Memory

Memory

Nature
1. Short term
  1. Encoding
    1. Visual, acoustic
  2. Duration
    1. Peterson and Peterson 1959
      1. M: 24 students given 3 consonant syllable to be remembered and 3 digit number
        Asked to count backwards from number until told to stop and recall the triagram, one interval of 3 seconds and 18 seconds
      2. R: 3 second interval = ppts recalled 90%, 18 second interval = ppts recalled 2%
      3. C: STM duration is 18 seconds
  3. Capacity
    1. Miller 1956
      1. Concluded that span of stm is 7 +/- 2
      2. Found we can recall 5 words as well as 5 letters as we chunk things together
    2. Simon 1974
      1. Found people had shorter span for larger chunks than smaller chunks such as one syllable words
2. Long term
  1. Duration
    1. Potentially unlimited as researcher can be outlived
    2. Bahrick et al
      1. M: Asked people of various ages to name faces from their high school year book 48 years on
      2. R: 70% accurate
      3. C: Long term memory can last for many years
  2. Capacity
    1. Potentially unlimited as no way of researching
  3. Encoding
    1. Visual, acoustic and semantic
3. Encoding
  1. Baddeley 1966
    1. M: Participants given list of words that were acoustically similar/dissimilar and list of words that meant the same/dissimilar
    2. R: Participants had more difficulty remembering acoustically similar words in STM but not LTM
    3. R: Semantically similar words no problem for STM, but problematic for LTM
Multi Store Model
1. Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968
  1. Explanation of how memory processes work and stored in sensory memory, short term and long term
2. Process
  1. Environmental stimuli goes to sensory memory
  2. Attention to stimuli transfers information to short term memory
    1. Disappears if not rehearsed (maintenance) or if displaced by new information
  3. Elaborative rehersal transfers information to long term memory
3. Support
  1. Sperling 1960
    1. M: Asked ppts to recall 12 letters/digits from a grid after 50 millisecond delay
    2. R: Poor recall when asked to recall all 12: 42%
    3. R: Recall of 75% when asked to recall one row
    4. C: Information decays rapidly in sensory store
  2. Glanzer and Cunitz 1966
    1. M: Asked ppts to recall a list of words
    2. R: Words at beginning of list more recalled than at the end of list
    3. C: Serial position effect - first words transferred to LTM, end words in STM
  3. Beardsley 1997
    1. Brain scans found that prefrontal cortex is active in STM tasks
    2. Hippocampus is active when LTM engaged
    3. C: Shows separate stores for STM and LTM
  4. Patient HM
    1. Case study where patient had hippocampus removed due to sever epilepsy
    2. R: Unable to form new LTM, but personality and former LTM intact
    3. C: LTM and STM are separate stores
4. Limitations
  1. STM and LTM not unitary stores
    1. Clive Wearing
      1. Brain damaged patient could not form new memories nor remember old ones
        Could still play piano perfectly and loved his wife
      2. C: We have different types of memories in LTM - declarative and procedural
  2. STM and LTM not separate
    1. Chunking to increase STM capacity relies on LTM to understand meanings
    2. C: MSM is too simplistic
Working Memory Model
1. Explanation of short term memory based on 4 components
  1. Central executive
    1. Coordinates other mental functions
  2. Phonological loop
    1. Phonological store - stores heard words
    2. Articulatory process - allows maintenance reherasal
  3. Visuo-spatial sketchpad - stores visual and spatial information
    1. Visual cache
    2. Inner scribe
2. Support
  1. Hitch and Baddeley 1976
    1. Showed performance was slower when ppts given task with central executive and phonlogical loop
    2. Better performance when task involved phonological loop alone
  2. Bunge 2000
    1. Used fMRI scans to show activity in brain
    2. R: Same area active in single and dual tasks, but greater activity in dual tasks
    3. C: Supports central exec that all information passes through it
  3. Word length effect
    1. Shorter words easier to remember than longer ones
    2. Phonological loop can hold information you can say in 2 seconds
    3. List of 3 letter words better recalled than list of 9 letter words
    4. C: Supports separate stores
  4. Patient KF
    1. Case study of brain damaged patient whose LTM intact but he had problems with STM
    2. Problems remembering auditory information but fine with visual information
      1. Brain damage in phonological loop
    3. C: Support for separate stores in STM
3. Limitations
  1. Central executive vaguely defined and may consist of separate components
    1. Eslinger and Damasio 1985
      1. Showed brain damaged patient had no decision making skills but performed well on reasoning tests
        C: Central exec may be split
  2. Brain damaged patients
    1. We cannot make before and after comparisons of patients
    2. Not causal that changes in behaviour are caused by damage
    3. Brain injury is traumatic which can alter behaviour
Eye Witness Testimony
1. Legal term referring to the use of witnesses who have seen or heard an event, giving evidence in court
2. Misleading Information
  1. Loftus and Palmer 1974
    1. Experiment 1
      1. M: 45 students shown films of car accidents and asked questions afterwards
        One critical about speed, 'how fast were the cars going when they ... into each other'
        Different groups given different verbs - hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted
      2. R: Smashed - group estimated higher speed than group who had contacted
      3. C: Leading questions post event can have a significant effect on memory recall
    2. Experiment 2
