Mindmap
Encoding in STM
Inhalt der Mindmap
Encoding in STM
Baddeley
- Conclusion
- List A was recalled the least efficiently, so there must be some acoustic confusion in the STM
- suggests that STM is encoded acoustically
- Procedure
- 75 participants were presented with 1 of 4 lists that contained five words
- List B (acoustically dissimilar words)
- List C (semantically similar words)
- List D (semantically dissimilar words)
- List A (acoustically similar words)
- Participants then had to recall the lists in the correct order, immediately after hearing the words. This was carried out four times.
- 75 participants were presented with 1 of 4 lists that contained five words
- Findings
- List A was recalled the least efficiently, with 10% recall
- The other lists were recalled much better, with recall at 60-80%
- Conclusion
Conrad
- Procedure
- Presented participants with visual stings of letters for 3/4 of a second
- The letters were either acoustically similar or acoustically dissimilar
- Participants had to write down the letters in the same order as they were shown
- Findings
- V & B were often confused with P, but S wasn't
- Conclusion
- This type of error suggests that visual information is converted into acoustic information
- Procedure
Evaluation
- STM is not restricted to acoustic coding. The difference in recall between semantically similar and dissimilar lists suggests semantic coding in STM
- Research suggests that encoding is primarily acoustic but other sensory codes are also used
- Baddeley;s study was a laboratory study; it showed causality, but it lacked ecological validity.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Mindmap am Encoding in STM, erstellt von Kim Haxworth am 03/05/2015.
- Erstellt von
- Kim Haxworth
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung