Theories Of Memory Flashcards
Definition of multi-store model of the memory
permanent structural features of memory and its control processes
Structural features can be seen as hardware to built-in programs that can’t be altered
Control processes are seen as similar to programs that the programmer can write into the computer, determining the operations that the computer can perform
Control processes involve the way we encode, rehearse and retrieve memories
Sensory register
seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling - sensory register has a large capacity of 3-4 items but limited duration of approximately 50 milliseconds to a few seconds before it’s lost
Duration (part of short-term memory)
information that is attended/paid attention to enetrs the short-term store for 15-30 seconds, then assumed to decay completely unless rehearsed
Capacity (part of short-term memory)
STM can hold between 5-9 items (Miller’s magic no. 7)
new information that is added makes older information decay quickly
Encoding (part of short-term memory)
primarily acoustic (auditory or verbal) in this store) - nature of information held in STM does not depend on its input form (e.g. images)
Retrieval (part of short-term-memory)
largely based on rapid sequential scan of the stored information. Important in maintaining information in the short-term store, increasing strength of memory trace and building up memory trace in the long-term store
Encoding (part of long-term memory)
can depend on the rehearsal process or some form of association between the new and pre-existing knowledge stored there. Encodes semantically
Duration (part of long-term memory)
potentially a lifetime
Capacity (part of long-term memory)
potentially infinite
What does the sensory store/register act as?
a buffer for sensory input from the five senses using modality specific encoding for this information - info is in several stores for each of our 5 senses
Supporting evidence for multi-store model of memory
Clive Wearing suffered amnesia, so couldn’t remember or storenew memories, but could hold information temporarily in his consciousness. This shows long-term store was damaged but his short-term store was in tact, so must be independent from one another
Glanzer & Cunitz conducted study to see if position of a word in a list affected its recall, finding ppts recalled more words from beginning of a list (primacy) and the edn (recency) but few from the middle. Words at beginning of list had time to be rehearsed and those at end were in short-term slots
Conflicting evidence of multi-store memory
study of brain-damaged patients like Clive Wearing highlight overly simplistic view of long-term memory. Clive couldn’t recall past events but could remember how to play piano. Shows LTM isn’t a single unitary store but perhaps we have different long-term stores for procedural memeory and practised skills/abilities, and other long-term stores for facts
Other explanations for multi-store model of memory
this model over-emphasises the role of rehearsal. don’t have to rehearse info for it to pass through long-term memory - Craik & Lockhart (1972) offer alternative explanation for transfer of info from Short-term to long-term store as the describe different levels of processing (structural, phonemic, semantic) suggesting that greater depth of processing means more durable the memory trace formed
CW can’t make nw LTM but able to play piano, suggests there’s more to LTM than one store, therefore to simple, not taking into account all aspects of LTM, therefore highlyreductionist
-Usefulness of Multi-store model of memory
understanding of human behaviour, as is a valuable framework in understanding human memory and heuristics that has stimulated huge wealth over memory research. Early model emphasised rehearsal led to better, more precise theories being proposed (craik & Lockhart’s level of processing; Baddeley’s working memory model)
Testability of multi-store model of memory
subjects of case studies are unique (brain injury too), so can’t generalise distincton of stores to all people. We can’t be sure all people have separate STM and LTM stores, so research into MSM lacks external validity as can’t be applied to everyone
much supporting research conducted in lab with unrealistic tasks (learning & recalling an unrelated list of words which lack ecological validity 0 - not how we use memory day-to-day, so might be that we don’t use separate stores in day-to-day life. Can’t apply findings to real life situations
Central Executive
drives whole system and allocates data to subsystems (VSS and PL). Deals with cogntive tasks such as mental arithmetic and problem-solving. Monitors overall systems rather than acting as info storage system
Phonological Loop
deals with spoken and written material, consists of 2 parts (can be used to remember phone no.)
Phonological Store
inner ear, linked to speech perception, holding info in speech form for 1-2 seconds
Articulatory Control Process
Inner voice, linked to speech production, used to rehearse and store verbal info from phonological store
VSSP (inner eye)
stores and processes info in a visual or spatial form, used for navigation, has visual cache which stores visual data (images)
VSSP (inner scribe)
records arangements of objects in visual field, allows rehearsal of visual/spatial information, to maintain in the visual cache
Episodic Buffer
integrating and manipulating material; limited capacity, depends heavily on executive processing. Binds together info from different sources into chunks or episodes - recall info from LTM and integrate into STM when working memory requires it
Supporting evidence of WMM
Patient KF had STM impairment following motorbike accident, had a digit span of one, suggesting gross impairment of phonological store, but visual memory was intact - shows there must be a separate visual and auditory short-term memory
Paulesu et al (1993) evidence of differnt subcomponents in the brain, demonstarted diffferent regions were activated when doing tasks that employed phonological store and articulatory control system. PET scan showed BROCA’s area activated when asked to remeber words & supramarginal gyrus was activated when the phonological store was used - provides evidence for phonological loop and its separate subcomponents
Other explanations for WMM
only explains memory in short-term, so despite addressing complexity of store, it isn’t a complete explanation of how memory works and didn’t originally explain the transference to LTM, so too simple, therefore reductionist
Usefulness of WMM
helps understand patients with Alzheimer’s and explain their difficulty - they have decreased central executive function.
