Remembering and Forgetting

Remembering and Forgetting

1. MODELS OF MEMORY

   • Multi-store model (Atkinson and Shiffrin)
     • Primary-recency effect- As we hear words from a list, we start to practice the first words we hear which transfers them into our long-term memory, this rehearsal means we tend to miss the words in the middle. We remember the words at the end of the list due to remembering them from our short term memory.
     • Sensory memory- Holds all sensory experience, holds visual information for quarter of a second and auditory information for 4 seconds, coding is in the form which information was received
     • CASE STUDY: (SPERLING - 1960)
       • AIM: Demonstrate the capacity of sensory memory
       • METHOD: Using a tachistoscope, a visual array of 12 letters were displayed for participants for 50 milliseconds. 50 milliseconds is too short a time to consciously focus on the letters and read them. The reason only 4 letters could be remembered was because the information faded so rapidly that most the items were lost before they could be reported out loud. To test this, he arranged for the participants to hear a tone of either a high, medium or low pitch and report the letters they had seen from either the top, middle or bottom row depending on which tone they had heard.
       • RESULTS: Most participants could report the four letters from the selected row, whichever row was cued. It seems the image of all letters was available to be read off for a very short time after the display.
       • CONCLUSION: Sperling concluded that a large amount of sensory information could be stored in sensory memory, but that it faded very rapidly, probably within a quarter of a second, after presentation ceased.
     • Short-term memory- 7 plus or minus two items (can be increased by chunking), lasts for upto 18-30 seconds and is mainly phonological (auditory or sound based.
     • Long-term memory- Unlimited capacity and duration information however is mainly stored semantically (based on meaning)
     • AO2: Oversimplified model as it suggests we have a single-store of long term memories
     • AO2: Involves testing the memory in an artificial way i.e. we neevr need to recall lists of unrelated words
     • AO2: We sometimes remember information without rehaearsal unlike what the MSM suggests i.e. flash bulb memories (9/11)
   • Working memory model (Baddeley and Hitch)
     • CASE STUDY (LOGIE - 1989)
       • AIM: Role of the working memory model in performance on a complex computer game
       • METHOD: Participants were required to play the game and at the same time carry out either a visuospatial distracter task or a verbal memory distracter task.
       • RESULT: The visuospatial distracter task impaired performance on perceptual-motor aspects of game performance, while the verbal memory distracter task disrupted performance on the verbal memory distracter task disrupted performance on the verbal elements of the game
       • CONCLUSION: Study demonstrates the existence of separate visuospatial and sound-based components of working memory. It also shows how these components have a limited capacity and can only cope with a certain amount of processing at any one time
     • AO2: Helps us to understand different links between cognitive processes suchas memory, perception and attention
       • AO2: Helps us understand how dual-task experiments can be carried out i.e. if two functions use the same sub-system performance is poorer
         • AO2: Results are derived from artificial environments (laboratories) making it hard to generalise findings to real life
           • AO2: We know little about the central executive even though it is the most important component of the model
   • Levels of processing (Craik and Lockhart)
     • Concentrates on the processes involved in memory rather than the structures involved
     • Craik and Lockhart propose that memory is just a by-product of the depth of processing of information and there is no clear distinction between short-term and long-term memory
     • Shallow processing
       • Structural- Only encode physical properties of something e.g. how the letters of a word look
       • Phonemic processing- Encode through sound
     • CASE STUDY: (CRAIK AND TULVING - 1975)
       • AIM: Investigate the effects of different types of processing on the recall of words
         • METHOD: Participants were shown 60 words, one at a time, and for each word they had to answer one of three questions. The participants had to think of the case of the word, or the sound of the word or the meaning of the word. Participants heard each question and were then shown the corresponding word for a brief period. They were then shown 180 words out of which the 60 words shown had to be picked
       • RESULT: Semantic question condition (65% recall) Auditory question condition (37% recall) Visual condition recall (17% recall)
       • CONCLUSION: Findings confirm theory that type of processing which takes place when encoding affects later recall
     • AO2: Realistic and credible alternative to the structural approach to memory
       • Deep processing
         • Semantic processing- Encode through meaning of a word and relate it to similar words with similar meanings
     • AO2: No independent way of assessing whether processing was deep or shallow
     • AO2: Craik has acknowledged that the original levels of processing theory was over-simplified and has accepted a number of research findings
       • AO2: Does not explain how deeper memories result in better memories

