Memory, LTM, forgetting
- Created by: sophie.cumberpatch
- Created on: 11-01-20 13:27
View mindmap
- Long term memory
- Types of LTM
- Semantic memory
- Facts, less personal, not time-stamped, conscious inspection. Like encyclopaedia or dictionary.
- Procedural memory
- Skills, actions, not time-stamped, no conscious inspection. If explained harder to do.
- Episodic memory
- Personal events, experiences, time-stamped, conscious inspection. Like a diary, several elements of other memories.
- Evaluation
- Supported by case studies
- HM + CW - difficultly recalling episodic, semantic unaffected (remember concept of dog, don't remember seeing dog) = separate stores.
- Brain scans show different LTM stores
- Tulving et al - memory tasks during PET scan, episodic(right) semantic(left) = prefrontal cortex, physical reality = valid.
- Identifying LTM stores = IRL applications
- Belleville et al - episodic improved in old ppl with mild cognitive impairment, training = improvement, benefit - allows treatments.
- Limitation - problem with clinical evidence
- HM+CW= damaged memory, lack of control, hard to generalise.
- Limitation - Tulving approach, only 2 LTM
- Cohen + Squire, episodic + semantic = declarative, procedural = non-declarative, distinction needs to be right, affects memory studies.
- Supported by case studies
- Semantic memory
- Explanations of forgetting
- Interference theory
- Interference - two pieces of info conflict = forgetting or distortion
- Proactive - old memory interferes with new (calling new gf old gf name).
- Retroactive - new affects old (teacher learns new students names, can't remember old class).
- Effects of similarity - McGeoch + McDonald
- Studied retroactive interference, learn list of 10words until 100% accurate, then learned new list.
- Group 1 - synonyms, 2 - antonyms, 3 - unrelated, 4 - nonsense syllables, 5 - 3 digit numbers, 6 - no new list
- Similar words = worse recall + interference
- Studied retroactive interference, learn list of 10words until 100% accurate, then learned new list.
- Evaluation
- Lab consistent interference
- McGeoch + McDonald - both interference = likely, controls extraneous variables = valid
- Limitation - artificial research
- Often word lists, remember people, places, names, makes interference more likely, IRL may not be likely cause.
- Strength - IRL support interference
- Baddeley + Hitch, rugby players recall names of teams played, worse with more games not time, interference = IRL
- Limitation - time between learning
- Two lists in 20mins, short not reflection of IRL, not generalisable to outside lab.
- Limitation overcome with cues
- Tulving + Psotka, 5lists, 24words, 6groups, recall 70%, declined after more lists, given category = 70%, prevents access, cue = access
- Lab consistent interference
- Retrieval failure
- ESP - cue at encoding + recall = remember, different = some forgetting
- Meaningful = LTM or non-meaningful = context/state dependent.
- Context-dependent
- Godden + Baddeley - land + water learn words, mismatch recall = 40% lower
- State-dependent
- Carter + Cassady, learn words on anti-histamine (drowsy) or not, mismatch = lower recall
- Evaluation
- Impressive support
- Godden + Baddeley, Eysenck - main reason for forgetting, valid, especially due to lab
- Limitation - context not strong IRL
- Baddeley context has to be v different, one room to another = not different, IRL not much forgetting
- Limitation - context effect only when certain tests done
- Godden + Baddeley replication, recognition not recall, no C effect, only affect when testing recall
- Limitation ESP - no testing and circular reasoning
- Recall = cue at encoding, no recall = no cue, no evidence
- Strength - context = IRL applications
- Downstairs forget item, return upstairs, revisit original context to recall, principle of CI - recall crime, reinstate context
- Impressive support
- Interference theory
- Types of LTM
Comments
No comments have yet been made