Test 2 (My Study Guide) Flashcards
Short Term Memory Capacity
- Slide includes:
- Short term memory span
- George Miller
- Chunking
Short Term Memory Span
-The number of items that can be recalled in order after a brief delay; span delay task
George Miller
- 1956: Magic number 7 +- 2
- (actually 7 +- 2 chunks of material, not items)
Chunking (recoding)
- Grouping small units into a larger more meaningful unit that can be a single item
- EX: OMGDIYFAQLOL → 4 items, not 12
Chunking and Expertise
- Chase and Simon, 1973:
- Compare chess experts and novices
- Experts >- 10,000 hours
- Novices < 10,000 hours
- Show pictures of chess pieces on a board for 5 seconds
- Random positions (IV)
- Game positions (IV)
- Ask subject to recall positions
- Chess experts did way outperform beginners
What’s the duration of STM?
- 18 seconds
- Not necessarily 18 seconds and not due to decay
How do we forget STM info?
-Two theories: Decay vs. Interference
- Decay Hypothesis:
- Lack of use and increases with time
- Forgetting is permanent
- Proactive Interference Hypothesis:
- Competition with other memories
- Increases with more information and similarity
- Forgetting can be temporary
- Proactive interference is the primary cause of forgetting in STM
- BUT decay hypothesis could work with an appropriate neural mechanism
Brown-Peterson Paradigm
- Studied STM duration
- About 15-30 seconds
- Set of 3 letters to remember, then random 3-digit number and have to count down by 3s, then asked to recall what 3 letters were
- Looking at time it takes to forget info
- How much info retained at 3 seconds and all the way up to 18 seconds?
- Short-term memory looks like it lasts 18 seconds (due to decay)?
- But these data are averaged over many trials
- Not necessarily 18 seconds and definitely not decay – it’s because they’re getting confused on other letters
Two Theories of Forgetting
-Decay and Interference
Decay Hypothesis
- Lack of use and increases with time
- Forgetting is permanent
- Bad hypothesis because time doesn’t cause anything, it just exists
- But could work with an appropriate neural mechanism
Proactive Interference Hypothesis
- Competition with other memories
- Increases with more information and similarity
- Forgetting can be temporary
- Ex: of forgetting why you went into a room. You can remember if you go back to where you were
- Performance decreases with more trials because proactive interference
Proactive and Retroactive Interference
- Proactive:
- Old learning interferes with new learning
- Ex: old parking → new parking; going back to where you parked yesterday
- ”Active over present”
- Retroactive:
- New learning interferes with old learning
- Ex: 1st face ← 2nd face; remembering first guy’s name is hard because you met new guy
- ”active over rectro”
STM Characteristics
- What’s the duration of STM?
- Brown Peterson Paradigm → About 15-30 seconds
- Always old and new info
- Degree of PI depends on similarity (more similar, more interference)
- What’s the capacity of STM?
- Miller’s “magic number” → 7 +- 2
- What’s the mechanism of forgetting in STM?
- Decay vs. interference → proactive interference
Problems with STM concept
- Assumption that info goes through STM to get to LTM (Modal Model)
- Some patients with STM but not LTM deficits; not all long-term memory has to go through STM
- Little correlation of span to higher order cognitive processes
- Ex: counting cards; for reading
-The STM concept needs to be revised
Working Memory
-Baddeley’s Working Memory Model (new theory):
-Central Executive: attentional control; executive functions
-Visuospatial Sketchpad
-Visual Semantics ←>
-Episodic Buffer
- Episodic LTM
-Phonological Loop
- Language
→ STM
Central Executive
- Executive Functions:
- Inhibition: ability to inhibit dominant automatic response (ex: stroop task)
- better/higher executive functioning → good at stroop
- Task switching: ability to switch between tasks, operations, or mental sets
- Updating, monitoring information: monitoring, coping with changing circumstances
- Ex: bartenders; cooking
- Inhibition: ability to inhibit dominant automatic response (ex: stroop task)
Phonological Loop
- Phonological store
- Articulatory loop: ability to rehearse info to yourself; inner voice
- These are the two components
- Articulatory loop: ability to rehearse info to yourself; inner voice
- Realtime speech matters:
- Word length effect
- Cardiologist, situational vs. pen, sit
- Can remember better shorter words (like pen and sit)
- Phonological loop (“pen, sit, fat, cat” easier than “cardiologist, situational, etc.”)
