Memory

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Tigs22
  • Created on: 09-05-18 09:28
What is memory?
The mental recall and store of experiences and infomation
1 of 128
Types of memory
Sensory Register, Short term, Long term
2 of 128
Why is memory important?
Without it: we couldn't learn, survive alone, retain info
3 of 128
What is a model?
A physical representation of something construct and makes it concrete
4 of 128
Who created the Multi-Store Model of Memory? When?
Atkinson & Shiffrin - 1968
5 of 128
Describe the MSMM
Environmental stimuli-> Sensory register --attention--> Short Term- kept through maintenance rehearsal, accessed by info retrieval--elaborate rehearsal--> Long Term (accessed through retrieval)
6 of 128
Positive eval of MSMM
-Supporting studied e.g Baddeley, HM, Clive Wearing, KF, Murdock -Good comprehensible model for describing
7 of 128
KF Case Study
Shallice & Warrington (1970) - Amnesic: STM poor when digits read to him (echoic). STM better when he read them (ioncic) - separate stores
8 of 128
HM Case Study
anterograde amnesia- couldn't create new LTM, STM not affected
9 of 128
Clive Wearing
couldn't transfer STM to LTM - separate stores
10 of 128
Murdock Study
Serial Position Effect (1962) METHOD-Ppts shown list of words (10-40). Words presented for 1/2 secs. The recalled. RESULTS- first words recalled (primary effect LTM), last words recalled (recency effect STM),middle words lost-not rehearsed(asymptote)
11 of 128
What did Glanzer and Cunitz do?
Repeated Murdock's study but used brown-peterson technique after to prevent rehearsal. RESULTS- recency effect disappeared
12 of 128
What is the brown-peterson technique?
Cognitive exercise- Count down from large number in 3s
13 of 128
Limitations of MSMM
Too simplistic, suggests each store is just one unit, suggests there is only one way info goes from STM to LTM, only focuses on structure and not processes
14 of 128
What are the two main modalities of the Sensory Register?
Echoic (hearing) Iconic (sight)
15 of 128
How does the SR encode?
Takes in info from environment and stores it in its raw form as a modality
16 of 128
What is the study for encoding in the SR?
Crowder (1993)- SR retains iconic info for a few milliseconds and echoic for 2-3 seconds- shows that there are different stores
17 of 128
What is the duration of the SR?
Almost instant without attention- less than a second
18 of 128
What is the capacity of the SR?
Large but not unlimited
19 of 128
What is the study for capacity and duration of SR?
SPERLING (1960)- to find existence of SR. METHOD-ppts looked at letters for less than second then recalled. After, had to recall specific rows according to pitch of tone. RESULTS- recalled 4/5 but aware of more. With tone recalled 3x more.
20 of 128
What does Sperling's study show?
Attention is important for recall, the image fades fast
21 of 128
Strengths of Sperling
High control, establish causality, valid results
22 of 128
Limitations of Sperling
Lack of ecological validity, artificial task, low external validity
23 of 128
2 supporting studies of Sperling
Walsh&Thompson(1978) Found SR stores iconic for 500milisec and decreases w/age. Treisman(1964)passed same message through ears with delay. If delay less than 2secs they could tell they're the same. So echoic-2sec duration.
24 of 128
Encoding of STM
Largely acoustic, recieves info from SR that was attended to, kept through maintenance rehersal
25 of 128
Study of encoding in STM
Baddeley(1966) Ppts read out 4 lists of words- semantically similar and dissimilar, acoustically similar and dissimilar. ACOUSTICALLY SIMILAR most difficult- so STM encodes acoustically (all stored in same place- hard to differentiate)
26 of 128
Eval of Baddeley
artifical stimuli, ungeneralisable
27 of 128
Capacity of STM
Limited: 7+/-2 chunks of info. Rest lost through displacement.
