memory
Multi store model of memory
Atkinson and shiffrin (1968)
Sensory register, Short-term memory, Long-term memory
sensory register
Coding-Modality specific, Iconic: Visual, Echoic: Auditory
Capacity-Potentially unlimited
Duration-Iconic: 250 ms, Echoic: 3 to 4s
short-term memory
Attention is crucial, coded mainly acoustically, Lasts about 18 seconds unless it's rehearsed, Limited capacity (7+/-2)
Maintenance rehearsal-If we rehearse it long enough, it passes into our long-term memory
short-term memory coding
baddeley (1966)
Independent groups design
Gave different lists of words to one of four groups
Acoustically similar, Acoustically dissimilar, Semantically similar, Semantically dissimilar
Found that short-term memory is predominantly encoded acoustically as the recall of acoustically similar words was poor when tested immediately
short-term memory capacity
jacobs (1887)
443 female students, From a London collegiate school
Digit span task
require them to repeat back series of numbers or letters
capacity was 7.3 for letters and 9.3 for numbers
short-term memory duration
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
24 male and female uni students, Recall 3-consonant syllables
Then count backwards in 3s or 4s and recall the trigram after intervals between 3 and 18 seconds
concluded the short-term memory has a limited duration of approximately 18 seconds
At 18 seconds, only 10% recalled correctly
baddeley conclusions
Did worse with semantically similar words
Lead baddeley To conclude the long-term memory predominantly encoded semantically
long-term memory duration
bahrick (1975)
American high school graduates
Shown pictures from their yearbook
1. Photo recognition of 50 photos
2. free Recall test of names
Photo recognition and graduated in last 15 years- most accurate
Free recall and graduated in last 48 years-Least accurate
Concluded people could remember certain types of information supports that long-term memory has a lifetime duration
primacy and recency effect
LTM-> displaced/forgotten -> STM
multitool model of memory ao3
strength: Recalling at the end items are still in STM, Recalling at the beginning items have been transferred to LTM with some rehearsal, Items in middle are forgotten/ displaced
Demonstrates idea of separate stores for STM and LTM
limitation: Artificial tasks- Laboratory experiment, Limit the extent to which findings can be generalised beyond the lab setting, Lacks ecological validity
The working memory model
baddeley + hitch 1974
(stm)
dual task studies
Concerned with the mental space that is active when we are temporarily storing and manipulating information
States that STM both stores and processes information
Working memory model consists of
Central executive
Visuspatial sketchpad
Episode buffer
Phonological loop
Articulatory control
Phonological store
Central executive
Supervising role
Monitors incoming data, focuses and divides attention
Allocates slave systems to tasks
Has very limited processing capacity
Doesn't store information
phonological loop, Articulatory control, phonological store
pl- Temporary storage system for auditory info, Causing is acoustic, One of the slave systems subdivided into two components:
ac- Process allows subvocal repetition of acoustic info, Allows maintenance rehearsal, Viewed as inner voice
ps- Space for coding acoustic info which stores the words you hear, Viewed as inner ear
Visuspatial sketchpad
Second slave system
Stores visual and spatial info
considered our inner eye
Subdivided into: Visual cache, inner scribe
episodic buffer
Third slave system
Temporary store for information, integrating the visual, spatial and verbal info processes
Seen as storage component of the central executive
wmm ao3
strength: Patient KF injured motorbike accident, Brain injury-Issues with STM, Able to remember visual images But unable to remember sounds, Strongly support existence of separate visual and acoustic memory stores
Limitation: Unclear whether KF had other cognitive impairment which may affected his performance or memory tasks, Challenges evidence that comes from clinical studies of people with brain injuries that may have affected many different systems
long-term memory
Episodic- explicit and declarative, Our ability to recall specific events, Complex and timestamped, Make a conscious effort to recall, Hippocampus and prefrontal cortex E.g. 1st day of school
Semantic- Explicit and declarative, Our shared knowledge of the world, Not timestamped, less vulnerable to distortion than episodic, Temporal lobe E.g. London is the capital of England
Procedural- implicit and non-declarative, How to perform certain tasks, Can recall without conscious awareness, More resistant to forgetting, Cerebellum and Motor cortex E.g. driving
Henry molaison
Episodic- Impaired
Semantic- yes/no
Procedural- yes
Clive wearing
episodic- Impaired
Semantic- Understand some meaning
Procedural- yes
explicit and implicit
Explicit (declaritive) memories include knowledge for events and facts
Implicit (non-declaritive) Memories of skilled behaviours
long-term memory ao3
strength: Case studies- henry molaison and clive wearing Evidence supports the view that there are different Memory stores in long-term memory, One can be damaged, but the other stores are unaffected
limiation: case studies- We should be cautious with evidence from case studies because they are wearing unusual, Findings about long-term memory may not generalise to the wider population
interference theory