2. EXPLANATIONS FOR FORGETTING

   • Decay- Information that enters the STM leaves a trace in the brain due to the excitation of nerve cells. This neural activity eventually dies away unless the material is rehearsed
     • CASE STUDY: (WAUGH AND NORMAN - 1965)
       • AIM: To investigate STM using a serial probe technique and support trace decay as a theory of forgetting
         • RESULTS: No relationship between speed of presentation and recall
       • METHOD: Repeated measures design experiment was conducted where participants were presented with a list of 16 digits at a rate of one to four per second. The last digit, known as the probe, occurred once before in the list and the task was to recall the digit which had followed it. It was predicted the faster the rate at which the words were presented the better the recall would be as there would be less time for the trace to decay
       • CONCLUSION: Waugh and Norman concluded forgetting is probably better explained by interference than decay
     • AO2: It is difficult to test trace decay because if participants are tested after different times they can rehearse. But if a distractor task is given forgetting could be due to interference.
     • AO2: Difficulty explaining why things that cannot be remembered at one time can be remembered another time
     • AO2: Waugh and Norman set out to support trace decay but concluded interference is the most likely cause of forgetting in the STM
   • Interference- Concerned with what occurs before during or after learning. Proactive= When earlier learning effects present learning. Retroactive= Where more recent learning interferes with the recall of earlier material (Remember present phone number but cant remember your old one)
     • CASE STUDY: (SCHMIDT - 2000)
       • AIM: Investigate retroactive interference in a naturally occurring situation
       • METHOD: Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire which contained a map of their childhood neighbourhood, they had all grown up in the same area. Their task was to name streets on the map and also state how many times they moved house
       • RESULTS: Partcipants that moved houses more times remembered less street names
       • CONCLUSION: Partcipants recall of neighbourhood information is influenced by retroactive interference
     • AO2: No real explanation as to why affects occur
     • AO2: Researchers have studied real life events and have provided support for interference theory.
     • AO2: Extent of affects of interference are uncertain
   • Retrieval Failure- We forget because we cannot retrieve information from long-term memory without the appropriate retrieval cues
     • CASE STUDY: (GODDEN AND BADDELEY - 1975)
       • AIM: Importance of environmental context in memory and forgetting
       • METHOD: Divers heard a list of 40 unrelated words either on the beach or under ten feet of water. The participants were tested for recall either in the same environment context or in an alternative one
       • RESULTS: Participants recalled significantly more words if they were tested in the same environment as where they learned the words.
     • AO2: Low ecological validity as it is rare for a person to have to remember words underwater
     • AO2: Same environment is not necessarily required to remember information
   • Displacement- Limited capacity of STM means when the system is full the oldest material is pushed out by incoming information
     • AO2: The STM is much more complex than the unitary short-term store first proposed by Atkinson and Shifrin
     • AO2: Gives an adequate account of forgetting
   • Lack of consolidation- Biological basis as it describes the making of memories as a permanent alteration of the brain substrate. Neurotransmitter acetylcholine has been identified as very important for the consolidation process.
     • CASE STUDY: (DRACHMAN AND SAHAKIAN - 1979)
       • AIM: Investigated the effects of chemical interference on the process of consolidation. Aimed to show that interfering with action of acetylcholine would cause forgetting
       • METHOD: Drug which prevents neurotransmitter passing between neurons was given to one group of partcipants. Control group received no drug treatment. Both groups were given a list of words to memorise with a delay of 60 seconds after. During this time they were given distractor task to prevent rehearsal.
       • RESULTS: Participants in the control group recalled twice as many words on average as the group that had been given acetylcholine blocking drugs
     • AO2: No evidence as to how long it takes for consolidation to take place
     • AO2: Most cases of forgetting in real life do not involve interference with psychoactive drugs
     • AO2: Links biological and psychological approaches to explaining behaviour
   • Motivated forgetting- We forget things because we wish to forget them
     • CASE STUDY: (LEVINGER AND CLARK - 1961)
       • AIM: Test repression hypothesis mentally
         • CONCLUSION: Difficulty recalled negative words is a sign of repression
       • METHOD: Participants were given emotionally negative words and a set of neutral words. They were then asked to provide an associated word for each stimulus word
       • RESULTS: Fewer associated words for the emotionally negative set were recalled
     • AO2: Cannot be tested easily
     • AO2: Word-association studies are not realistic
     • AO2: Many people do recall unpleasant memories very clearly

3. TYPES OF LONG TERM MEMORY

   • Semantic
     • Responsible for storing information about the world. Includes knowledge about the meanings of words
   • Episodic
     • Responsible for storing information about events that we have experienced in our lives, it involves conscious thoughts and is declarative.
   • Procedural
     • Responsible for knowing how to do things. Does not involve conscious thought
   • CASE STUDY: (TULVING - 1989)
     • AIM: Investigating episodic and semantic memory to see whether they were seperate memory systems located in different areas
     • METHOD: Tulving took part himself and radioactive gold was injected into his bloodstream. He then thought about semantic memories (e.g. historical facts) or about episodic memories (e.g. summer holidays when he was a child). Scanners were used to monitor the blood flow in the brain.
     • RESULT: Episodic memory tasks increased blood flows in the front of the brain while semantic memories involved increased blood flow in the back of the brain.
     • CONCLUSION: Results support view that episodic and semantic memory are located in different parts of the brain. However the investigation only involved one person so the results should be interpreted with caution

Images and files in the map