28 of 128
Study for capacity of STM
Miller(1956) - 'Magical number 7 plus or minus 2' article
29 of 128
Supporting study of Miller
Jacobs(1887)-test capacity. Tested 443 female students ages 8-19. Had to repeat back list of letters or words, adding one on every time.RESULTS-av.7.3 letters & 9.3 words. recall improved w/age
30 of 128
Eval of Miller
-Didn't specify size of each chunk, cannot conclude exact capacity of STM, didn't take into account other factors e.g. age
31 of 128
Duration of STM
Limited when rehearsal is prevented
32 of 128
Study of duration of STM
Peterson&Peterson(1959)-24ppts given trigrams (3letters). Then brown-peterson technique, the recalled.RESULTS-Longer the delay-less recalled. 3secs-80%. 18secs-less than 10%.
33 of 128
Eval point of Peterson&Peterson
Artifical stimulus
34 of 128
Encoding in LTM
Largely semantic, different types of LTM stored in different areas.
35 of 128
Study of encoding in LTM
Baddely(1966) Ppts learn list of either semantically similar, dissimilar, acoustically similar, dissimilar. Recalled list after 20mins. RESULTS- struggled to recall semantically similar- so LTM encodes semantically
36 of 128
Capacity of LTM
Unlimited-info lost through decay/interference
37 of 128
Study of Capacity of LTM
Anokin(1973) number of neural connections in brain is 1w/10.5mil km of 0s- no human can use entire capacity. Wagenaar(1986)created diary of 2400 events and tested himself.RESULTS-good recall-large capacity
38 of 128
Eval of Wagenaar
Case study, bias, ungenerlisable unuseful
39 of 128
Eval of Capacity of LTM
Studies haven't established a finite capacity but doesn't mean there isn't one.
40 of 128
Duration of LTM
Unlimited, recognition is better than recall, nature of the memor matters. Atkinson&Shiffrin suggest a link between rehearsal and strength of memory
41 of 128
Study for Duration of LTM
Bahrick(1975) 392 american grads shown year book- had to match names to faces. RESULTS- after 14 years 90% correct, after 47 years, 60% correct. So duration is lifetime, supports semantically encoding
42 of 128
Eval of Bahrick
Ungeneralisable- sample bias, causality on correlation BUT high external validity real life
43 of 128
3 Types of LTM & who suggested them?
Tulving (1985)- Semantic, Episodic, Procedural
44 of 128
What are the two categories of the types of LTM?
Declarative (Semantic & Episodic) Implicit (procedural)
45 of 128
What is semantic memory?
Knowledge of facts and the world, not attached to time or place, or always personal
46 of 128
What is episodic memory?
Events in your life, linked to time and place, personal
47 of 128
What is procedural memory?
Memory of skills/actions e.g riding a bike, don;t require conscious effort to recall.
48 of 128
3 parts of evidence of 3 different types
Clinical, Neuroimaging, Heindel (1988)
49 of 128
Clinical Evidence
Rosenbaum et al(2005): KC-brain damage affecting bilateral hippocampal lesions. Remembered semantic but not episodic. HM&Clive Wearing-brain damage-only episodic affected.
50 of 128
Clinical Evidence
De Renzi et al(1987)- lady w/herpes encephalitis affecting left temporal lobe. Semantic affected-not episodic. Man w/damage to right temporal lobe- episodic affected-not semantic
51 of 128
Neuroimaging evidence
Tulving(1994) Ppts did memory test whilst having PET scans. RESULTS- episodic located right prefrontal cortex, semantic left prefrontal cortex, procedural- cerebullum & basal ganglia
52 of 128
Neuroimaging eval
Supports physical reality of different LTM. backed up by research-valid.
53 of 128
Heindel (1988)
Evidence for separate semantic and procedural. Studied huntingdon disease patients- they could learn new semantic but not procedural
54 of 128
Postituve eval of 3 types of LTM
If we can identify different LTMs, pyschologists can target certain kinds of memory to help people. BELLEVILLE(2006)- helped people improve episodic memory- most effected type of LTM from cognitive imparement.
55 of 128
Negative Eval
Cohen & Squire-2 types only- declaratives count as one
56 of 128
Who designed the Working Model of Memory?
