jamesbaily
Mind Map by , created over 6 years ago

level 3 ou Memory Mind Map on Memory, created by jamesbaily on 07/01/2013.

108
0
0
Tags
jamesbaily
Created by jamesbaily over 6 years ago
Memory: AS Psychology
rae_olamide_xo
Making the Most of GoConqr Flashcards
Sarah Egan
Summary of AS Psychology Unit 1 Memory
Asterisked
AQA GCSE Physics Unit 2.2
Matthew T
Mind Maps with GoConqr
croconnor
Chapter 5: Short-term and Working Memory
krupa8711
Psychology flashcards memory
eharveyhudl
Psychology A1
Ellie Hughes
Memory - AQA Psychology Unit 1 GCSE
joshua6729
Japanese Hiragana
pangcaberte
Memory
1 Working Memory
1.1 Baddeley (1986)
1.1.1 Experimental Obs. point to 2 STM + LTM coding info in different ways
1.1.1.1 STM Info held in accoustic or speech based form. LTM coded in terms of meaning
1.1.1.1.1 Brown (1958) observed forgetting rates of briefly presented stimuli unusually rapid compared to better learned material, supporting idea that STM is more labile than LTM
1.1.1.1.2 Span of Immediate Memory is limited to a few items, whether digits/letters/words (Miller, 1956)
1.1.1.1.3 M. Span is longest sequence that can be recalled accurately after single presentation.
1.1.1.1.3.1 Low limit on span suggested STM distinguishable from LTM on grounds of Ltd capacity
1.1.1.1.4 This evidence at time V. compelling. Led to the two store models, common features referred to as 'Modal Model' (Murdock, 1967)
1.1.1.1.4.1 Main Assumptions of 'MM': 1:STM limited capacity store of short duration. 2: control processes like subvocal rehearsal can be used to keep info in STM. 3: Info in STM gradually transferred to LTM.

Annotations:

  • See Atkinson & Shifrin 1971 Modal Model of memory, attached.

Attachments:

1.1.1.1.4.1.1 While Model Model popular, other authors argued that transient storage provided by STM crucial for cognitive activities.

Annotations:

  • Cognitive activities like sentence comprehension or problem solving.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1 In other words, STM behaves as some sort of working memory.

Annotations:

  • Can gain insight into plausibility of this through trying to understand garden path sentences. Just and Carpenter (1992) argued one keeps several interpretations of sentence in working memory. Caplan and Waters (1999) proposed that comprehension draws on more specialised resources than working memory.
  • Modal model captures some important insights, but consensus was fleeting. One concern was whether various strands of evidence for distinguishing STM and LTM converged on a coherent account---eg. different ways of estimating capacity of STM gave different answers, and the reasons for this were unclear. Consequently a resurgence in interest in LTM (eg 'levels of processing approach' by Craik and Lockhart 1972) occurred. Another concern was whether STM does actually work as a working memory, Neuropsychological evidence from a patient KF (brain damaged) supported some interpretations of modal model but posed difficulties for it in other ways. pg 156 MTB.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1 WORKING MEMORY AS MORE THAN STM?
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1 Due to KF difficulties, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) made empirical investigation into whether STM acts as working memory.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1 They used Dual Task Paradigm

Annotations:

  • People performed 2 tasks at same time. Logic is that 2 tasks will interfere with one another if they need access to a common resource and if their combined demands exceed its capacity. pg 156-157 MTB
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 B & H (1974) drew 2 conclusions: 1: Common working Mem. system combines temp. info storage with ongoing mental operations. 2: Working memory includes an additional resource that is not shared with STM

Annotations:

  • 1: The finding that an irrelevant STM task interferes with a range of cognitive tasks (supporting conc. 1) 2: When load on STM approached memory span and therefor filled short term storage capacity, there was no catastrophic breakdown in concurrent cognition (supporting conc. 2). pg 157 MTB
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.2 Further evidence for a distinction between STM and working mem. came from studies of individual differences

Annotations:

  • Logic is that if two tasks involve similar psychological processes, a person who performs well at one should do well on another. In statistical terms the two abilities should be positively correlated.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.2.1 Daneman & Carpenter (1980) argued that standard measures of STM like word span tax storage capacity but don't assess capacity to combine storage with ongoing processing operations
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Daneman & Carpenter devised reading span task. They interpreted their findings as showing that WM Capacity is an important source of individual differences in language comprehension, the key characteristic of WM being combining temporary storage with information processing. In line with Baddeley and Hitch 1974.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 A criticism of D & C approach was that their correlations might be an artifact of similarities in processing operations in the various tasks they use ( reading span/listening span & language comprehensionall involve language comprehension whereas wordspan does not.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 So Turner & Engle (1989) devised an operation span task in which participants solved sets of arithmetical calculations. They found Operation span a superior predictor of reading comprehension than standard STM span inspite of involving dissimilar processing operations.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Their results therefore support idea of general working memory system that is common to a range of different activities involving the combination of info processing with temporary storage. Subsequent work by Engle et al (1999b) has shown that WM span more closely related to general intelligence than is STM
1.1.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 NEW MAP: STRUCTURE OF WORKING MEMORY

Attachments:

2 Long Term Memory
3 Autobiographical Memory

Media attachments