- Need the AL to keep info active
- Articulatory suppression effect
- the, the, the, the, the…
- Difficult to say one thing out loud while trying to listen and remember other info
- Articulatory loop
- It’s just phonological
- Phonological similarity effect
- tdvg vs. tknw
Visuospatial Sketchpad
- Imagine your place growing up, mentally walk through it, and count the windows
- Generating image (LTM retrieval coordinated by CE)
- Hold the info in mind and manipulate it (CE and VS)
- Count and manipulate (CE and VS)
- Used for generating visual imagery and maintaining it
- Ex: of looking at picture of trash cans and redrawing it
- Tied to real-world attributes of objects
- Influenced by knowledge and expectations (top-down processing)
- *RTs are related to the degree of rotation
Two Ways to Measure WM
- Dual task method
- Working memory span
Dual Task
- Do 2 tasks at the same time, 1 is primary (main task) and 1 is secondary additional task)
- Interference between tasks?
- If they can be done at the same time without interfering with each other, they use different mental resources
- If they interfere with each other, they share mental resources
- Reasoning Task (Primary):
- Active: A precedes B
- Passive: B is preceded by A
- Negative Active: B does not precede A
- Negative Passive: A is not preceded by B
- Secondary Task:
- Control Condition: silent
- Articulatory Suppression: the the the the
- Repeated Numbers: 123456, 123456…
- Random Numbers: 41739329046…
Executive Function and the Individual Differences Approach
- Working memory capacity (WMC) is related to higher order cognitive functions (e.g., SAT)
- Need to measure WMC differences between people
- High WMC
- Low WMC
Simple Span Task
-Measures short term stores – visuospatial, phonological
Complex Span Tasks
- Measures whole system – short term stores + processing
- Measures WMC
WM Capacity
-Complex learning
- Reasoning
- SAT scores
- Note taking
- Vocabulary learning
- Following directions
- Reading comprehension
- Bridge playing
- Dichotic listening
- Selective attention
- Pilot performance
- Stroop interference
Kane et. al., 2007: Background and Hypothesis
- Background:
- WMC known to predict lab tasks
- WMC known to predict formal intellectual tasks outside the ab
- What about basic everyday experiences?
- Is WMC related to how often you experience mind wandering?
- Hypothesis:
- Low WMC should make mind wandering more likely when tasks require focused concentration
- Design:
- Measure WMC
- Sample mind wandering in daily life
- Look at the relationship
Kane et. al., 2007: Procedure
- WMC measures
- PDA and Experience Sampling Methodology
- Random beeps 8 times a day for 7 days
- At the time of the beep, my mind had wandered to something other than what I was doing
- I was surprised that my mind had wandered
- I allowed my thoughts to wander on purpose
- I was daydreaming or fantasizing about something
- I was worrying about something
- I was thinking about normal, everyday things
Kane et. al., 2007: Results
-1. Regardless of WMC, what predicted wandering?
- Complex relationship
- Not just more WMC → less wandering
- Complex relationship
- The degree of mind wandering depends on WMC and degree of concentration
- Low WMC tend to mind wander more as the task becomes more challenging/effortful
Kane et. al., 2007: Conclusions
- The relationship between WMC and mind wandering depends on the situation
- Low WMC more likely to mind wander in challenging or effortful situations, and when concentrating
- High spans less likely to mind wander when concentrating, but wandering isn’t much affected by challenge or effort
Stroop Task
- Always incongruent → equal performance
- 20% incongruent → high spans do better
Stereotype Threat
-Performing poorly on a task when a relevant stereotype is made salient in a performance situation
Why?
- Anxiety (stereotype-threat increases anxiety); negative emotions eat up WM capacity - Cognition?
-Schmader & Johns
Shmader & Johns, 2003
- Subjects:
- Women and men (grouping variable)
- 500 or greater on quant SAT (2003 scores)
- Agreed there was a stereotype about women and math
- Independent Variable:
- Control: study is about working memory
- Threat: study is about quantitative capacity
- Research Question: Leveled everybody out, just tested
- When quantitative capacity was brought in (threat), women decreased in performance
- 2nd Experiment:
- Control: only women and told it’s about problem solving
- Concluded: Yes, stereotypes reduce WM resources
LTM Broken Down
- Declarative (on left)
- ”knowing that”
- memory for facts and events; memory you can declare
- can express verbally? At least partially declarative
- ex: you know who Abe Lincoln is if you see a picture of him, but you don’t remember when you first learned about him/who he was (fact); what you did for your last b-day (event)
- Nondeclarative (on right)
- ”knowing how”
- skills → “muscle memory”
- difficult to describe verbally
- ex: know how to type, but don’t know how to describe; playing sports; playing instrument
Declarative Memory Broken Down
- Episodic (on left)
- Memory for specific events
- Accompanied by contextual details: time, place, etc.
