Memory

Memory

Multi Store Model
1. Environmental Input -- > Sensory Memory--> Short-Term Memory --> Long-Term Memory
  1. Rehearsal Loop
  2. Retrieval + Rehearsal
  3. Attention
2. H.M
  1. Parts of the brain removed
    1. S.T.M = Fine
      1. L.T.M = Broken
  2. Shows different stores
3. Encoding
  1. LTM - Semantic
  2. STM - Acoustic
4. Capacity
  1. STM -7+/- 2
  2. LTM - Unlimited
5. Duration
  1. LTM - Unlimited
  2. STM - Up to 30 Seconds
6. A03
  1. Strengths
    1. Good understanding of the structure and process
      1. Primacy and Recency Effect
  2. Weaknesses
    1. Too Simplistic
      1. Too reliant on concept of Rehearsal
        More than 1 type of STM and LTM
        Artificial Materials
7. Working Memory Model shows that the Multi Store Model is too simplistic
8. Glanzer and Cunitz
  1. Primary and Recency Effect
    1. Remember words at the start and the end of the list
      1. Words at the start are placed into the LTM
      2. Words at the end are placed into the STM
9. K.F
  1. Motorcycle Crash, brain sustained damage
    1. LTM = Fine
      1. Struggled to recall from STM
Working Memory Model
1. Central Executive + Episodic Buffer + Phonological Loop + Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
  1. Feeds into the LTM
  2. C.E = Keeps the Slave Systems functional
  3. E.B = Briefly stores Info to make a coherant memory
  4. P.L = Auditory Info and Order of Info
  5. V.S.S = Deals with Visual and Spatial Info
2. See K.F
3. Focuses too heavily on STM
4. Lacks Ecological Validity
Types of LTM
1. Episodic
  1. Personal Memories
    1. Wedding, Funeral, etc
2. Semantic
  1. General Knowledge
    1. Capital Cities, Films, etc
3. Procedural
  1. Learnt Motor Skills
    1. Sport, Riding a Bike, etc
4. Clive Wearing and HM
  1. Episodic Memory lost but Semantic and Procedural unaffected
Forgetting
1. Interference Theory
  1. Proactive Interference
    1. Old Memory inteferes with a new one
  2. Retroactive Interference
    1. New memory interferes with an old one
  3. Underwood and Postman
    1. Ppts learnt a sequence of word pairs
    2. They asked them to recall the words but had them learn a new list too
    3. They were given a word from List A but asked to recall from either List B (RI) or List C (PI)
      1. Recall from either list was poor thus proving the Interference Theory
  4. Artifical Materials
    1. Lacks Validity
  5. Lab Experiments
    1. Reliability
2. Context-Depending Forgetting
  1. External Triggers for a Memory
    1. Cues usually Visual
  2. Godden and Baddely
    1. Group 1 - Learn on Land + Recall on Land
      1. Group 2 - Learn on Land + Recall Underwater
        Group 3 - Learn Underwater + Recall on Land
        Group 4 - Learn Underwater + Recall Underwater
    2. Recall was 40% lower in non matching conditions
3. State-Dependent Forgetting
  1. Internal Triggers for a Memory
  2. Goodwin
    1. People who drank a lot could forget a lot when sober but could remember when they were drunk again
  3. Carter and Cassaday
    1. Group 1 - Learn on Drug + Recall when on it
      1. Group 2 - Learn on Drug + Recall when not on Drug
        Group 3 - Learn not on Drug + Recall when on it
        Group 4 - Learn not on Drug + Recall when not on Drug
    2. Recall was significantly lower in conditions when the recall and learning were different
Eyewitness Testimony
1. Misleading Information
  1. Experiment 1
    1. They showed the Ppts a Car Crash and asked them how fast it was going
      1. The more serious the adjective, the higher the estimate of the speed
    2. 45 Ppts - 5 Groups
      1. Different Adjective for each Group
        Smashed
        Crashed
        Collided
        Bumped
        Hit
    3. Artificial - Lacks the Anxiety of a real crash
      1. Lack of Experience
  2. Experiment 2
    1. They asked the Ppts if they saw any Glass after the crash
      1. Depending on the severity of the word, the amount varied
        The more severe the word, the more people claimed to have seen it
        There was no Glass to begin with
2. Post-Event Discussion
  1. Gabbert
    1. 2 Groups of Ppts
      1. Young Adults (17-33)
      2. Older Adults (58-80)
      3. Both watched a Staged Crime
        Exposed to Misleading Info
        Given a Recall Test
        Young Adults recalled better than Older Adults
  2. Real-Life Application
    1. Can be applied to the Cognitive Interview
  3. Issues with Memory regarding older Ppts
3. Anxiety Effect
  1. Johnson and Scott
    1. There were two Conditions
      1. Ppts heard an argument
        Person comes in with a Bloody Knife (High Anxiety)
        Low levels of recall (33%) involving the Person as they were all focused on the Weapon
        Person comes in with a Pen (Low Anxiety)
        High levels of recall (49%) involving the Person
    2. Actually testing Surprise
4. All studies fail to take time into account
  1. PTSD, Memory Loss could have occured after the Crime
5. Cognitive Interview
  1. Recall Everything
    1. Reinstate Context
      1. Change Order
        Change Perspective
        Put yourself in someone elses point of view
        Recall the events in reverse or in a different chronological order
      2. What was there, what time, where
    2. Identify every detail

Siguiente

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por Joseph Veevers hace alrededor de 6 años