Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Memory
- Multi store memory
- Enviromental stimuli
- Sensory Memory
- Duration:
Fractions of a
second.
- Sperling- All items
42% Row- 75% Info
decays rapidly
- STM
- Duration:
18-30
seconds
- P&P- 3 seconds- 80%
6 seconds-50% 18
seconds- <10%
- Capacity: 7 +/- 2
items
- Miller- Digit
span technique
Simon-
Chunking
- Encoding:
Acoustic
- Conrad- row of
acoustically sim and
disim letters
Brandimonte- Acoustic
not visual used
- LTM
- Duration:
Potentially
forever VLTM
- Bahrick
- Recognition: 15 year-90%,
25 year-80%, 34 year-75%,
47 year-60%
- Recall: 7
year-60%, 47 year-
<20%
- Capacity:
Potentially
Unlimited
- Encoding:
Semantic
- Baddely: dissim/sim
acoustic/samantic.
SemSim-55%
SemDis-85%
Acoustic-No Diff
- Evaluations
- Influential
- HM supports
distinct diff between
the 3 stores
- Elab and
Maintanence
rehearsal added
- Prim&Rece effect
- Simplistic
- Lab studs-
low ev
- Pysch students
- Low pop v
- Demand c
- Emotional mem
- One way direction is
incorrect
- Single STM<M
- Working Memory
Model
- Central
excecutive
- Allocates resources to
the 3 components.
Like 'attention'. Limited
capacity and flexible at
using any senses info.
- Phonological
Loop
- Deals with
auditory info
- Phonological store.
'inner ear'. Spoken
words, articulated in 2
secs, limited capacity.
- Articulatory control
system. 'Inner voice'
rehearses info like a 'tape
loop' (sub vocal repetition)
- Baddeley: More short words than long
in immediate recall due to articulatory
time. Word length dissapears when
suppresion task is used.
- Visuo-spatial
sketchpad
- 'Inner Eye' Stores visual
&spatial info, anaylses by
size, colour shape.
Limited capacity.
- Baddeley: (dual task)
follow the sport on a
'F'
- Episodic buffer
- Baddeley; Extra
storage system,
Chunks&episdoes,
limited capacity.
- Evaluations
- Influential and most
preffered. More
flexible.
- Brain damage
supports (SC)
damage to Pl
- PET Scans
- Important applications
for metal illness
diagnosis. (Park)
- Brain damage case
studies- problematic as no
before/end comparisons.
- Too Vague as too less
components.
- Factors affecting EWT
- Misleading Info
- Loftus& Palmer: independent
groups. 'How fast were the cars
going when they
hit/smashed/bumped/contacted.
Speed effected by lang used.
- Smashed; 41mph, Bumped;
38, Hit; 34, contacted; 32.
- Loftus&Palmer. 3 groups
one group hit one group
smashed 3rd not asked. 1
week later 'did you see any
broken glass' Group
smashed twice as likely.
- Anxiety
- Loftus. Outside lab exposed to
1or2 situations. (1) Low key
discussion about equip failure,
left holding pen with greasy
hands. (2) Heated discussion,
breaking/crashing man with
knife&blood. Given photos.
- Pen man: 49%
- Blood man 33% due to weapons
effect which results in accurate
weapon recall but diminished
peripheral details(Man)
- Christianson&Hubbinette,
110 witnesses, 22 real life
robberies, greater anxiety
better recall even after 15
month
- Age
- Kent&Youille: 9/14
- Parker&Carranza:
primary/college
- Gross&Hayne:
5 year
- Mermon:
16-33/60-82
- Cognative Interview
(Fisher&Geiselman)
- Report Everything
- Context reinstatement
- Changing the order
- Changing the perspective
- Evaluation
- Kohnken: Meta
analysis,
Increase of 34%
- Fisher: Police miami
real life settings
showed big increase
- Milne&Bull: all 4 aspects
used=great recall
- Kebbel: not all 4
aspects were used in
Uk so not as good
- Geiselman: not good on
children under 8 as
instructions too difficult
- Wagstaff: Takes too long
- Memory Improvement
- Acronym
- Acrostic poems
- Rhymes
- Chunking
- Peg word system
- Loci
- Keyword
- Bower: (Organisation) 112
words, 65% experimental, 21%
control group.
- Bower&Clark: (Story) 12 lists of
10 unrelated words into storys,
90% compared to 10%
- Craik&Watkins:
distinguished
between rehearsals
- Tulving&Thompson:
encoding specificity
principle
- Godden&Baddeley: same location= more words.