STUDIES (MEMORY)

Question 1

Miller (1956)

Answer 1

Immediate digit span

Sequence pyramid, digit sequences increasing in length

Length of digit sequence where 50% of digits are correctly recalled is their immediate digit span

Length of Av span: 7 +/- 2

Question 2

Bower and Winzens (1969)

Answer 2

found digit strings repeated in memory trials became easier to remember

Suggests influence of LTM of STM

WEAKNESS of MSM model is flow of information is directional

Question 3

Peterson and Peterson (1959)

Answer 3

Shows effects of rehearsal prevention on recall

Pps given consonant trigrams (CGM) to remember

Asked to count back in 3’s, recall tested after 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18. Trigrams varied

80% recall after 3 second

> 10% recall after 18 seconds

Shows effect on duration if rehearsal is prevented

EVIDENCE FOR MAINTENANCE REHEARSAL FOR FACTOR ON RECALL

Question 4

Baddeley (1966) Enc. STM

Answer 4

Explored acoustic/Semantic encoding in the STM

Pps put in learning categories: Acoustically similar, dissimilar, semantically similar, dissimilar.

Showed 5 words and asked to recall (repeated 4 times)

55% accuracy for similar but 75% for dissimilar

No effect on semantic

ACOUSTIC CODING IN STM

Question 5

Bahrick et al. (1975)

Answer 5

Tested recognition vs recall/for existence of VLTM

392 graduates tracked down in 50 year span.

Condition 1: asked to recall names (60% after 7 yrs, >20% after 47 yrs

Condition 2: asked to recognize faces based on list of names (90% after 4 yrs, 60% after 47 yrs)

Shows recognition is better than recall and duration is big

BUT decline in memory due to duration of impairment with age?

Question 6

Baddeley et al (1966) Enc. LTM

Answer 6

explored acoustic/semantic in LTM

PPS in 4 groups

shown words in 4 groups acoustically similar/dissimilar semantically similar/dissimilar

pps shown 10 words and asked to recall after 20 mins

semantic similar 55%/dissimilar 85%

no difference in acoustic

suggests semantic encoding

Question 7

Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)

Answer 7

Tested for difference in LTM/STM

Pps shown words

Condition one: Immediate recall: remembered words from beginning and end well (in ltm and stm)

Condition 2: Delayed recall by 30 secs: rememberd words from beginning in LTM, words at end not in LTM and lost from STM. forgotten

Shows evidence for seperate stores
Primary/recency effect

Question 8

Baddeley et al. (1975) PL

Answer 8

Evidence for phonological loop

Participants given mix of long and short words

Pps recalled 2 secs worth of words (capacity measured in time)

Short words better recalled (word length effect)

Articulatory suppression task diminished word length effect, suggests task takes over loop to prevent rehearsal

Question 9

Baddeley et al. (1973) VSS

Answer 9

To show evidence for visuo spatial sketchpad

Pps asked to simultaneously imagine f, say y/n to angles if they touch bottom/top lines, and perform light tracking task

Pps performed poorly doing the two together, but did well with tracking task/verbal task

Shows VSS was overloaded, evidence for system

Question 10

Robbins et al. (1996)

Answer 10

Evidence for central executive

20pps given 10 seconds to remember 16 chess pieces

Condition 1: articulatory supression task, performed well

Condition 2: formulation of random letter sequences, performed poorly

Variation: Pressed keys on calculator to engage vss, poor performance,

Shows involvment of CE in memory

Question 11

Case study: Clive Wearing

Answer 11

• Talented musician and broadcaster
• contracted viral infection that left him with extensive brain damage
• Loss of memories from his past
• Inability to lay down new memories, believes he has only just woken up. Can’t lay down new memories or cannot retrieve them? No LTM
• However may still walk, talk and play complex piano pieces
• Shows that memory is not unitary