memory as

ENCODING: changing present information into a different form.e.g. short term= repeated/ rehearsed= acoustic coding, in terms of their sound

Long term- in terms of its meaning, semantic coding

DIFFERENT FORMS: visual, auditory, semantic, taste, smell

CAPACITY: short term very limited capacity, 7ish items. Long term, so large it cannot be filled, unlimited capacity

DURATION:information lasts longer in long term store. If not rehearsed in STM can dissapear in 18 seconds

STORAGE: as a result of encoding, information is stored in memory system, can be stored for a lifetime

RETRIEVAL:Recovering information can be known as recall or remembering

AIMS: investigate how much information can be held in STM

- need accurate measure of STM capacity- serial digit span

PROCEDURES:- lab experiment using the digit span technique

- P'S presented with a sequence of letters or digits, had to repeat sequence in same order it was presented, pace of item was half second intervals. Repeated several times to establish participants digit span

FINDINGS: average STM span was between 5 and 9 items

-STM increased with age

CONCLUSIONS: - STM had a limited storage capacity

-not determined by nature of the item but by size

-STM span increasing was due to increasing brain capacity or improved memory techniques

POSITIVE: great historical importance, first systematic attempt

NEGATIVE:

-lacks mundane realism, not representative of everyday memory. May make results biased. Data wasn't meaningful

-means STM could be higher for everyday memory

-cannot be generalised for real life memory, low ecological validity (but if they used more meaningful things, could be stored in LTM?)

POSITIVE: have been used to go on and improve memory

AIMS: test acoustic hypothesis

PROCEDURE: compared performance of acoustically and visually presented data

- p's presented with 6 letters at a time for 0.75 seconds

- recall letters in order shown

EVAL: - showed visual codes do exist in STM 

AIMS: -study how long info remains in STM, using simple stimuli, not allowing participants to rehearse

- wanted to see if stuff that wasn't rehearsed was lost from STM instantly

PROCEDURE: used "brown-peterson" technique, used a trigam to look at consonants, had to recall in correct order after a delay of 3,6,9 etc seconds...to prevent rehearsal they had to count backwards

FINDINGS: after 3 seconds, 80% recalled

- 6 seconds 50%

-18, fewer than 10%

CONCLUSIONS: information held in STM is rapidly lost when there's no opportunity for rehearsal

-Used artificial stimuli, V little meaning, which means it lacks mundane realism and external validity

- given many trails with different trigams, confusing

-only considered STM duration for one type of stimulus

POSITIVE: well controlled lab experiment, allows cause and effect

-repeated measures design

AIMS: aimed to investigate during of very long term memory, see if it really can last a lifetime

-test for real life information

PROCEDURE: 329 american students. opportunity sample

-free recall of as many students names they could remember, photo recognition test, name recognition test, name and photo matching test.

-results compared with high school year books

FINDINGS: 90% accurate in face and name

CONCLUSIONS: classmates were rarely forgotten once given recognition clues. LTM was supported. Finding that free recall was only 30& after 48 years shows memories are pretty weak

POSITIVE: provides evidence for assumption that info can remain in LTM for V long periods of time

-NEGATIVE: emotional significance of students, great opportunity for rehearsal, can't be generalised

-POSITIVE: high mundane realism, recalled real life memories, representative of natural behaviour, high external validity

3 STORES: SENSORY STORE, SHORT TERM STORE, LONG TERM STORE

-environment is initally received by sensory stores

-some info in the sensory store is attended to and processed further by ST store

- some info from STM is transferred to LTM through rehearsal or repeating it

-more something is rehearsed, longer you remember it

EVALUATION:

POSITIVE: case studies of brain damaged patients support MSM model

-GLANZER AND CUNITZ- when rehearsal is prevented, recency effect disappears

- evidence encoding is diff. in STM and LTM

-huge differences in STM and LTM capacity 

NEGATIVES:

CRAIK &LOCKHART: suggest level at which we process info determines how well we remember it

-people who had severly impaired STM could still make new long term memories

-makes sense to identify several long term memory stores. ATKINSON AND SHIFFRON focus on declarative knowledge

-alternative to MSM

-focuses on how info is encoded

-argued rehearsal is not sufficient enough to account for LTM, said it was level at which something was processed that determined whether we remembered it

- SHALLOW PROCESSING: what it looked like

-INTERMEDIATE: what it sounds like

-SEMANTIC: what it means

EVALUATION:

POSITIVE: Hyde and Jenkins supported

-deals with flaws of MSM

-could be applied to improving memory

NEGATIVE: cannot control what goes on in peoples minds

-too vague, not clear what level of processing is neccesary

- doesnt support Craik and Lockhart