Baddeley & Hitch (1974)
57 of 128
What is it a model for?
STM
58 of 128
What is working memory?
The part you actively use whist working on something and deals with info you're engaged in.
59 of 128
What four parts does it consist of?
Central Executive, Visuo-spatial sketchpad, Episodic buffer, phonological loop
60 of 128
What are the features of the Central Executive?
ATTENTIONAL SYSTEM-controls two other slave systems, limited processing capacity, attends to received info and allocates it so correct slave system
61 of 128
What are the features of the Visuo-spatial sketchpad?
SLAVE SYSTEM- deals with iconic info and visual memories. AKA inner eye, info coded using mental pictures
62 of 128
What are the subdivisions of the Visuo-spatial sketchpad?
Inner Scribe and Visual Cache
63 of 128
What are the functions of the subdivions?
CE allocates info to Visual Cache or Inner Scribe depending on data. Visual cache- deals with form and colour then transfers to inner scribe. Inner scribe- deals w/spatial relationships then transfers to CE.
64 of 128
What are the features of the phonological loop?
Deals with echoic info. Info goes round in a loop in order
65 of 128
What are the subdivisions of the phonological loop and their functions?
Primary Acoustic Store (passively holds stored info). Articulatory Process (actively rehearses info. capacity- 2secs worth of what you can say)
66 of 128
What are the features of the episodic buffer?
Storage component of CE. Integrates info from PL and VSS and LTM. Explains how we temporarily hold info. Used when meaningful info is presented and needs integration from many sources. Limited capacity&duration-4 chunks for a few secs.
67 of 128
Study supporting Central Executive
Bunge(2000). Method- Ppts carried out one task, then two tasks that use the CE whilst having an MRI scan. RESULTS- activity shown in prefrontal cortex. activity rose w/2 tasks.
68 of 128
Study supporting Visuo-spatial sketchpad
Baddeley, Grant, Wight, Thompson(1973). Test if we can use VSS for 2 simultaneous tasks. Ppts given visual tracking task whilst describing angles of letter F. ALso did verbal task. RESULTS- v.hard to do 2 visual tasks-same store.
69 of 128
Study supporting Phonological Loop
Baddeley, Thompson and Bucannan(1975). Testing word length effect. Ppts shown 2 lists for a few secs. first-monosyllabic, 2nd-polysyllabic. Had to recall after each list. RESULTS- recalled more short words. PL capacity- how long it takes to say word
70 of 128
When and why will the word length effect disappear?
When given an articulatory suppression task- ties up articulatory process- can't rehearse info.
71 of 128
Study supporting Episodic Buffer
Alkhalifa(2009) reported patient with impared LTM. Demonstrated STM capacity of 23 chunks. Beyond the capacity of just the PL and VSS. Must be another storage system.
72 of 128
Study supporting of the WMM
KF- brain damage to left occipital lobe. STM damaged- not LTM. Could remember words better iconically than echoically. Suggests PL damages but not VSS- different stores
73 of 128
Strengths of WMM
Explains why we can do 2 different tasks better than similar tasks. Real like applications. Backed up by neuroscans and dual task tests. Explains word length effect.
74 of 128
Limitations of WMM
Evidence suggests CE isn't one unit. Noon ecan really explain CE- some think it does more than just allocate info.
75 of 128
What are the two explanations of forgetting?
Interference Theory. Retrieval Theory.
76 of 128
What is the Interference Theory?
When two pieces of info conflict with eachother, causing one or both to be forgotten or distorted.
77 of 128
What are the two types of interference?
Proactive (old memories affect new ones). Retroactive (New memories affect old ones)
78 of 128
What is the similarity effect?
Interference is worse when the memories are similar
79 of 128
Study for Retroactive interference
McGEOCH&McDONALD(1931)- Ppts learnt a list correctly then split into 6 groups and learnt list w/different levels of similarity to 1st one. Lists- synonyms,antonyms,unrealated,nonense syllables,3didgit numbers, Control:no new list.
