Memory Summary

Capacity:

• Jacobs - digit span 9.3 for digits, 7.3 for letters
• Miller - people remember about 7 items and 7 chunks

Duration:

• Peterson and Peterson - used consonant syllables, prevented verbal rehearsal. STM lasted 18 secs
• Bahrick et al. - after 48 years participants were 70% accurate in face recognition of classmates and 30% for names

Coding:

• Baddley - difficulty remembering acoustically similar in STM but not in LTM, reverse for semantically similar words 

• Cowan - 4 chunks probabaly the limit. Same for visual information (Vogel et al.)
• Simon - larger chunks means fewer recalled
• Jacobs - 19-year-olds have longer digit span than 8-year-olds
• Consonant syllables not meaningful but some memory activities do involve such stimuli
• Reitman - auditory tones to avoid displacement, led to longer duration of STM
• STM not always acoustic - Brandimote et al. (can be visual), Wickens et al, (can be semantic)
• LTM is not always semantic - Frost (can be visual), Nelson and Rothbart (can be acoustic)
• In Baddeley's study LTM was tested by waiting 20 minss, not really LTM

• Sensory registor - large capacity, very duration (milliseconds)
• Attention transfers information from sensory register to STM
• STRM - limited capacity (5 items/chunks) so information decays, limited duration (a few mins) unless rehearsed
• Maintainence rehearsal eventually creates a LTM
• LTM - potentially unlimited capacity and duration, forgetting may be due to lack of accessibility
• Retrieval from LTM goes through STM

Evaluation and Discussion

• Support from Jacobs, Miller, Peterson and Peterson, Bahrick, Baddeley, and also brain scans show STM - prefrontal cortex (Beardsley), LTM - hippocampus (Squire et al.)
• Case studies - HM, loss of hippocampus - no new LTMs (Scoville and Milner)
• Too simple - STM and LTM subdivided (compoinents of working memeory and LTM subtypes)
• More than maintainance rehearsal - elaborative processing (Craik and Lockhart)
• STM not independent of LTM - different brain activity for words and psuedo-words (Ruchkin et al.)

• Central executive (CE) acts as 'attention', allocates tasks to slave systems, no storage
• Phonological loop (PL) preserves order of auditory information - Phological store holds the words for PL, inner ear - Articulatory process performs maintainence rehearsal for PL, inner voice
• Visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS) for planning and processing visual and/or spatial tasks - Visual cache for form and colour - Inner scribe for spatial relations
• Episodic buffer records events (episodes) as they happen, links to LTM

• Hitch and Baddleley - participants slower when  doing dual tasks (CE + CE and articulary loop) demonstrates CE
• Brain damaged patients - KF - damage to PL, problems with verbal material (words not sounds) (Shallice and Warrington). SC - damage to PL,unable to learn word pairs presented out loud (Trojano and Grossi). LH - damage to spatial system (Farah et al.)
• Case studies are limited (trauma may cause problems, individuals not typical and not generalisable)
• Word-length effect - longer words cant be rehearsed (supports PL), articulatory suppression task cancels out word-length effect (supports articulary process)
• CE doesnt explain anything and more complex than currentely represented, evidence from EVR (Eslinger and Damasio)

• Episodic memories - personal memories for events forming a sequence
• They include details of context and emotion
• Semantic memories - knowledge shared by everyone, abstract and concrete
• They are acquired via episodic memories
• Procedural memories - knowing how to do something
• They become automatic through repitition and are disrupted if you think about them

• Brain scans - episodic memory - frontal and temperal lobe (hippocampus included) semantic memory - temporal lobe - procedural memory - cerebellum, basal ganglia and limbic system
• Procedural vs. declaritive memories - HM formed new procedural memories but not semantic and episodic ones
• Brain damage - evidence unreliable - cant be certain that causal part of the brain identified
• Episodic vs, semantic memories can form independently, double dissociation demonstrated in Alzheimers's pateints (Hodges and Patterson, Irish et al.)
• Priming and fourth LTM - perceptual-representation system may be kind of implicit memory related to priming

• Brain scans - episodic memory - frontal and temperal lobe (hippocampus included) semantic memory - temporal lobe - procedural memory - cerebellum, basal ganglia and limbic system
• Procedural vs. declaritive memories - HM formed new procedural memories but not semantic and episodic ones
• Brain damage - evidence unreliable - cant be certain that causal part of the brain identified
• Episodic vs, semantic memories can form independently, double dissociation demonstrated in Alzheimers's pateints (Hodges and Patterson, Irish et al.)
• Priming and fourth LTM - perceptual-representation system may be kind of implicit memory related to priming