- Ex: what you did for your last birthday; when you first learned to ride bike; what you did for last b-day
- Semantic (on right)
- General knowledge and facts about the world
- Can’t specify a particular event in which you learned it
- Ex: what a bike is; can’t remember first time you learned who Abe Lincoln was, but recognize him
Episodic Memory
- Encoding:
- incidental (not trying to remember)
- intentional (something you’re specifically trying to remember)
- Encoding:
- Storage
- About 3 minutes to lifespan
- Storage
- Retrieval
- Recall (don’t have good cause?)
- Recognition (run into someone you know and recognize them)
- Retrieval
Important Variables at Encoding
- Time or frequency
- Massed vs. distributed practice
- Generation effect
- Levels of processing
- Organization and distinctiveness
- Emotion
- Using mnemonics
Massed vs. Distributed Practice
-Massed = cramming
- Bloom & Schuell, 2001
- High school French
-General Principle: Distributed practice leads to better memory than massed practice
Generation Effect
-Generate condition deep better than reading condition
- Generate:
- Associative: doctor n_____
- Category: furniture t_____
- Opposite: hot c_____
- Synonym: hot c_____
- Rhyme: hot p_____
- Read:
- doctor nurse
- furniture table
- hot cold
- hot warm
- hot pot
-Easier to remember info that you have to generate
- Enactment:
- Full enactment: act it out; straight into it
- Verbal run through: read through script
- Memorization: just go learn it
-General Principle: Generating the information leads to better memory
Levels of Processing
- Test of recalling list of words you counted e’s in, and recall list of words you related to yourself
- The way you process the information at encoding matters (a lot)
- Shallow encoding: attending to surface characteristics, or rote rehearsal
- Ex: counting number of e’s; rote rehearsal; repeating over and over to yourself
- Rote: ex: learning times tables
- Ex: counting number of e’s; rote rehearsal; repeating over and over to yourself
- Deep encoding: attending to meaning, elaborating, drawing relationships
- Ex: drawing out concept maps when studying (trying to find relationships between ideas); ex: relating things to yourself
Levels of Processing: Lab Example
- Typeface: caps or lowercase?
- Rhyme: Does it rhyme with eagle?
- Category: Is it a bird?
- Sentence: Does it fit in this sentence: She forgot her _____ at the office.
- Typeface and rhyme are extreme shallow
- Category and sentence are extreme deep
- On average, the more deeply something is processed, the more likely is it that you’ll remember it
Organization and Distinctiveness
- Organization: grouping individual items into larger units based on similarities
- Like chunking, expect for LTM
- Distinctiveness: uniqueness, novel, or isolated items
- Ex: guy in red shirt stands out in crowd of people wearing all white
- How can both be true? Depends on kind of info you’re trying to remember
- List 1 duck, robin, hawk, chicken, vulture (trying to think of differences)
- List 2: duck, round, sock, cabin, vision (trying to think of how they’re similar)
- For better memory:
- If items to be remembered are similar, it’s best to think about their differences
- Ex: trying to study all presidents, think about their differences
- If items to be remembered are distinct, it’s best to think about their similarities
- Ex: trying to learn a bunch of unrelated things, try to find how they’re similar
- If items to be remembered are similar, it’s best to think about their differences
Emotion
- Sharot & Yonelinas, 2007
- Shown neutral pictures and emotional items
- Emotional pictures remembered better (after time has passed)
- Variable important at encoding
- General Principle: Memory is better for emotionally arousing items compared to neutral items
Using Mnemonics
- Memory as a sport
- Ex:guy memorized deck of 52 cards
- How? Method of Loci
- Choose a known location (ex: campus)
- Choose a path through that location (ex: path you walk commonly)
- Mental image of items and put it in places around that location
- Would have to repeat many times to get it