Paper 1- Memory Flashcards
What is the duration of the STM? Give supporting research
Peterson and Peterson studied 24 ppts in a lab and showed them nonsense syllables followed by 3 digit numbers that they had to count back from (articulatory repression).
Counting for 3 seconds: 90% of syllables remembered
Counting for 18 seconds: 2% remembered
Suggests STM has a short duration if rehearsal is prevented
- lacks mundane realism (all artificial tasks) which are meaningless
- could have been displacement; numbers may have replaced the syllables rather than decay (lack of validity) - other researchers found up to 96 seconds
What is the capacity of the STM? Give supporting research
Miller found 7+/-2
However it could be limited to around 4 chunks of info for visual rather than verbal stimuli (size of the chunk also matters)
- also individual differences - may increase capacity steadily with age (due to brain/strategy development)
Supported by Jacobs et al - digit span test with every letter except those which had two syllables - people found it easier to recall numbers rather than letters - letter was 7-3 but numbers 9-2
STM encoding?
largely encodes acoustically (so it is better at remembering semantically similar words)
What is the duration of the LTM?
Barrick et al tested 400ppts in a natural experiment based on their ability to remember their classmates in their yearbook from photo-recognition
After 15 years: 90% recognition
After 48 years: 70%
Suggesting it could be potentially limited
- this experiment was high in ecological validity due to meaningful results
Capacity of LTM?
Unlimited
Encoding of LTM?
Semantic encoding (remembering acoustically similar better)
Describe divisions in the LTM
Episodic (explicit)
- remembering an event concerned with personal experiences (feelings, surroundings)
Semantic (explicit)
- knowledge that may be shared by everyone (function, abstract concepts, general knowledge)
- tend to begin episodic as we gain knowledge off of personal experience
Procedural (implicit)
- concerned with skills and remembering how to do something
- automatic function (over-attention may disrupt it)
Give evidence for research into the LTM divisions
Evidence to support:
- Distinction made between the three types (they originate in different parts of the brain). Tested through brain scanning and found hippocampus: episodic, temporal: semantic, cerebellum: procedural
Distinguishing between procedural and declarative:
- case study of HM who had a damaged hippocampus and parts of the temporal lobe - retained pre-existing LTM’s but could not form new ones : form new procedural but not semantic and episodic (showing different areas) - idiographic?
Distinguishing between episodic and semantic:
— Hodges et al found that episodic could be formed without semantic showing a single dissociation in Alzheimers patients (however insufficient evidence as episodic memory places greater demands for mental processing so damage would be more detrimental)
- Irish et al therefore found second dissociations in Alzheimer’s patients demonstrating poor semantic but intact episodic showing the gateway but ability to form semantic separately
- Tulvings PET scans found that left prefrontal cortex semantic and right prefrontal cortex episodic
Describe the assumptions of Alkinson+Shiffin
Suggested to be 3 distinct/separate stores where information mores in a linear direction
- SENSORY to STM to LTM
maintenance rehearsal between STM and LTM
Sensory: modality specific - iconic and echonic stores , 1/2 second duration but unlimited capacity
Evaluate research into the MSM
Supporting lab evidence
- Brain scanning techniques demonstrating that the that the LTM triggers activity in the hippocampus and STM in prefrontal (distinct and separate) - objective but artificial tasks
Too simple
- theory assumes ‘unitary’ stores but unsupporting research from Baddeley and Hitch who suggested that the STM was split further in different functioning stores - same in LTM (maintenance rehearsal would only explain semantic)
Involves more than maintenance rehearsal
- Lockheart et al: memories are processed deeply or shallowly (more memorable is deeper processing) - easier to remember words when they were in sentences rather than out of context words
Case study support Scoville and Milner
- HM brain damage; retained personality but hippocampus damage from surgery stopped formation of LTM (shows distinct stores but idiographic)
Describe the WMM
Baddeley and Hitch assumed that the STM was split into further stores and dual tasks between the stores often resulted in interference
- central executive: master store which directs attention to particular tasks, data arrives from LTM of senses with a very limited capacity
Phonological loop: Limited capacity but deals with and processes auditory info (phonological store=holds words you hear, articulatory processes= words you read)
-Visuo-spatial sketchpad: Used when you have to plan a spatial task (visual cache=info about visual items, inner scribe=deals with spatial relationships and arrangement)
- Episodic buffer: general store - both visual and acoustic info and integrates from all stores , maintains sense of time sequences
Evaluate research into the WMM
Research:
