Mindmap
Memory (P1) Part 2
Inhalt der Mindmap
Memory (P1) Part 2
Retrieval failure
- Absence of cues
- Access of memory is restricted by the absence of cues
- Context Dependent Forgetting (Godden and Baddeley)
- Forgetting occurs when recall and encoding happens in different places
- 40% higher recall in matching conditions
- Supports CDF as recall was better in same conditions than different suggesting cues helped.
- State Dependent Forgetting (Overton)
- Tested recall abilities when Sober and Drunk
- Supports SDF as recall was worse when in a different state (Drunk/sober) than in the same state (Drunk/Drunk)
- :)
- Can explain why interference affects recall
- Tulvig and Psotka
- Found recall was 70% with cues despite the amount of lists they had learnt.
- Information is there we just cannot retrieve it.
- Found recall was 70% with cues despite the amount of lists they had learnt.
- Tulvig and Psotka
- :(
- Retrieval cues don't work
- Do not apply to real life situations
- We encode everything we just cannot access it
- Works in lab conditions
- Baddeley-lacks ecological validity
- Do not apply to real life situations
- Retrieval cues don't work
- Can explain why interference affects recall
- Absence of cues
Types of LTM
- Episodic-Memory about experiences and feelings
- Need to make a conscious effort to recall them
- Semantic-Memory of facts
- Knowledge about world that can be shared
- Procedural-Knowing how to do things
- Acquired through repetition
- Negatives
- Case studies
- We cannot generalise it from a single study
- Damage to certain area does not mean that area was responsible for a particular behaviour.
- Therefore, it has a low population validity.
- Damage to certain area does not mean that area was responsible for a particular behaviour.
- We cannot generalise it from a single study
- Case studies
- Positives
- Case studies
- HM- tell difference between declarative and procedural memories
- HM- able to learn procedural info under experimental conditions.
- HM- tell difference between declarative and procedural memories
- Research on Alhzeimer's patients (Hodges and patterson)
- Some patients can retain the ability to form new episodic memories but no semantic ones.
- Supports multiple LTM some tasks work but some don't showing they are separate.
- Some patients can retain the ability to form new episodic memories but no semantic ones.
- Case studies
- Episodic-Memory about experiences and feelings
Interference
- Proactive
- Past memories prevent new ones being stored
- New info forgotten
- Past memories prevent new ones being stored
- Retroactive
- New info interferes with old
- Old info forgotten
- New info interferes with old
- Occurs when 2 pieces of info clash causing one or both to be lost
- More likely to occur if info is similar
- :)
- Thousands of studies
- Highly controlled, reliability, EV can be controlled
- Underwood- Ppts learnt lists, 24hrs later 80% recall, later fell to 20%
- Suggests under control condition interference occurs
- Underwood- Ppts learnt lists, 24hrs later 80% recall, later fell to 20%
- Highly controlled, reliability, EV can be controlled
- Thousands of studies
- :(
- Loss of info may be temporary
- Ceraso- Memories not lost just temporarily inaccessable
- Absence of cues from the environment could be a better explanation of forgetting
- Ceraso- Memories not lost just temporarily inaccessable
- Loss of info may be temporary
- Proactive
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A level Psychology Mindmap am Memory (P1) Part 2, erstellt von Joe Llewellyn am 09/05/2021.
- Erstellt von
- Joe Llewellyn
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung