 2

Signpost of Glanzer and Cunitz

Answer 2

MSM is a model of memory with empirical evidence to support its components. Supports idea that STM and LTM are separate stores and duration of STM
Shows the primacy and recency effect- Tendency to recall first and last items on list better than in the middle
can remember first words in a list because they were rehearsed, lack of memory of words in the middle (can’t rehearse, cant remember).

Question 3

Method and results of Glanzer and Cunitz

Answer 3

Method-
2 conditions
First condition
Ppt presented with recording of 20 word lists
Asked to do free-recall task immediately after hearing lists
Results-
Ppt better at remembering words at the start of the list (primacy effect) and end of list (recency effect)

Second condition
Researchers introduced delay between end of the list and start of free recall task. During delay, ppt engaged in filler task: count backwards for 30 sec. Meant to precent them from rehearsing the list.
Results-
Ppt still successful at realling words at the start of list (primacy effect preserved), but not words from the end (recency effect lost)

Question 4

Evaluation of Glanzer and Cunitz

Answer 4

Method- 
Well controlled experiment.
High construct validity
Ecological validity- good for students as they need to remember things. Offers some explanation as to why people forget things they learnt? If not rehearsed, things leave LTM.
Gender-
Used army men. Not generalisable

Question 5

Conclusion of Glanzer and Cunitz

Answer 5

When ppl hear a list of words with the intention to memorize them, they tend to repeat the words to themselves. The first words get repeated more often and enter LTM which is unaffected by delay and filler task. However, words at the end not rehearsed enough and are lost in the 30 sec filler task.
Since one effect disappears and the other doesn’t, this supports the idea that STM and LTM are separate

Question 6

Signpost of Cole and Scribner

Answer 6

MSM does not appear to be a universal model of memory as cross cultural studies it does not apply to other cultures - Cole and Scribner

Serial position curve/ primacy recency effect doesn’t apply to children from non-industrial areas (e.g Liberia), as they are not taught to remember things by remembering things.

Question 7

Method and results of Cole and Scribner

Answer 7

Studied development of memory in Liberia
Method
cross cultural experiment -Studied devlopment of memory among tribal people
Free recall memory task-ppl shown large no. of objects one at a time and asked to remember them. Made sure to use objects that the Liberians were familiar with
Results
Non-schooled kids showed No primacy recency effect-
Non-schooled kids couldn’t remember as many words.
no improvement in memory after practice unless they had attended middle school, then they would learn materials rapidly like US students
educated Liberians, like US, clustered answers into categories e.g food, clothes - non schooled didn’t cluster
if given in story, non schooled clustered items according to role in story
Study changed: List of objects presented as part of a story
Results:
When info given in story, could remember as many as educated

Question 8

Evaluation of Cole and scribner

Answer 8

Method
made sure Liberians familiar with items used to remember
Ecological validity and mundane realism- high
Culture
Cross cultural study. Offers some support for the multi-store model, not just applicable to some cultures/ groups of people.

Question 9

Concluding signpost of Glanzer and Cunitz

Answer 9

Method
made sure Liberians familiar with items used to remember
Ecological validity and mundane realism- high
Culture
Cross cultural study. Offers some support for the multi-store model, not just applicable to some cultures/ groups of people.

Question 10

Signpost of Craik and Lockhart

Answer 10

The multi store model focuses on structure rather than process. The model seems to imply that understanding how information flows is more important than seeing how many separate stores it goes through.
The only mechanism that enables the transfer of info from STM to LTM is rote rehearsal. This might be an oversimplification that ignores various strategies that may enhance memorization.

Craik and Lockhart proposed the levels of processing as a model of memory to counter this

Question 11

Define levels of processing

Answer 11

Different levels of processing (shallow or deep) affect how well STM -> LTM, not just mindless rehearsal
recall is a function of depth of processing
information undergoes a series of levels of processing: shallow / deep
the deeper the info is processed, the stronger its trace in LTM
shallow: superficial features of stimulus e.g physical (structural processing) or acoustic (phonetic processing)
rote rehearsal: repeat to ourselves (phonetic) or recreate mental image of how something looks (structural)
deep: semantic processing - building stimulus into structure of meaningful connections and associations - linking to prior knowledge