- gave ppts two tasks (1 occupied the central executive and 2 was either articulatory loop/ central exec
- efficient when different but interference and unsuccessful when they were the same (lacks ecological)
Evidence from brain damaged patients:
Shallice and Warrington - studied KF who forgot auditory stimuli more than visual but his auditory problems were limited to verbal material rather than meaningful sounds (showing the damage was only limited to phonological and not episodic; separate) - idiographic
AND… the process of brain injury is traumatic and may itself change performance - difficulty paying attention may compromise memory
Lack of clarity
- Baddeley recognised that the central executive
- underexplains
Braver
- brain scanning- left prefrontal cortex, increased activity when task became harder as it demands on the CE
What is interference? (forgetting)
- explanation of forgetting in terms of one memory disrupting the ability to recall another (most likely when the memories are similar)
Explain retroactive interference
Retroactive - Muller - current attempts of learning interfere with past learning:
- current attempts of learning interfere with past learning
- gave ppts list of nonsense syllables to learn for 6 mins, intervening task and recall - poorer performance if there was an intervening task as it interfered with past learning
Explain proactive interference
Underwood- past learning interferes with current attempts of learning
- analysed a range of studies and found that when participants had to learn a series of word lists, they were stronger in the middle (10 lists only 20% remembered but 1 list is 70%)
Describe the similarity of test materials
McDonald et al found similarity was significant in interference
- gave ppts list A (10 adjectives), list B (synonyms) and list C (numbers)
When synonyms = 12% but when it was entirely different (numbers) = 37%
Stronger interference when similar
Describe research from the real world (rugby)
Rugby players: asked to recall names of players - players who played the most games in the season had greater interference and less recall
Evaluate research into interference
Research is artificial
- most is lab based and uses artificial word lists, making it meaningless and lacks ecological validity
- participants may lack motivation to remember links in the studies (effects of interference may appear stronger than they really are) HOWEVER… evidence in real life
Real world application into adverts:
- effects of interference are present when shown advert of competing brands within a short time - therefore recall and recognition would be impaired
- to save money, we should run multiple exposures of one brand in one day rather than spreading them across the week
Interference only explains some situation:
- interference in everyday is not reoccurring - requires special conditions
Individual difference:
- Kane et al demonstrated that the individual with greater WMM would be less susceptible to proactive interference - greater resources and mechanisms to counteract
Accessibility vs availability:
- researchers question whether interference effects actually cause a memory to disappear or whether it is temporary effect - interference occurs - memories are temporarily inaccessible (just requires relevant cues)
What is the assumption of retrieval failure?
Assumes that info is rarely forgotten but inaccessible due to the lack of relevant cues
Describe Tulving’s encoding specificity principle
Tulving proposed that if there is a match between cues present at the time of encoding are also present at the time of retrieval, forgetting would be less likely (cues should be similar)
Describe Tulving’s study into retrieval failure
- gave 48 words belonging to 12 categories
- condition 1: free recall of words
- condition 2: given cues (categories)
Cues present - 60% recall compared to 40% without
Describe context dependent forgetting
Abernathy: context is relevant in retrieval
- Gordon and Baddeley: scuba divers learned a set of words on land and water then tested on land and in water - highest recall = match in context
Describe state-dependent forgetting
The mental state can act as a cue
Goodwin asked volunteers to remember a list of words when drunk and sober
- when asked to recall in the same state as the previous night - highest recall when there was a match between states
Evaluate the retrieval failure theory
Lab experiments:
- all lacking ecological validity and mundane realism - word lists are artificial and meaningless but standardised and repeatable
Positive applications:
- improving recall when taking exams - Abernathy suggested that you should revise in the exam room -improvements - however Smith said just thinking (mental reinstatement) could improve
Retrieval cues do not always work:
- most research uses word lists; in real life there are more complex associations which are less triggered by individual cues - outshining hypothesis - Smith and Vela (cues effectiveness reduces presence of better cues - context effects may be removed when doing meaningful things
Strong research for retrieval failure
- Tulving gave ppts words that could be split into 6 categories
- free recall
- gave categories
- when presented with cues, effects of interference disappeared by up to 70%