      1. M: Ppts shown a film of an accident, week later asked if there was any broken glass
      2. R: Ppts with verb smashed more likely to recall broken glass even if there was none
      3. C: Post event information affects initial storage
  2. Loftus et al
    1. M: Ppts given photos of car at a junction with stop or yield sign and given questions either consistent with photo or inconsistent
    2. M: Ppts shown pairs of photos and asked to identify original photo
    3. R: Those with consistent qs were 75% correct, those with inconsistent were 41% correct
    4. C: Misleading information affects recall
3. Anxiety
  1. Deffenbacher 2004
    1. Meta analysis of 18 studies on effects of anxiety on EWT
    2. Showed stress negatively impacted EWT
  2. Christianson and Hubinette 1993
    1. Questioned 58 witnesses to bank robberies
    2. Found those who were threatened had more accurate recall than onlookers
  3. Yerkes-Dodson law
    1. States performance improves with arousal to an optimal level then declines
    2. Curvilinear relationship between anxiety and EWT
  4. Johnson and Scott
    1. M: Man ran through a room carrying pen covered in grease OR knife in blood
    2. R: Ppts 49% accurate in identifying man with pen, knife = 33% accurate
    3. C: Witnesses focus on presence of a weapon rather than peripheral details
  5. Loftus
    1. M: Monitored eye movements of a witness in an event
    2. R: Presence of a weapon causes attention physically drawn to weapon itself and away from other details
4. Age
  1. Yarmey
    1. R: Older adults less confident in recall of a confederate, but same accuracy as younger adults
    2. M: Stopped 651 adults and asked to recall characteristics of woman they spoke to for 15 secs, 2 minutes prior
  2. Memon
    1. Found accuracy in older people dropped when identification task delayed for a week
  3. Pool and Lindsay 2001
    1. Studied children aged 3-8 watching a science experiment
    2. M: Parents read them a story with info of science experiment, but with info
    3. R: Children incorporated added information when questioned about science experiment
      1. C: New information affected initial version of events
  4. Anastasi and Rhodes 2006
    1. R: Younger ppts more accurate, but all age groups are more accurate in identifying photographs from their own age group
    2. Own age bias
      1. We have more contact with people our own age
    3. M: Ppts shown 24 photos, asked to rate attraction, given filler activity, shown 48 photos and asked to recall the 24 they'd seen in 48
    4. Used ppts from 3 different age groups: 18-25, 35-45, 55-78
5. Cognitive Interview
  1. Fisher and Gieselman 1992
    1. 1) Report everything
    2. 2) Mental reinstatement
    3. 3) Change of order
    4. 4) Change of perspective
  2. Technique for interviewing witnesses to a crime, encouraging them to recreate original context to increase accessibility of stored info
  3. Support
    1. Kohnken 1999
      1. Meta analysis - 34% more correct info given in CI than in normal interview
    2. Milne and Bull 2006
      1. M: Tested components individually and combining components
      2. R: Combination of 1 and 2 gave better recall than an individual component
      3. Used College students and children
    3. Stein and Memon 2006
      1. M: Watched an abduction video, then interviewed with CI
      2. Used female cleaning staff in Brazil
      3. R: Increased recall in CI, especially for descriptions
        C: Shows how useful CI can be, and how it can reduce miscarriages of justice
  4. Limitations
    1. Time consuming
    2. Interviewers need to be specially trained
    3. Kebbell and Wagstaff
      1. Different police forces use different versions of CI
        Makes comparison difficult of effectiveness
    4. Can cause psychological harm
Memory Improvement
1. Verbal
  1. Acronyms
    1. ROYGBIV
  2. Acrostics
    1. My very easy method just speeds up naming planets
  3. Rhymes
    1. Using tune of twinkle twinkle to alphabet
  4. Chunking
    1. Phone numbers and post codes
  5. Support
    1. Gruneberg
      1. Found 30% of psychology students revised using mnemonics
    2. Broadly
      1. Studied 63 children with down syndrome
      2. Found training in memory improvement showed improved STM compared to a control group
  6. Limitations
    1. Research conducted in lab conditions, may not apply to everyday life
2. Visual
  1. Loci
    1. Associating material to be learned with different locations of a place and mentally retracing steps
  2. Keyword
    1. New word broken into components with images created for each component
      1. e.g Foriegn words associated with English equivalent
  3. Mind maps
  4. Support
    1. O'Hara
      1. Found training in use of these techniques gave LTM benefits for older adults
    2. Atkinson
      1. Found ppts using keyword method, learnt significantly more Russian vocab than control gorup
  5. Limitations
    1. Slavin
      1. Keyword method yet to be proven for long term advantages
3. Organisation
  1. Bower
    1. M: Gave ppts 112 words to learn
    2. R: Recall was 2-3 times better if words in hierarchy than random order
    3. Mnemonic techniques speeds up memory naturally organising itself
  2. Naturally - memory involves associations in the brain in hierarchys
4. Elaborative rehersal
  1. Craik
    1. Found words processed more semantically were more remembered
    2. Elaboration such as mind maps lead to more enduring memories
  2. Mnemonic techniques make us elaborative rehearse them
5. Dual coding hypothesis
  1. Pavio
    1. Said words and images processed separately
    2. Words made into images double encoded - once verbally and once visually

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Gemma Bradford vor mehr als 11 Jahre