80 of 128
Study for Retroactive interference- results
Recalled old list- Findings- synonyms: 1.3, antonyms 1.7, unrealated 2.2, nonense syllables 2.5, 3didgit numbers 3.5, no new list 4.5. So-more similar=worse interference
81 of 128
Eval of McGeoch & McDonald
GOOD- Lab experiment, control group. BAD- artificial task, low external validity
82 of 128
Strengths of Interference Theory
Lab experiments support it, proactive&retroactive are reliable and robust effects
83 of 128
Limitations of Interference Theory
Artificial tasks, ungeneralisable, doesn't explain how the cognitive processes happen, difficult to distinguish interference from other effects/theories e.g. decay
84 of 128
Supporting study of Interference Theory
BADDELEY & HITCH(1977)-compared interference&decay. Asked rugby players teams theyd played in season. Most hadn't played all matches- some played week ago, some 3.RESULTS- recall not dependent of time off, but number of games- more inference
85 of 128
Eval of BADDELEY & HITCH(1977)
natural experiment: ecological validity, generalisable, external BUT lack of control
86 of 128
Who suggested retrieval failure
Tulving
87 of 128
What is retrieval failure?
We forget because there are insufficient cues
88 of 128
What is Tulving's principle?
ENCODING SPECIFICITY PRINCIPLE-the greater the similarity between encoding event and retrieval event, the greater the likelihood of recalling the original memory.u
89 of 128
2 types of retrieval faliure
Context-dependent(external, environmental cues), state-dependant (internal cues)
90 of 128
Context-dependent study
ABERNETHY(1940)- students tested weekly(4 groups) either- same room&teacher, same room diff teacher, diff room same teacher, diff room&teacher. FINDINGS-same room&teacher did best
91 of 128
State-dependent study
Carter&Cassaday(1998)-ppts took antihistimines-drowsy. Learnt list of words either: learnt on drug, recall on, learn on, reacall on, e.t.c. FINDINGS- mismatch conditions-worse recall. cues were absent.
92 of 128
Positive eval for retrieval failure
Supporting research, Michael Eyesenck(2010) argues it is the most important reason for forgetting, applications- take eyewitness to scene- cues
93 of 128
Negative eval for retrieval failure
Encoding specificity principle can't be tested, Baddeley(1997) argues context effects are not strong- contexts must be very different- not ecologically valid. Godden&Baddeley did study w/recognition not recall and no context effect. orig-40%lower
94 of 128
Difference between interference and cue-dependency
Interference only when stimulus paired w/2 memories- rare in real life
95 of 128
What aspect of Eyewitness Testimonies is studied?
The ability of people to remember the details of events they observed.
96 of 128
What factors affect EWTs?
Misleading Information, Anxiety, Cognitive Interviews, Stages of eyewitness's memory
97 of 128
What are the stages of eyewitness's memory?
encodes info (may be partial), retained info lost/modified, retrieval- absence/presence of info
98 of 128
What is misleading info?
Incorrect info given to witness after the event
99 of 128
What are the two types?
Leading questions, post-event discussion
100 of 128
What is a leading question?
A question which because of how its worded, suggests a certain answer.
101 of 128
Leading question study
LOFTUS&PALMER(1974)- 45 students watched 7 films of car accidents, given a questionnaire-asked about spped of car when they hit/contacted/bumped/collided/smashed. Findings-av.speed changed depending on verb. contacted-31.8mph smashed-40.8mph
102 of 128
What is the response bias explanation?
Leading questions don't change actual memories- just how you choose to answer
103 of 128
Study to disprove response bias explanation
Loftus&Palmer-150 students watched film of crash. 50 got smashed,50 got hit, 50control-not asked. Week later- asked if they recalled broken glass. FINDINGS- 'smashed' ppts more likely to say yes- changed memory
104 of 128
What is post event discussion
When witnesses dicuss the event so memories become contaminated w/other's memories.
