Memory evaluation

?
Duration (STM Peterson and Peterson trigrams, LTM Bahrick et al year book photos)
1. Low mundane realism = ungeneralisable. 2. Reitman: measuring displacement not decay (auditory tones longer duration).
1 of 11
Capacity (Jacobs strings of numbers and letters, Miller 'magic number').
1. Cowan + Vogel only 4 chunks- historical validity. 2. Is task artificial? 3. Jacobs age variation- 8 y-o = 6.6, 19 y-o = 8.6.
2 of 11
Coding (Baddeley et al. acoustic coding STM, semantic coding LTM).
1. Too short LTM interval. 2. Brandimore et al. = visual coding when verbal rehearsal prevented. 3. Frost = visual coding in some LTM tasks.
3 of 11
Multi- store model (Atkinson and Shriffin)
1. Beardsley brain scans, hippocampus = LTM, prefrontal cortex STM. 2. MR less important than level of processing (Craik and Lockhart). 3. Primacy and recency effects (Murdock). 4. Logie = chunking involves both STM and LTM so are linked.
4 of 11
Working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch)
1. explanation of multitasking. 2. KF visual > acoustic, supports sub-stores within STM. 3. EVR decision making but not reasoning, CE more complex. 4. Case studies of brain damage ps- inability caused by general trauma? Lacks generalisability.
5 of 11
Types of LTM (episodic, semantic, procedural)
1. Tulving brain scans, E = hippocampus, S = temporal lobes, P = motor cortex, empirical evidence. 2. HM (Scoville and Milner) new procedural memories but not E or S ones. 3. Application (training elderly ELTM)- Belleville. 4. Case studies EVs.
6 of 11
Forgetting (Interference)- proactive and retroactive -> McGeoch and McDonald.
1. Consistent findings- in lab = no EVs. 2. Interference IRL less bc data is relevant to life. 3. Baddeley and Hitch rugby, no. of teams > time passed. 4. Tulving and Psotka- interference less when cue given.
7 of 11
Absence of cues- either external (Godden and Baddeley) or internal (Carter and Cassaday), leads to retrieval failure.
1. Consistent findings in lab and field = generalisable. 2. Ind.diffs. intelligence, context less important (provides alt. exp.). 3. Tulving and Psotka, cues = more effective recall. 4. Application (Smith), mental reinstatement (context of learning).
8 of 11
EWTs leading questions (Loftus and Palmer)
1. Implications- careful police wording and don't rely solely on EWTs. 2. Replicable as SPs, therefore high EV control. 3. Gabbert et al. discussion- 71% mistakenly recalled. 4. Lacks mundane realism, car crash stressful IRL.
9 of 11
EWT accuracy- anxiety (positive = Christiansen and Hubinette, negative = Johnson and Scott).
1. Yerkes-Dodson curve in Deffenbacher meta-analysis (11 pos., 10.neg.). 2. Weapons focus not just anxiety but surprise (Pickel chicken), 3. Gabbert- C+H study opportunity to discuss. 4. Bothwell ind. diffs. sensitivity (neuroticism/stability scale).
10 of 11
Cognitive interview (context, order, perspective, everything).
1. Kebbell and Wagstaff- specialist training (££) and time consuming. 2. Milne and Bull- context and everything most important, implication. 3. Ind. diffs. age (Mello and Fisher)- older group (memory stereotypes). 4. Kohnken- 81% inc :), 61% inc :(
11 of 11

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

1. Cowan + Vogel only 4 chunks- historical validity. 2. Is task artificial? 3. Jacobs age variation- 8 y-o = 6.6, 19 y-o = 8.6.

Back

Capacity (Jacobs strings of numbers and letters, Miller 'magic number').

Card 3

Front

1. Too short LTM interval. 2. Brandimore et al. = visual coding when verbal rehearsal prevented. 3. Frost = visual coding in some LTM tasks.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

1. Beardsley brain scans, hippocampus = LTM, prefrontal cortex STM. 2. MR less important than level of processing (Craik and Lockhart). 3. Primacy and recency effects (Murdock). 4. Logie = chunking involves both STM and LTM so are linked.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

1. explanation of multitasking. 2. KF visual > acoustic, supports sub-stores within STM. 3. EVR decision making but not reasoning, CE more complex. 4. Case studies of brain damage ps- inability caused by general trauma? Lacks generalisability.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Memory resources »