Chapter 2- Memory Flashcards

Question

Outline the MSM of memory (6m)

Answer 1

-Atkinson + Shiffrin -explains how info passes from STM into LTM -Info enters through Sensory Store (visual info- iconic store, acoustic info- echoic store) -if attention given, info passes into STM -if not attention given, info lost through decay -STM- info enters through acoustic encoding (Baddeley Study) and is held there for 18 secs (Peterson and Peterson) -STM limited capacity (Miller), 7 +/- 2 item or chunks -if info rehearsed- into LTM -if not rehearsed, info lost through decay or displacement. -if memory enter LTM, stays for lifetime but will be more accessible is meaningful (Bahrick study of duration) -LTM encodes semantically semantically (Baddeley) -Currently, capacity LTM unknown- if limit, no one reached yet. Although info held in LTM for lifetime, still lost through decay/displacement or retrieval failure.

Answer 2

* *_1. Clive Wearing Case Study:_** - contracted virus that caused amnesia - only remember info 20-30secs - could recall info from past - unable to transfer info from STM to LTM but could retrieve info correctly. - THEREFORE: supports idea of info passing from one memory store to another - damage to any MSM part = memory impairment. **_2. Support from study:_** -Miller (1959): STM 7 +/- 2 limited capacity -P&P (1959): STM 18-30secs limited duration -Bahrick (1975): lifetime duration LTM THEREFORE: model accurate representation of human memory. * *_3. Evidence from brain scans:_** - diff. areas of brain active when performing STM tasks (hippocampus + subiculum) and LTM tasks (motor cortex). - Suggests diff, brain regions responsible for diff. components of MSM supporting idea of diff. memory stores.

Answer 3

**_Baddeley and Hitch ('74):_** * developed WMM as explanation of complexity of STM and a way of explaining research findings that could not be accounted for by MSM, e.g. parallel processing (multi-task). **_Nomothetic approach:_** * universal model to explain process of human memory. Opposite to *idiographic* which is an individual approach to examples of real-life individuals- arguably more complex and more accurate representation of reality in memory. **_Experimental Reduction:_** * attempts to explain complex behaviour by relying on isolated variables operationalised in Lab Expts. * Memory is a complex phenomenon- many argue that reducing memory to isolated variables undermines the complexity of human memory.

Answer 4

**_Central Exec:_** * supervisory role (co-ordinates activity of 3 systems) * monitors incoming data + divides limited attention * allocates subunits/slavesystem to tasks * limited processing capacity * does NOT store info.

Answer 5

**_Phonological Loop:_** * deals with audiotry info (encoding=acoustic) * preserves order that info arrives * **Phonological Store:** stores words you hear * **Articulatory Process:** allows maintenance rehearsal, = 'loop'. Capacity of loop = 2 seconds

Answer 6

**_Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad:_** * Stores visual and spatial info * limited capacity= 3/4 objects * **Visual Cache:** stores visual data * **Inner Scribe:** records arrangement of objects in visual field.

Answer 7

**_Episodic Buffer:_** * temp. store of info * integrates visual + spatial + verbal info * maintains sense of time sequence * limited capacity of 4 chunks * links working memory to LTM * it is your 'perception'

Answer 8

* **Patient KF:** * ****injured in accident; he was able to recall info from LTM, but had issues with STM. * Able to remember visual images but couldn't remember sounds. * Suggests that there are at least 2 components within STM. * 1 for visual info, 1 for acoustic info * Research into KF supports WMM + idea of 2 slave-systems e.g. phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad * supports idea of multi-component STM system. * **Baddeley and Hitch (1976):** * ****dual task studes; PPs do 2 tasks at 1 time. * 1st condition: PP use their phonological loop complete two acoustic based task * 2nd condition: PPs use visuo-spatial sketchpad and complete visual task * Ability to perform both tasks impaired when both conditons in the same slavesystem. * Ability not impaired when both tasks in separate slavesystems * evidence for existence of multiple components within STM and separate components for visual and acoustic info.

Answer 9

**ONLY focuses on STM:** * link between WMM and LTM not fully explained. * WMM detailed explaination of STM, no info on how info processed and transferred from STM to LTM and back. * WMM incomplete model of memory and other theories/models required to gain complete picture of complex cognitive phenomenon. **Not all espects of WMM well understood:** * Baddeley said that Central Exec. is most important and least understood component. * E.g. it has been argued that C.E. has limited capacity but this hasn't been researched properly. * Might be other components to C.E. that haven't been researched yet.