105 of 128
Study of post event discussion
Gabbert et al(2003)-Ppts in pairs- each watched video from diff perspectives- both saw diff things- discussed. then recall test. FINDINGS- 71% recalled things their pair said vs 0% of control group- go along w/other- memory conformity
106 of 128
Misleading info positive eval
real life application- police interviews, legal justice system, ecologically valid
107 of 128
negative eval
artificial tasks- lack stress/distractions. individual differences-younger people more accurate. demand characteristics- zaragosa&mccloskey(1989)- people say yes to not let researcher down
108 of 128
Individual differences supporting study
Anastasi&Rhodes (2006)- 18-26y/os & 35 -45y/os more accurate than 55-78y/os. BUT all groups more accurate when identifying own age group- OWN AGE BIAS
109 of 128
What are the negative effects of anxiety on EWTs?
creates physiological arousal- stops us encoding important cues.
110 of 128
What is the weapon focus effect?
anxiety of seeing weapon makes us focus all attention on it and nothing else
111 of 128
Study of negative effects of anxiety
Johnson&Scott(1976)-2 conditions:low anxiety&high anxiety-ppts told doing study- in waiting room: hear man arguing. low anx: men leave w/pen&grease on hands. high anx: hear smashing glass-leaves w/knife w/blood. Then had to pick man out of 50 photos
112 of 128
Findings
low anxiety: chose correct guy 49% of time. high anxiety: 33%
113 of 128
What are the postitve effects of anxiety on EWTs?
increased awareness- more cues encoded
114 of 128
Study for positive effects
Yuille & Cutshall(1986)-Field Study. Real life shooting-Canada-1 death. 13 witnesses took part in study, 4-5 months after. Interviews compared to police ones. Rated their stress /7. results- not much change, more stressed=more accurate. 88%vs75%
115 of 128
Why can it have good and bad effects?
Yerkes-Dodson Law- Curve graph- optimal stress
116 of 128
Eval of anxiety effect
1-weapon focus may not be relevant: Pickel(1998)-showed ppts vid of hairdressers w/unusual items(gun,raw chicken) and another w/ normal items. FINDINGS-recall worse w/unusual vids for both gun&chicken- could just be weirdness
117 of 128
Eval of anxiety effect
2- field studies lack control: studies should be done straight after event or extraneous variables may affect. 3-ethical issues- ppts must experience anxiety for studies-psychological harm
118 of 128
What is a cognitive interview?
method of interviewing eyewitnesses to him them recall more info
119 of 128
4 stages (COPE)
reinstate Context, reverse the Order, change Perspective, report Everything
120 of 128
What is the enhanced cognitive interview? Who made it?
Fisher (1987)- added additional elements to focus on the social dynamics: 1.no distractions 2.know when to make eyecontact 3.tell them to speak slow 4.ask open qs 5. actively listen
121 of 128
Cognitive Interview positive eval
Milne&Bull (2002)- just using report everything&reinstate context more effective - just 2 elements better than others- credible. Kohnken et al(1999) meta analysis-50 studies- CI consistently gave more accurate info
122 of 128
Negative eval
Milne&bull- some elements arn't useful. also: 81% more acc info but 61% more inacc. CI- doesn't work w/kids, interviewers must be trained, time consuming, variations are used- not as effective.
123 of 128
Biological approach to treating OCD-4 things
Drug Therapy, SSRIs, combining SSRIs w/other treatment, alternatives to SSRIs
124 of 128
Drug Therapy assumption
assumes there's a chemical imbalance in the brain- corrected by drugs that increase or decrease the level of neurotransmitters
125 of 128
SSRIs
Serotonin selective reuptake inhibitors- standard medical treatment. prevents re-absorption of serotonin and so increases levels of it in synapse.
126 of 128
combining SSRIs w/other treatment
Used along side CBT-reduces patient's symptoms so they can engage
127 of 128
alternatives to SSRIs
If SSRI not effective after 3-4months either increased, or combined with w/another drug e.gTRICYCLICS
128 of 128

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Types of memory

Back

Sensory Register, Short term, Long term

Card 3

Front

Why is memory important?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What is a model?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Who created the Multi-Store Model of Memory? When?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Memory resources »