Question 12

Craik and Tulving method and results

Answer 12

Craik and Tulving based on Craik and Lockhart’s levels of processing
Levels of processing
Experiment:
Repeated measures
Before seeing words, participants were asked 1 of 3 types of yes or no questions:
Structural processing (shallow) - stimulus superficial features - physical properties - we recreate a mental image to remember
“is the word in capital letters?”
Phonetic processing (shallow) - stimulus superficial features - acoustic properties - we repeat something to ourselves to remember the word
“does the word rhyme with ‘weight’?”
Semantic processing (deep) - needed to know meaning of word, build stimulus into meaningful connection and association, link to prior knowledge
“is the word a type of fish?”
“would the word fit in the sentence ‘he met a ____ in the street?’”
Word revealed after question
Click button for yes or no to answer q
After completing list, given free recall task (recall all words they remember in any order) OR recognition task (pick out words they had seen from long list of words)

Results:
For both recall and recognition task, memory performance significantly better for those that used semantic questions

Avg %age words correctly recognized
More than half phonetic
15% structural
Most of semantic
^ gives evidence that LTM not due to rote (mechanical) rehearsal
^ LTM function of how info processed at stage of encoding

Question 13

Evaluation of Craik and Tulving

Answer 13

repeated measures - cancel out individual differences??
objective, easy analyse data
Offers a differente explanation to how information can enter the LTM from the STM

Question 14

Concluding signpost of Craik and Tulving

Answer 14

Shows that rehearsal is not the only way information cna enter the LTM. How much a person understands the information can also affect how easy it is for info to enter LTM. May be beneficial in school and studying, suggests that if u understand the theory behind smth u are more likely to remember it

Question 15

Evaluation of Multi store model

Answer 15

Simplification
Inability to observe components of the model
Absence of clear physiological basis
TEACUP
Issues with memory- can we use this info to help us?
Address memory disorders (alzheimer’s, amnesia, dementia)- not a good solution, as multi-store models’ solution to no long term memories is keep rehearsing it
Helping with learning/ teaching/ education

focus on structure rather than process
define memory as cognitive process - more important to know how info flows than how many separate stores it goes through
oversimplifies process from STM -> LTM only rote rehearsal
ignores different strategies that enhance memorization
amnesia - some memories lost while others intact - suggest differences in types of info store
Empirical evidence- Shows how test needs to match real life. Ecological validity and mundane realism

Shows multi store model is a model of memory with empirical evidence to support its components.

Question 16

Define working memory model

Answer 16

Central executive- coordinates the 2 subsystems. Allocates resources between the:

Visuospatial sketchpad- visual and spatial info. Notice things in environment, creates a map in ur head e.g closing eyes and imaging image of urhouse. Limited capcity, only what u pay attention t0. 2 sections:
Visual cache- store visual info
Inner scribe -spatial info, where objects are. Mapping a room, planning paths to go

Phonological loop- holds sound info.
Inner ear- holds sound passively
Inner voice- turns visual stimuli into sound, e.g seeing a word and pronouncing it in ur head
Allows for rehearsal of info- repeating info to urself

Central executive Goes to Phonological loop , episodic buffer or Visuo-spatial sketchpad. Can go back to Central executive from phonological loop and visospatial sketchpad

If it goes to episodic buffer, it goes to LTM

Question 17

Method results and concluding signpost of Baddeley lewis and vallar

Answer 17

Method:
Words were read out at a rate of one word per 0.5 sec or one per 2 sec, followed after a 2-sec delay by the spoken recall signal “now”.
Subjects then commenced written recall on a response sheet. They were instructed to recall the words serially, beginning with the first item.
Under conditions of articulatory suppression, subjects were required continuously to repeat the digits 1, 2, 3, 4 from a “ready” signal that occurred before presentation of the words up to a “recall” signal 2 sec after presentation.

Results phonological similarity:
rhyming words harder to recall than non rhyming if words to remember were spoken
Rhyming words sound similar, and so their traces are easier to confuse and so the phonological similarity effect is observed
no difference if words given were written down

Conclusion
when articulatory rehearsal is inhibited, spoken words can enter phonological store (“inner ear”) directly but their rehearsal is impossible
Visual inputs cant be recoded into sounds and cant enter phonological store

observe phonological similarity effect observed
rhyming words sound similar - create similar traces - easier to confuse words
written info can enter working memory but not recoded into sounds
presumed to enter visuospatial sketchbad
info coded visually - traces less similar and harder to confuse
phonological similarity effect not observed

Concluding signpost
Supports memory for speech material uses sound-based storage: phonological store

Question 18

Evaluation of Baddley lewis and vallar

Answer 18

MCEG
Method-
time in which ppt counted not done exactly. Rate of suppression was not strictly monitored, but subjects were encouraged to suppress at a rate of approximately three to four items per second and were cautioned if at any time their rate of suppression showed signs of becoming slower or less regular. Somewhat controlled
Task not very realistic. Lacks ecological validity