Answer 10

**Tulving (1985)-** realised the MSM view of LTM was too simplistic and inflexible. 3 types: 1. Episodic Memory 2. Semantic Memory 3. Procedural Memory

Answer 11

**Episodic Memory- ability to recall events (personal experiences)** * They are _'time-stamped'_: you remember _when_ and _what_ happened. * E.M. also stores info about how events relate to each other in time. * A memory of a _single 'episode'_ will have s_everal elements_ (people, places, objects) and these memories are *_interwoven_* to produce a single memory. * In order to access episodic memories, you have to make a _conscious effort_ (happens quickly but you are still aware that you are looking for that memory)

Answer 12

**Semantic Memory: contains shared knowledge of the world (facts)** * S.M. contains your knowledge of a number of concepts such as 'animals' 'love' etc. * these memories are not 'time-stamped', don't remember when new memory was first made. * Contains an immense collection of material which is constantly being added to. * According to Tulving, S.M. is less vulnerable to distortion + forgetting than E.M.

Answer 13

**Procedural Memory- actions or skills:** * recall P.M. without conscious awareness or much effort. * hard to explain to someone else. * e.g. driving a car * ability becomes automatic!

Answer 14

**SUPPORT:** * Clinical Evidence- _Molaison + Wearing:_ * Episodic memory impaired in both due to brain damage. * Semantic memories unaffected (knew meaning of words) * Procedural memories intact- could walk and speak * *supports Tulvings theory of diff. memory stores in LTM- 1 store damaged, others unaffected.* **HOWEVER:** * Clinical Studies lack control of variables * Brain Injuries experienced by _Molaison + Wearing_ unexpected + researcher couldn't control what happened to PP before and after injury * Researcher has no knowledge of PP memory before injury so difficult to judge how much worse after. * *therefore, lack of control limits what clinical studies tell us about diff. types LTM (low internal validity)* **NEGATIVE:** * Conflicting Neuro-imaging research- Buckner + Peterson ('96) * looked at evidence on location of semantic + episodic memory * concluded semantic is located in left-side of prefrontal cortex * episodic on the right * HOWEVER, * other research links left prefrontal cortex with episodic and right with semantic. * *therefore challenges neurophysiological evidence to support types LTM as poor agreement on where each type located.*

Answer 15

**Proactive Interference** is when **old** info interferes with the **retreival** of **new** info.

Answer 16

**Retroactive Interference** is when **new** info interferes with the **retrieval** of **old** info.

Answer 17

**McGeoch + McDonald (1931)- in both P.I. abd R.I. interference is worse when memories are similar:** * Procedure: studied R.I. by changing amount of similarity between words. PP had to learn list of words until they could remember with 100% accuracy + then PP learned new list. * 6 groups of PPs who learned diff. types of new lists: * **Group 1:** synonyms * **Group 2:** antonyms * **Group 3**: words unrelated to original ones * **Group 4**: consonant syllables * **Group 5**: three-digit numbers * **Group 6**: no new list (control condition) * Findings: when PPs asked to recall original list of words, most similar materials (synonyms) produced worst recall. * Conclusion: findings show that interference is strongest when memories are similar.

Answer 18

**Baddeley and Hitch (1977):** * sample comprised of rugby players who had played every match in the season and players that missed some games due to injury. * Legnth of tine from start to end of season same for all players * Players were asked to recall the names of the teams they had played agaisnt earlier in the season * RESULTS: players who played most games forgot proportionately more games then those who had played less due to injury. * CONC: B+H concluded that this was result of retroactive interference (learning of new info, team name, interfered with memory of old info, earlier team name) Good study becuase real life example However, confounding variables- could rugby players have other factors that led to memory loss, alcohol etc.