main idea between interference explanation is some forgetting takes place because of inference
2 pieces of information disrupt each other
Different explanations for forgetting- Proactive and retroactive interference
proactive interference
occurs when an older memory interferes with a new one
case study- keppel + underwood (1962) Investigated effective proactive interference on long-term memory, Method was similar to Peterson and Peterson, Participants typically remembered the trigrams that were presented first
retroactive interference
Occurs when a newer memory interferes with an older one
case study: baddeley + hitch (1977) Investigated retroactive interference in everyday memory, Male rugby players, Recall names of teams they played against, Found the learning of new information (New team names) interfered with memory of old info (Earlier team names)
P O R N
proactive Old Interfere with new
Retroactive New Interferes with old
retroactive interference- Research on effects of similar similarity
The interference is worse when the memories are similar
Participants learn a list of 10 adjectives until 100% accuracy
mcgeoch + mcdonald (1931)
When participants were asked to recall the original list of words, the most similar material (Synonyms) produced the worst recall
-> Interference is strongest when memories are similar
interference ao3
strength: Drug studies-Retrograde facilitation, Drug prevents new information reaching part of the brain involved in processing memories, Shows that forgetting can be due to interference
limiation: Interference and cues- tulving + psotka (1971) Gave participants five less of 24 words organised into categories, One list at a time, Accuracy decreased with the more lines, Shows that interference is temporary but can be overcome by using cues (Putting words into categories)
retrieval failure
States that the reason why we forget is not because the memory has disappeared, we are just having a problem accessing the memory
encoding specificity principle
Context- Dependent forgetting, Recall depends on external cues
State- Dependent forgetting, Recall depends on internal cues
context- Dependent forgetting research
godden + baddeley (1975)
Studied divers and investigated effects of contextual cues on recall
18 participants, Learned a list of words on land or underwater
Repeated measures design
Accurate recall was 40% lower in non-matching conditions
retrieval is better when conditions Match
State- Dependent forgetting research
carter + cassaday (1998)
used Antihistamine drugs
Can make individuals feel drowsy
Participants learnt a list of 20 words And asked to recall at a later point
In conditions where there was a mismatch, performance on memory test was significantly worse
factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Misleading information
Misleading information: They're exposed to incorrect information
Leading question: Encourages an answer that is wanted by the person asking
loftus + palmer (1974)
investigate effect of leading questions
45 American students
Independent Groups design
Watch video of a car crash and asked to describe what happens in speed of the car
5 groups of 9 each given a different verb
Eyewitness testimony is affected by leading question (verb)
misleading information research on post event discussion
gobbert et al (2003)
60 students and 60 older adults
Watch a short film, Girl entered office to return a book
Participants test individually or in pairs (co-witness)
Watched same video but different perspectives
71% in co witness mistakenly recalled but not seen
Anxiety has a negative effect on recall
Anxiety creates physiological arousal in body
Prevents us paying attention to important cues so recall is worse
loftus (1979)
Laboratory study
Receptionist ran an errand
Independent group design
condtion 1- no weapon, low anxiety (49% identified target)
condition 2- weapon (knife) high anxiety (33% identified target)
anxiety has a positive effect on recall
witnessing a stressful event creates anxiety through physiological arousal, fight or flight, increasing alertness
yuille + cutshall (1986)
field study, actual shooting of robber+gun shop owner
13 witnesses
witnesses were very accurate, anxiety had little to no effect on their memory
highest level of stress were most accurate
Improving accuracy of eyewitness Testimony: cognitive interview
Fisher + geiselman 1992
report everything: Every single detail
Context reinstatement: Return to the original crime scene in their mind
Reverse the order: Mitigates gap filling in your memory, Prevents people reporting their expectations of how the event must've happened rather than reporting the actual events
Change perspective: Disrupts the effect of expectations
geiselman et al (1985)
Examined effectiveness of cognitive interview
89 students watched police training films of Simulated violent crimes
Record more correct items in cognitive interview compared to standard
Cognitive is effective in improving quantity of information recalled
Enhanced cognitive interview
Fisher et al (1987)
Reducing eyewitness anxiety
Minimising distractions
Speaking slow slowly
Establish a rapport
cognitive interview ao3
Strength: Results from Geiselman have been supported by other research, Train detectives elicitated 63% More information
limitation: Police officers may be more reluctant to use cognitive interview, Take more time and training and standard, Requires special training- many forces don't have resources to provide