Karteikarten
Memory
Karten in diesem Stapel (134)
- 1Who developed the Multi-Store Model?Atkinson and Shiffrin
- 2What is the MSM?-describes how info flows through the memory system
-3 stores linked by processing - 3Sensory Register?-takes in stimuli from environment
DURATION: less than 1/2 a sec
CAPACITY: very large
CODING: modality specific -> ioconic and echonic - 4How does info transfer from SR to STM?-must PAY ATTENTION to it
- 5STM?-maintenance rehersal to ourselves to keep info in STM
DURATION: 18-30s with rehearsal
CAPACITY: 7 +/- 2
CODING: acoustically - 6How transferred from STM to LTM?if rehearse long enough is transferred
- 7LTM?when recall, must be transferred to STM again 1st
DURATION: a lifetime
CAPACITY: unlimited
CODING: semantically - 8Draw diagram of MSM
- 9Evaluation: BADDELEY research showed STM and LTM are seperate- found mix up acoustically similar words when using STM but semantically similar words when using LTM
-code differently
-two stores are separate and inderpendant - 10Evaluation: CRAIK an WATKINS found more than one type of rehearsal-maintenance rehearsal (one described in MSM) does not transfer to LTM
-Elaborative Rehearsal -> needed for LT storage -> link to existing knowledge
-another research finding that cannot be explained by the model - 11Evaluation: research uses artificial techniques*Baddeley's word lists or Peterson's and Peterson's nonsense syllables
-lack real meaning unlike memories in real life
-lack ecological validity - 12Evaluation: HM-had hippocampus removed is surgery to relieve symptoms of epilepsy (plays crucial part in memory)
-LTM never improved but STM undamaged and perform well in immediate span digit tests
-separate store - 13Evaluation: Oversimplifies LTM-evidence not just 1 store
-does not include different types: semantic, procedural and episodic
-not a complete explanation of memory - 14What are the 3 types of LTM?-semantic
-episodic
-procedural - 15Episodic Memories?-ability to recall events
-like a diary
-time stamped
-conscious effort to recall - 16Semantic Memories?-knowledge of the world -> facts
-like a dictionary
-not time stamped
-less personal - 17Procedural Memories?-actions/skills
-recall without conscious awareness
*how to ride a bike - 18Evaluation: Clive wearing-procedural and semantic memories still in tack (*could play piano and know who the queen was)
-BUT episodic damaged
-shows separate stores - 19Evaluation: TULVING ET AL bran scans-Ps carried out various memory tasks whilst having PET scans
- episodic used the right side and semantic used the left side of the prefrontal cortex
-separate store
-confirmed by other studies => good validity - 20Evaluation: BELLVILLE ET AL showed real-life application-trained OAPs with mild cognitive impairments
-found improved episodic memories (compared to control)
-enables specific treatments to be developed - 21Evaluation: COHEN + SQUIRE suggested may only be 2 types of LTM-semantic and episodic stored together in declarative memory (have to be consciously recalled)
-procedural stored in non-declarative memory
-important to get right as way we define types of LTM influences how we study - 22What is the Working Memory Model?-explanation of STM and how it functions
-more active model than MSM - 23Central Executive?-attentional process that monitors oncoming info
-allocates tasks to other 'slave' systems
-very limited capacity - 24Phonological Loop?-deals with auditory info
-preserves order info arrives in
-subdivided into Phonological Store and Articulatory Process - 25Phonological Store?-stores words you hear
-inner-ear - 26Articulatory Process?-Stores words you say -> maintenance rehearsal
-inner-voice - 27Visuo-Spacial Sketchpad?-store visual and spacial info
-limited capacity of 3-4 items
-LOGIE subdivided into Visual Cache (visual info) and Inner-Scribe (spacial info) - 28Episodic Buffer?- temporary store
-integrates all other info from other stores
-maintains a sense of time-sequencing -> records episodic events
-limited capacity of 4
-linked to LTM - 29Diagram of WMM
- 30Evaluation: BADDELEY ET AL dual task performance of VSS-tested driving ability when listening to music or a football game
-found Ps higher levels of impaired driving when listened to a football game
-football game and driving both used spacial (VVS) so interfered with each other and music used auditory (PL)
-shows separate store - 31Evaluation: Lack of clarity for CE-cognitive psychologists suggest doesn't really explain anything
-should be more clearly clarified than just attention -> some claim more than one store
-WMM hasn't been fully explained - 32Evaluation: KF supports separate store of STM-brain damage meant has poor STM ability for verbal info but could still process visual info (difficulty with sounds but could recall letters)
-PL had been damaged but VSS in tact
