multi store model of memory Flashcards
how does the multi store memory model suggest that information is stored
information reaches our senses from the environment and then enters our memory system through the sensory register where it registers for a bit
some information from the sensory register is picked up through the process of attention and then passes to the stm
information can stay in the system indefinitely through the process of maintenance rehearsal ( going over the information repeatedly to store for a limited time ) in the stm which has a limy capacity and duration
if you think of a meaning for the information through elaborative rehearsal the information will be coded semantically and passes through to the LTM - unlimited capacity
what are the key claims of this model
- each store is unitary - their are no separate parts
- each store is separate to others - this is why some can be damaged whilst other stay intact and why the have different capacity , duration , coding
evaluation :
clive wearing
( + ) the claim that stm and ltm are separate is supported by evidence - ( - ) unitary not supported
clive wearing can :
play the piano , conduct a choir , remember the name of his wife deborah
cannot :
remember the names of his children even though he knows he has some
make any new long term memories
distinguish between the taste of food
( + ) clive memory restarted once the time span of his stm ( 30 seconds ) relapsed which shows his stm working . however his ltm was damaged because her couldn’t recall some long term memories eg names of his children
finding support that the model is a valid explanation of memory because they suggest that the stm and ltm are separate stores as the Msm claim and the one store can be damaged ( Ltm ) whilst another can still be intact ( Stm ) . However clive wearing had some long term memories but not other for example he couldn’t remember receiving a musical education ( episodic ) but could remember how to play the piano ( procedural memory ) . these finding do not support that the msm is a valid explanation to how the memory because they suggest that the Ltm is not unitary like msm claims
evaluation :
glanzer & cunitz ( 1966 ) the primacy / recency effect
( - ) claim that stm and ltm are separate is supported by evidence with
ppt heard a long list of word and were asked to remove them to then recall them in any order they wanted
ppt recall was best for the first few itmes on the list ( primacy affect ) and the last items on the list ( recent effect ) and they tended to recall the last few items first - believed that the primacy effect occurs because ppt are able to rehearse the first items on the list and store them in their ltm and the recency effect occurs because the last few items on the list were still fresh in the stm
( + ) for example , Glanzer & Cunitz ( 1966 ) asked ppt to remember a list of words they found that when ppt were asked to recall the words they tended to recall the words for the beginning due to the primacy effect and the words being in the Ltm and the words at the end because of the recency effect and the words being fresh in stm the most . strength of msm as this demonstrates that the stores are separate like it claims and therefore suggest that msm is a valid explanation of how the memory works
evaluation :
( - ) flash build memories - overemphasis of the role of rehearsal in the long term memory
( - ) unitary being contradicted by KF
many psychologists believe that rehearsal is too simple of a process to account for the transfer of information from the stm to ltm and transfers often occur with no rehearsal . for example flash bulb memories which are vivid detail memories of surprising event eg manchester bombing
limitation as it would seem that material doesn’t pass through the stm to ltm in the way that the msm suggest and therefore the msm may not be a valid explanation for how memory works
kf’s short term memory of digits was very poor when read out loud to him ( sound ) however his recall of digits was good when he read them to himself ( visual ) . limitation of msm because the case study suggest that the stm in not unitary and is split up into separate visual and acoustic stores therefore makes one of the claims of the msm that stm is unitary invalid
however evidence from brain damage patients may not be reliable because it concerns unique cases with patients who have had traumatic experiences
