Memory researchers

?
  • Created by: freya_bc
  • Created on: 03-01-17 10:33
James (1890)
The different lengths of memory
1 of 38
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
The Modal Multistore Model of Memory
2 of 38
Jevons (1871)
The power of numerical discrimination- can accurately count 8/9 in visual sensory memory - sensory memory has a limited capacity
3 of 38
Averbach (1963)
Used tachistoscope to display dots for brief interval, masked, est dots as function of total number and variable interval,Span of Apprehension- 150ms increased number of dots able to count but more than 8 time made little dif, 40ms not long enough
4 of 38
Sperling (1960)
Partial report procedure- tone to indicate which column to learn after shown then all performance close to 100% for that row as if could remember whole grid but cant, delay cue performance drop to 30% for 4 itmes
5 of 38
Sperling (1960) conclusion
Brief sensory store
6 of 38
Averbach and Coriell (1961)
Sperling estimated capacity of 9 but if cued estimates could be larger e.g. 12 items
7 of 38
Landman, Spekreijse and Lamme (2003)
Duration if SM may be longer than Sperling suggested- 1.6 s
8 of 38
Nairne, (2003)
does memory trace need separate store or could it be the same thing as a traditional short term memory
9 of 38
Galnzer and Cunitz (1966)
immediate recall condition or two delay conditions support for primacy recency
10 of 38
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
traditional view of STS vs LTS- rehearsal improves memory but isnt necessary or sufficient as flat part of serial position curve is not at 0 for unrehearsed items
11 of 38
Glenberg, Smith, Green (1977)
Rehearsal not sufficient as doesn't always work- maintenance vs elaborative more likely to get into LTM, clear capacity, repeating something doesnt cause remembrance
12 of 38
Shallice and Warrington, (1970)
Patients with only STM or LTM but STM deficits dont impact as extensively- still form new LTMs
13 of 38
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
STS purpose- dual task- simulate stm deficits by using tasks that should fill STS e.g. remembering string of digits, secondary memory tasks- sentence verification, semantic judgements, list learning. All impaired but not devastated- more flexible STM
14 of 38
Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
STS 3 components all indep and simultaneously- Central executive, visuo-spatial scratchpad/sketchpad, articulatory loop/phonological loop
15 of 38
Brooks (1968)
remember series of sentences 8 item spatial span 6 item verbal, spatial tasks dont work well with spatial output, spatial task verbal output fine DUAL TASK INTERFERENCE
16 of 38
Conrad and Hull (1964)
Evidence for phonological loop- phonological similarity effect- poor recall of word where items sound similar even when presented visually- items encoded according to way sound
17 of 38
Salame and Baddeley (1987)
Evidence for phonological loop- irrelevant speech effect, recall impaired by simultaneous speech- involuntary phonological encoding, stored on sound and additional auditory stim interferences
18 of 38
Baddeley et al., (1975)
Evidence for phonological loop- word length effect. Serial recall= approx as many words as you can read aloud in 2s, span lower for longer words, span longer for faster speakers, subvocal rehearsal/ vocal rehearsal. Longer word=more compon= STM deman
19 of 38
Norman and Shallice (1982)
Central Executive based on their supervisory attention system, contention scheduling, supervisory attention system works out what trying to do and prevents from carrying out inappropriate action
20 of 38
Shallice (1982)
everyday examples of SAS failure e.g. driving to normal destination by mistake- frontal lobe patients' perseveration and utilisation behaviour
21 of 38
Baddeley (1966)
Experimental task seems load CE is random number generation, monitor everything done in past and what you are about to do at speed- load CE to cure insomnia
22 of 38
Baddeley (2000)
Revision of Working Memory model- episodic buffer memories of life experiences
23 of 38
Baddeley (2007)
Hedonic detector as another addition- deals with emotional info prioritised in STM
24 of 38
Cowan et al., (2005), Oberauer (2002)
Embedded Processes Model as an alternative to WM- STS just the currently activated component of LTS
25 of 38
Nairne (2002)
Feature Model
26 of 38
Brown et al., (2007)
The SIMPLE Model- scale invariant memory, perception and learning- creates mathematical models based on temporal discriminability than apply to both STS and LTS
27 of 38
Ebbinghaus (1885)
Can scientifically study memory- method of savings 100% savings first time, 70% not as quickly , function of f(t) = at(-b)
28 of 38
Wixted (1990, 1997)
Analysed a range of forgetting functions from Ebbinghaus onwards, well described as power function f(t) = at(-b), inital forgetting fast memory almost never completely degraded
29 of 38
Bahrick (1984)
733 people's memory for spanish taught upto 50y ago, decreased rapidly over first few years then levelled off, still way above chance 50 y later, chance for english- spanich recall measured at close to 0 for controls
30 of 38
Standing (1973)
pp watched slides for 5s each then recog test 2 days later- even with 10,000 items/slides learned performance 83% 2AFC even with vivid picture although slightly worse than words, still dont fill up LTM with 10k words
31 of 38
Rensink et al., (1996) and Levin and Simons (1997)
All well and good have so much support for LT visual memory but we dont even notice major changes to picutres- inattentional blindness gorilla thing
32 of 38
Horowitz and Wolfe (1998)
Can we remember where we have just looked? Visual search has no memory- try spot jumbled T hidden amongst jumbled L shapes- more distractors takes longer, check previous places on route without remembering we have previously seen them their before
33 of 38
Konkle, Brady, Alvarez and Aude (2010)
Depend on conceptual similarity among items than perceptual similarity 10/20 min blocks performance after looking at lots still 93% exemplar foil vs novel foil store gist of pictures not specifics
34 of 38
Bahrick (1984)
test ability of college teachers to recog/ID name from photo of previous studnets 8yl recog not ID memory isnt 0 as recog still available
35 of 38
Young, Hay, Ellis (1995)
Errors in everyday face processing 6 errors a day, 114 failure to recog, 314 mistake ID, 233 recog not ID, 190 fail recall name, forgetting face can take many forms
36 of 38
Schooler and Engstler- Schooler (1990)
Verbal overshadowing- verbal description of face seems to impair subsequent memory for face implications for EWT
37 of 38
Melcher and Schooler (1996)
effect of verbalisation can depend on experise- novice wine drinkers have memories enhanced by verbalisation, expert unaffected, intermediate memory almost completely removed- same effect with tasting- verbal overshadowing
38 of 38

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)

Back

The Modal Multistore Model of Memory

Card 3

Front

Jevons (1871)

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Averbach (1963)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Sperling (1960)

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 researchers resources »