-=> separate stores - 33Evaluation: BADDELEY ET AL word length effect-people have more difficulty remembering list of long words than of short words
-due to limited space in articulatory process (2s)
- effect disappears if given a repetitive task tying up the articulatory process -> demonstrating process - 34Evaluation: BRAVER ET AL bran scans-Ps did tasks involving CE whilst having a brain scan
-activity in prefrontal cortex
-activity increased as tasks became harder
-proves that CE may have a physical reality in the brain - 35What is Interference?-2 pieces of info conflict
-memories are availble but we can't access them - 36Proactive Interfernce?- older memory disrupts a newer one
- 37Retroactive Interference?-a newer memory disrupts an older one
- 38Interference is worse when?-info learnt is more similar
-info is learnt over a shorter time period - 39Study for Interfernce Theory?MCGEOCH + MCDONALD
-investigated effects of similarity on interference - 40What were Ps given to learn?-given a word list to learn to 100% accuracy -then given a second word list to learn
- 41Conditions for 2nd Word List?-similar meanings to 1st list
-opposite meanings to 1st list
-unrelated to 1st list
-nonsense syllables
-three-digit numbers
-control (no new list) - 42What did MCGEOCH + MCDONALD find?-similar meaning = worst recall
-greater difference in material = greater mean number of items recalled - 43What does MCGEOCH'S + MCDONALDS' study show?interference is strongest when memories are similar
- 44Evaluation: lab studies consistanly show interference in memory-man lab studies (*McGeoch and McDonald's study) into interference
-most show both types are a very likely cause of forgetting from LTM
-control extraneous variables => interference valid explanation - 45Evaluation: stimulus used in studies = artificial-often use word lists
-different from memories we make everyday
*faces, birthdays, favorite pizza
-makes interference must more likely in lab than everyday life
-lacks ecological validity - 46Evaluation: BADDELEY + HITCH rugby players-got rugby players to recall names of teams had played in the season
-more accurate the less games they had played
-more games = more interferene
-applied to everyday situations = Ecological Validity inreased - 47Evaluation: Time allowed between learning and recalling is too short- in lab studies
-does not reflect how learn and remember info in everyday life
-may not be able to generalise conclusions outside of the lab
-role of interference exaggerated - 48Evaluation: TULVING + PSOTKA -> interference may be overcome using cues-gave Ps 5 lists of 24 words organised into 6 categories (were not explicit but assumed obvious)
-recall was 70% for first list but fell as each additional list was added (more interference) - 49What is Retrieval Failure caused by?-when info initially encoded, associated cues stores a same time
-lack of cues at recall may mean not able to access memories - 50State-dependent Forgetting?memory retrieval is dependent on internal cues
*mood - 51Context-Dependent Forgetting?memory retrieval is dependant on external cues from environment
*weather - 52TULVING: Encoding Specificity Principle?- cues help recall when present at encoding
-does not have to be original but the closer to the original = better the cue works - 53ABERNATHY'S CLASSROOMS: aiminvestigate effect of context cues
- 54ABERNATHY'S CLASSROOMS: conditions-own room + teacher
-own room, different teacher
-own teacher, different room
-different room + teacher - 55ABERNATHY'S CLASSROOMS: foundmost accurate recall in children who were tested in same room and with the same teacher
- 56ABERNATHY'S CLASSROOMS: shows-students forgot more with less cues -> context-dependent forgetting
-less effect on 'superior' students - 57GOODWIN ET ALS' DRUNKS: aim-investigate effect of state cues on recall accuracy
- 58GOODWIN ET ALS' DRUNKS: conditionshad to learn word lists when:
-sober at learning and recall
-drunk t learning and recall
-sober at learning, drunk at recall
-drunk at learning sober at recall - 59GOODWIN ET ALS' DRUNKS: Foundbest = sober at learning + recall
worst = drunk at learning sober at recall - 60GOODWIN ET ALS' DRUNKS: Shows-effect of state-dependent forgetting
- 61Evaluation: Real Life Application-improve memory for students *revising in room taking the exam
-lead to development of recall everything to trigger cues in cognitive interview -> improve accuracy of EWT - 62Evaluation: No way to test if cue had been encoded or not-make ASSUMPTIONS: *if cue worked then was encoded at learning
-not scientific
-cannot be empirically tested - 63Evaluation: ABERNATHY-(see other cards) showed context cues improved accuracy of recall
- 64Evaluation: GOODWIN ET AL-(see other cards)proved presence of state cues improves accuracy of recall