Baddely et al (1991) conducted series of dual tasks on young, elderly and Alzheimer’s patients using verbal or visual tasks together or separately. those with Alzheimer’s showed significant impairment when trying to do tasks together - demonstrates significant problems with central executive functioning as it’s supposedly responsible for co-ordination of subsystems
Testability of WMM
subjects of case studies such as KF are unique (brain injury too), so can’t generalise distinction of stores to all people, can’t be sure all people have separate visual and auditory short-term stores, so research lacks external validity as can’t be applied to everyone
Confidentiality is an issue, research shouldn’t; report case studies in a way that identifies patients/ppts. Should also keep it safe and not reveal without consent, can be problem with patients who suffered brain damage as there’s issues concerning whether someone with severe memory deficit can ever provide true consent if they don’t recall doing so
Semantic Memory (part of LTM)
reprents a mental encyclopedia, storing words, facts, rules, meanings and concepts as an organised body of knowledge, without autobiographical association
Episodic Memory (part of LTM)
A kind of mental diary, receiving and storing information about experiences or events that occur at a time in our life - these memories are linked to time and context
Procedural Memory (part of LTM)
memory for actions, skills , (how we do things), recalled without conscious awareness or great effort; allows us to learn and to respond to the environment
Declarative
allows us to consciously recollect events and facts, generally indexed by our ability to explicitly recall or recognise those events or facts
Non-declarative
accessed without consciousness or implicitly through performance rather than recollection
Supporting evidence for LTM
Ostergaard (1987) described case of 10-year old boy with brain damage following an anoxicepisode, his intelligence still intact, but suffered impairment to both episodic and semantic memory - offers some evidence for independence of the two memory systems as Tulving suggested
KC case study (1951-2014), following motorbike accident), he suffered specific LTM impaitment to his episodic memory, so inability to form or recall any personal events, but recollection of factual info was intact - supports distinction between 2 LTM stores, indicating possible regions of the brain where the different types of memory are stored
Conflicting Evidence of LTM
HM & CW both suffered memory impairment affecting ability to recall LTM from episodic storage, but both men still able to remember how to perform tasks such as playing piano & learn new skills - this points to a further long-term store for remembering practicing skills
Usefulness of LTM
Tulving added a further store (procedural memory) for skills and abilities we learn such as riding a bike
Belleville et al (2006) worked with older people who had mild memory impairment, ppts undertook training programme to improve episodic memories; compared with control group, these ppt performed better on a test of episodic memory after the training - the fact that it’s possible to improve one type of LTM rather than another argues in favour of there being different types
Testability of LTM
case studies of brain damaged patients gives insight into nature of human memory and links between various memory stores and function. Response of individuals to brain damage and the extent of this damage highlights important individual differences between these unique cases - so important to acknowledge care should be taken when generalising findings of these unique case studies to our overall understanding of memory in the whole population
doesn’t account for interrelationship or continuity between each system. Clearly they work together (learning list of words can gave a semantic feature (meaning of word) and an episodic reference (when and where word was remembered) - makes research into separate stores problematic as they can’t be studies in absolute isolation from one another
Reconstructive Memory
an active inferential process of retrieval whereby gaps in memory are filled in, based on prior experience, logic and goals
Memory as an active process?
we store fragments of info, when we need to recall something we reconstruct theses fragments into a meaningful whole, so some bits are missing, distorted and memory isn’t a completely accurate record of what happened
Schema
parcels of knowledge or mental representation of a specific event or object. We draw on this when we recall an event to fill in the gaps. previous stored knowledge; expectations; beliefs; experiences; stereotypes (these influence active reconstructions of events)
Supporting evidence for reconstructive memory
Bartlett found similar effects on repeated and serial reproduction of similar tests using pictures - shows high test-retest reliability as results across studies are consistent with one another that our memory is prone to distortion
Bartlett used 8 different stories on different ppts, finding similar results in that they were shortened and transformed - high external validity, so we can apply the fasct our memories are prone to reconstruct to a variety of settings and individuals
Conflicting evidence for reconstructive memory
Steyvers & Hemmer (2012) argue experimental conditions of research into EWT deliberately induce errors in recall - leads to view that memory is unreliable as their research shows in a real context (ecologically valid setting) without manipulative material, schematic recall can be very accurate - therefore we should be cautious when assuming that eyewitness testimony was unreliable
Other explanations for reconstructive memory
Bartlett believed schema has an effect at the recall sage of memory (we actively reconstruct our memory when it’s retrieved, a process affected by schema; others argue sometimes schema have influence at point of learning as we draw on it to comprehend a situation & make inferences about it.
Doesn’t account for transference between short-term and long-term memory, so not fully credible as it’s an incomplete explanation of memory processes - so can be argues to be too simple, therefore reductionist
Usefulness of reconstructive memory
Understanding that our memories are flawed has led to practical applications in society, taking more caution when considering accuracy of EWT - so no convictions are based on EWT alone as it’s not trustworthy, helping the justice system convict the guilty person
Testability of reconstructive memory
Bartlett (1932) supports his theory with unreliable evidence from his “War of Ghosts” study, very few controls in place when story was read or recalled, so data could be flawed (instructions weren’t standardised, so ppts experiences of procedure were inconsistent, making it hard to compare reproductions