• Retroactive Interference - new interferes with old
• Muller and Pilzecker - recall was less good if there was an intervening task (describing paintings)
• Proactive Interference - old interferes with new
• Underwood - analysed many studies, the more lists learned the lower percentage of recall
• McGeoch and McDonald - learn list of words + list of synonyms - 12% recall, learn list of digits - 37% recall. Similarity matters
• Baddeley and Hitch - rugby players who played fewer games had better recall of teams played against (less interference)

• Artificial research - words and nonsense syllables, and low motivation. Doesnt represent everyday memory
• Only explanations some sitchuations of forgetting, where two sets of stimuli are quite similar
• Accessible not available -  suggested by spontaneous recovery of recognition memory after interference (Ceraso)
• Real - world application - competing advertisements reduce their effect because of interference, better to show three in one day (Danaher et al.)
• Individual differences - people with greater working memory span less susceptible to proactive interference (Kane and Eagle)

• Encoding scecifity principle - material present at encoding is present at retrieval (Tulving and Thompson)
• Tulving and Pearlstone - category + word learned . Free recall was 40% cued recall was 60%
• Some cues are not meaningfully linked encoding but also act as cues
• Context-dependent forgetting: Baddeley and Godden - recall best when initial context (land or water) matched recall environment
• State-dependent forgetting: Goodwin et al. - recall bet when initial state (drunk or sober) matched state at recall

• Research support(Tulving and Pearlstone - lab experiment, Abernathy - field experiment)
• Real - world application - to revising and the cognitive interview
• Retreival cues dont always work - not useful when learning meaningful material (Smith and Vela)
• Retrieval Failure can explain interference effects - this is the more important explanation for forgetting

• Leading questions suggest the desired answer
• Loftus and Palmer - critical question containing hit, smashed, collided, bumped or contacted, speed estimates highest with the verb smashed
• Loftus and Palmer - the verb altered the actual memory of the event; participants more likely to report broken glass 
• Post event discussion - contaminate eyewitness memory of event
• Conformity effect - participants' recollection influenced by discussion with opthers (Gabbert et al.)
• Repeat Interviewing - especially problematic with child witnesses (LeRoy et al.)

• Supporting evidence - misleading information 9Bugs Bunny) altered participants recall (Braun et al.)
• EWT in real life may be more accurate - lab studies not taken seriously - Foster et al. - film of supposed robbery, high accuracy - Yuille and Cutshall - witnesses to real crime fed misleading information but still accurate recall
• Real - worl dapplication - mistaken EWT largest factor in conviction of innocent people, thus more susceptible to misleading information
• response bias - recalling events in origibnal order led to recovery of recall so memory not altered (Bekerian and Bowers)

• Stress (physiological arousal) reduces performance on complicated cognitive tasks 
• Johnson and Scott - weapon focus effect reduces accuracy of face identification
• Loftus et al. - monitored eye movements during weapon exposure, focus was on a weapon
• Evoluntionary argument - it is adaptive to remeber stress-inducing events
• Christainson and Hubinette - high-anxiety victims (bank tellers) remember most accurately
• Deffenbacher et al. - YUerkes-Dodson effect explains high accuracy at moderate levels of anxiety and low accuracy when anxiety is high (or low)

• May not be anxiety - weapon focus effect due to surprise (Pickel)
• Real-life studies show even less accuracy than lab studies (Deffenbacher et al.) lab findings underestimate effects of anxiety
• No simple conclusion - victims of violent crime more accurate than those of non-violent crimes (Halford and Milne)
• Individual differences - neurotic participants become less acurate with increasing anxiety, opposite for emotionally more stable participants (Bothwell et al.)
• Catastrophe model (Fazey and Hardy) better than inverted U (Deffenbacher et al.)

• Based on psychological research:
• - Mental reinstatement of original context - physical and psycological, cued recall
• - Report everything - even seemingly insignificant details, may cue recall
• - Change order - reduces effect of schemas
•  - Change perspective - disrupts schemas, supported by Anderson and Pichert's study (burglar and buyer perspective)

•  Effectiveness - review of 53 studies found 34% more information from (Kohnken et al.), most due to 'report everything' and 'mental instument'  components (Milne and Bull)
• Quality may suffer - 81% increase in correct recall but 61% false positives (Kohnken et al.) 
• CI in practice - police dislike bvecause time consuming and inadequate training
• Comparisons difficult - police forces use different versions of CI
• Individual differences - older adults memories helped more by CI than younger adults (Mello and Fisher)