- 65Evaluation: BADDELEY argued may not be appliable to real life-different contexts have to be very different for an effect to be seen (*land VS underwater)
-learning in a room less likely to forget as environments not different enough
-ecological validity of context-dependent forgetting is low - 66Who investigated the duration of LTM?BAHRICK
- 67BAHRICK: How many, between what ages and where Ps from?-326
-17-74yrs
-America - 68BAHRICK: Did-tested recall of faces from 50 photos in Ps year book
-also did a free recall: asked how many names could remember from graduating class - 69BAHRICK: Found-face recognition after 48yrs = 70%
-free recall after 48ys = 30% - 70BAHRICK: Shows-LTM can last a lifetime but may need the help of cues to access them
- 71Evaluation BAHRICK: high ecological validity-real life memories
-not meaningless unlike lab studies, which had lower recall rates - 72Evaluation BAHRICK: lack of control of confounding variables-rehearsal may explain results
-may looked at yearbook regularly
-lack of control over extraneous variable
=> internal validity down - 73Who investigated coding in ST and LT memory?BADDELEY
- 74BADDELEY: Did4 conditions of word pools to test Ps on:
-acoustically similar
-acoustically dissimilar
-semantically similar
-semantically dissimilar
asked to recall in correct order immediately (ST) or after 20 mins (LT) - 75BADDELEY: Found-immediate recall = mixed acoustically similar words
-after 20 mins = mixed up semantically similar words - 76BADDELEY: Shows-STM codes acoustically
-LTM codes semantically - 77Evaluations BADDELEY: artificial stimuli-word lists have no personal meaning -> if did, may have encoded information semantically
-> hard to generalise to different kinds of memory tasks
-low external validity - 78Evaluation BADDELEY: lab study so had a standardised procedure*all received same word lists to remember
-control extraneous variables
-increases internal validity - 79Who investigated the capacity of STM?MILLER
- 80MILLER: Did-reviewed studies on amount of info we receive, process and remember in immediate memory
-made observations of everyday practices (*7 days a week)
-suggests capacity of memory = 7 +/- 2
-can be increased through chunking - 81Chunking?-grouping data into meaningful chunks
- 82Evaluation MILLER: overestimate capacity of STM-COWEN concluded capacity only 4 chunks
-suggests lower end of MILLER'S estimate may be more appropriate - 83Who investigated the duration of STM?PETERSON AND PETERSON
- 84PETERSON + PETERSON: Ps?-24 undergraduates
- 85PETERSON + PETERSON: Did-gave Ps a syllable trigram + 3 digit number
-memorise trigram
-count backwards from number to prevent rehearsal
-retention intervals: 3, 6 , 9, 12, 15, 18 - 86PETERSON + PETERSON: Found- recall after 18s = 3%
-recall after 3s = 80% - 87PETERSON + PETERSON: Shows-STM has a duration of 18s without rehearsal
- 88Evaluation PETERSON + PETERSON: artificial stimuli- trigrams have no meaningful value unlike memories in everyday life => ecological validity low
-BUT some use as sometimes must remember meaningless data *phone numbers -> not totally irrelevant - 89What are the 2 types of misleading info that affect accuracy of EWT?-leading Qs
-Post-event Discussion - 90What is a leading Q?the way we phrase a question suggests a certain answer
- 91Why do leading Qs have this effect?-RESPONSE BIAS -> no effect on memories but influences how we decide to answer
-SUBSTITUTION -> wording interferes with original memory - 92Who studied the effect of leading Qs?LOFTUS + PALMER
(Smash-Contacted Study) - 93LOFTUS + PALMER: Ps?45 american students
- 94LOFTUS + PALMER: Did-showed a film of a car accident
-gave questions about video: key = how fast were going when hit each other
-changed the verb
*smashed, contacted, hit, bumped + collided - 95LOFTUS + PALMER: Found-smashed = mean estimate of 31.8 mph
-contacted = mean estimate of 40.5 mph - 96LOFTUS + PALMER: Shows-leading Qs bias EWT
- 97Evaluation LOFTUS + PALMER: Artifical Material-film = lack of stress so memory not affected like in real life
-no consequences of prison if give wrong answer so not inclined to try as hard
-lacks ecological validity - 98Evaluation LOFTUS + PALMER: controlled standardised procedure*all watched same film of car accident
*rest of questions were the same
-control of extraneous variables = able to replicate
-reliability increased - 99What is post-event discussion?witnesses talk about what they have seen with others or hear what others have experienced
- 100Memory Contamination?-EWT contaminated
-combine info from others with our own memories - 101Memory Conformity?witness go along with each other for social approval or because believe others are right
- 102Who investigate the effect of post-event discussion on EWT?GABBERT ET AL