Answer 19

**Keppel and Underwood (1962):** * PPs presented with meaningless trigrams and different intervals. To prevent rehearsal they had to count back in 3s before recalling. * PP typically remembered trigrams that were presented first, irrespective of interval legnth. * Results suggest procative interference occurred (memory for earlier trigram (trasnferred to LTM) interfered with memory of new trigram * ...due to similarity of info presented. * Good: lab expt- high control, high internal validity* * Bad: lacks mundance realism.*

Answer 20

ESP- Tulving '83 ESP says that: a meaningful cue has to be both: 1. Present at encoding (when we learn material) 2. present at retrieval (when we are recalling material) If the cues that are available at encoding are different or absent at retrieval… **There will be forgetting!** Some cues are encoded in meaningful way (semantically) = **mnemonic techniques** HOWEVER, cues can also be encoded at time of learning that isn't semantic- 2 types: 1. Context-dependent forgetting 1. State-dependent forgetting

Answer 21

C-D Forgetting: **Godden + Baddeley ('75)** recall depends on external cue (weather/place)

Answer 22

S-D Forgetting: Carter and Cassaday ('98) recall depends on internal cue (feeling upset, being drunk)

Answer 23

ESP relies heavily on assumptions of when some info has been encoded. If cue does not produce recall, it is assumed that it was never encoded. If cue did produce recall- assumed it must have been encoded. Questions validity of Retrieval Failure theory - vague explanation for retrieval failure/memory loss.

Answer 24

Bad: * Godden and Baddely- lacks mundane realism… can research be applied in real life scenarios. * impossible to find environment as different as land and underwater * realistically learn something in one room and then recall that info in another room * this is unlikely to cause forgetting as environment/external cues do not contrast a lot. * THEREFORE forgetting may not be explained by contextual cues and there could be another cause of memory loss. Good: * BUT * both Godden and Baddeley + Carter and Cassaday demonstrate how retrieval failure works in everyday situations * = external validity * their experiments are conducted in controlled manner * unlikely extraneous variables affected their results * both research studies good support for ESP

Answer 25

**Johnson and Scott 1976: WEAPON FOCUS-** Tunnel Theory (**recall of central, emotion-arousing details in a traumatic event)** Procedures: PPs believed they were in a lab study and were sitting in waiting room. Deceived. 2 conditions: 1. low anxiety- casual conversation in next room + saw man walking past with pen in hand. 2. high anxiety- heated argument, breaking glass and man walking past with a bloody knife. Findings: PPs asked to identify man in 50 photos. Pen- 49% able to identify. Bloody Knife- 33% able to identify. Conclusion: supports anxiety negatively impacting memory.

Answer 26

**John Yuille + Judith Cutshall '86-** fight or flight response, increases alertness. * Natural expt.- actual shooting in gun shop, Canada. * Shop owner shot thief dead. * 21 witnesses (13 took part in study) * interviewed 4-5 months after incident + interviews compared with original police interviews at time of shooting. * accuracy determined by number of correct details reported * witness asked to rate how stressed at time + emotional problems since. Findings: * Witness very accurate- little changes in amount recalled or accuracy after 5 months. * Though some details like age, height, weight etc less accurate. * PPs that reported highest level of stress have 88% accuracy (highest), compared with less stressed, 75%. * THEREFORE- supports anxiety does have positive effect on recall of eyewitness memory in real-world context. **Christianson + Hubinette ('95):** * interviewed 58 witness to actual bank robberies (directly and indirectly involved). Recall was on avg 75% accurate across all w. * directly involved: most anxious, most accurate. * actual crime findings- anxiety does not reduce accuracy of recall- enhances recall. **PPs were interviewed 5 months after- no control over confounding variables.**

Answer 27

Good: **Real World Application** * uses in criminal justice system- police know to be careful about how they phrase Qs as leading Qs have distorting effect on EW. * psychologists have helped improve the way legal system works, protecting innocent people form faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT. Bad: **Lab Expt- lacks mundane realism so good real life application?** * Loftus and Palmer PPs watched film clips in lab- not the same experience as witnessing real event. * PPs less motivated to be accurate- no real consequences. * suggests researchers are too pessimistic about effects of misleading info- EWT maybe more dependable than many studies suggest?

Answer 28

Bad: Evidence against **Substitution** * Sutherland + Hayne (2001) * showed PP video- PPs later asked misleading Qs and their recall wads more accurate for central details than peripheral details. * Presumably, PP focussed on central features of event and these memories resistant to misleading info. * Suggests that original memories for central details survived + not distorted- this cannot be explained by substitution explanation. Bad: **Evidence against memory conformity** * Post event discussion actually alters EWT * Skagerberg + Wright (2008) * showed PP film clips * pick-pocket had dark-brown hair in one vid, and light-brown hair in other vid. * PP did not report what they had seen in clip or heard from co-witnesses but a ‘blend’ of two (e.g. reported ‘medium-brown hair’) * suggests memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading info post event discussion rather than memory conformity.

Chapter 2- Memory Flashcards

(62 cards)