- 103GABBERT ET AL: Did-Pairs of Ps watched video of same burglary but from different perspectives => could see different elements
-Ps discussed what had seen
-then carried out individual recall test - 104GABBERT ET AL: Found-71% mistakenly recalled aspects
-0% in control group - 105GABBERT ET AL: Showspicked up info from post-event discussion
- 106Evaluation: Real-life application of Police Interviews- improves accuracy of EWT
-important as consequences on an inaccurate EWT =serious
-police now more careful how they phrase QS - 107Evaluation: Lab studies effected by demand characteristics-Ps want to be helpful
-so when asked question they don't know the answer to they guess
*did you see a blue car? -> would say yes to feel more helpful
-lowers internal validity of research - 108Evaluation: Inidividual Differences-found older people less accurate at EWT
-BUT more accurate when identifying people of own age group (own-age bias)
-research often use young people as person to identify => some age groups may SEAM less accurate - 109Studies in to Effects of Anxiety on Accuracy of EWT-LOFTUS (Bloody Knife)
-YUILLE + CUTSHALL (Vancouver Gun Shop) - 110LOFTUS: did-Ps thought in another study + told to wait outside
-low anxiety condition = man came out carrying a pen
-high anxiety condition = man came out holding a (fake) bloody knife
-asked to identify out of 50 photos - 111LOFTUS: Found-low anxiety = 49% of Ps correctly identified man
-high anxiety = 33% - 112LOFTUS: Shows?less accurate due to WEAPON FOCUS EFFECT -> distracts attention from perpetrator
- 113Evaluation LOFTUS: ethical issues-deceived Ps = did not give fully informed consent
-cause anxiety -> did not protect Ps from harm - 114Evaluation LOFTUS: lab study with highly controlled + standardised procedure*same 50 photos
-allows for replication
-more reliable results - 115Evaluation LOFTUS: YUILLE + CUTSHALLanxiety has a positive effect on EWT
- 116Evaluation LOFTUS: YERKS + DODSONS' Inverted U Hypothesis- performance increases with anxiety up to a certain point + then decreases again
- 117YUILLE + CUTSHALL: Did-real life shooting
-13/21 agreed to take part
-interviews held 4 - 5 months after incident + compared to original police interviews at time of shooting
-rate anxiety on a 7-point scale - 118YUILLE + CUTSHALL: Found-little change in accuracy after 5 months
-high stress levels = 88% accurate
-low stress levels = 75% accurate - 119YUILLE + CUTSHALL: Showsanxiety improves accuracy of EWT
- 120Evaluation YUILLE + CUTSHALL: field study-lacks control of extraneous variables
*post-event discussion
-these may explain inaccuracy of EWT rather than stress levels
-lack internal validity
-BUT high ecological validity as real life shooting - 121Evaluation YUILLE + CUTSHALL: Volunteers- only 13/21 agreed
-may be psychologically different
-that is what has effected accuracy of EWT rather than stress levels
-low internal validity - 122What is the Cognitive Interview designed to do?enhance recall of EWT
- 123Cognitive Interview: Ideas based on-info has not been lost completely so can be retrieved
-memory = network of info
-retrieval cues = important part of process to spark memories - 124Report Everything-even if irrelevant
-act as cues for other, more important memories - 125Reinstate the Context-imagine environment of crime scene at emotions at the time
-act as context cues - 126Reverse Recall Order-prevents making assumptions about what might happen, rather than what happened
- 127Change Perspectiveprevent influence of schema/expectations
- 128The Role of Scemas?schema = packages of info about how we understand/expect the world to be
-distort memories -> recalled assumed events - 129Study into Effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview?GEISELMAN ET AL
- 130GEISELMAN ET AL: Did-showed videos of violent crimes to 48 students
-48hrs later had standard police or cognitive interview
-interviews recorded and accuracy analysed - 131GEISELMAN ET AL: Found-standard = 29.4 items correct and 6.3 items incorrect
-cognitive = 41.5 correct and 7.1 item incorrect - 132GEISELMAN ET AL: Showsimproved recall significantly with only minor increase in inaccuracies
- 133Evaluation: Time Consuming-police reluctant to used method
-requires more training and not able to provide more than a few hours
-unlikely that true version of CI has been used -> cannot see results
-longer time may also explain better results rather than the method itself - 134Evaluation: Practicle Application-EWT could be enough to send someone to prison
-research has shown inaccuracies
-fewer wrongful convictions = less compensation for gov. to pay
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A level Psychology Karteikarten am Memory, erstellt von Jemima Glazin am 12/02/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Jemima Glazin
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung