Unit 2- Remembering and Forgetting

Unit 2- Remembering and Forgetting

1. Models for Memory

   • Multi-Store Model of Memory
     • Developed by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968)
     • Sensory Register
       • MODALITY-SPECIFIC: info. is held in the same sense that it is registered
         • Taste held as taste
       • Capacity is VERY LARGE but its DURATION is VERY BRIEF )hold up to half a seconds worth of info.)
         • Info. is lost before there is time to measure its full capacity.
       • Processing is largely UNCONSCIOUS
         • Deduced by EXPERIMENTS
           • SPERLING (1960): said that the SR. held at least 9 items but only for brief time
     • Short-term Memory (STM)
       • From the SR. info. can be lost or, it can be passed on to the STM.
         • MILLER (1956): proposed that the STM can hold between 5-9 items BUT an average of 7 items- MILLER'S MAGIC 7
       • The CAPACITY is EXTENDED via CHUNKING
         • CHUNKED INTO MEANINGFUL wholes
           • Info. REHEARSED-retained in the STM and trasnferred over to LTM for indefinite storage.
     • Long-term Memory (LTM)
       • CAPACITY is immensely huge and DURATION is indefinite. The CODE that is largely used is either SEMANTIC or ABSTRACT
       • Memories/ knowledge
     • Research Evidence
       • Duration of STM was investigated by PETERSON & PETERSON (1959)
         • Participants given TRIGRAMS which they had to RECALL after varying amounts of time from 0-18 secs.
           • 10%- recall after 18 secs
             • Showed that STM has duration of APPROX. 18 secs.
           • Also showed that REHEARSAL extends STM and allows transition of info. into LTM
         • As info. in LTM can be stored indefinitely, P&P study shows that findings on limited duration of STM when rehearsalis prevented can be used as evidence for FUNCTIONAL SEPERATION of STM and LTM
           • Experimental Evidence
             • Murdock (1962)
               • List of words (which varied in length: 10-40 words) given to participants in intervals of 2 secs. Asked to recall in ANY ORDER.
                 • Results showed that HIGHER amount of words recalled from either the START of the list or the END of the list irrespective of length of list.
                   • Plotted on graph: PRIMARY-RECENCY EFFECT
                     • PRIMARY EFFECT- BETTER RECALL words- BEGINNING of list (have been REHEARSED & transferred to LTM)
                     • RECENCY EFFECT- BETTER RECALL LAST FEW words at END of list (still in STM)
                     • Words in MIDDLE OF GRAPH are DISPLACED from STM but NOT YET CONSOLIDATED to LTM.
               • STRONG EVIDENCE FOR SEPERATION OF STM & LTM!
       • Baddeley (1966)
   • Levels of Processing
     • Proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972)
       • PROCESSING of words = IMPORTANT!
         • Processed at different levels...
           • SHALLOW/STRUCTURAL LEVEL: Visual level i.e physical properties of the S.
           • INTERMEDIATE/PHONETIC LEVEL: Auditory level i.e sound of S.
           • DEEP/SEMANTIC LEVEL: Meaning of S. & connections to other S.
       • Argued that it is WHAT is done with the material DURING REHEARSAL that depends on whether or not it is remembered
         • Any S. can be processed in number of stage: move from LOW---> HIGH!
           • Experimental Technique: Varying tasks are performed on list of words
             • i.e. ' Think of ADJECTIVE to go with word BOOK' = First need to process what book is, makes you make connections with stored knowledge in LTM (DEEP LEVEL).
             • i.e. ' Is the word BOOK in capital letters?' = only requires SHALLOW PROCESSING.
         • When material ENCODED, two types of rehearsal
           • MAINTENANCE rehearsal: simple route repition
           • ELABORATIVE rehearsal: analysing meaning of rehearsed material, maybe linking to stored knowledge in LTM...
           • CRUCIAL ASSUMPTION ---> DEPTH of PROCESSING DETERMINES PERSISTENCE of MEMORY TRACE in LTM & ELABORATIVE REHEARSAL ENTAIL DEEPER PROCESSING therefore, MORE DURABLE MEMORY!
             • Research Study for AO2- Craik and Tulving (1975) OR Craik and Lockhart (1972)
       • Preferable that participants didn't know they were going to be tested on recall of words: INCIDENTAL LEARNING!
   • Working Memory Model
     • Shows active-nature of STM which has more than ONE component
       • 'WORKING MEMORY'--> system of short term maintenance & manipulation of info.
     • Proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974)
     • CENTRAL EXECUTIVE: Focus and switch attention, co-ordinate sub-systems (i.e the phonological loop and visuo-spatial scratchpad), connect working memory to LTM. It gets its name from teh fcat that it has to allocate attention to inputs and directs operation of oredr components. It is FLEXIBLE syatem can process info. in any sensory modalityin variety of ways. Can store also info. for brief period time.
       • VISUO-SPATIAL SCRATCHPAD: Divided into two seperate components--> VISUAL- ONJECTS & FEATURES i.e shape/colour. --> SPATIAL- LOACTIONS & MOVEMENTS IN SPACE.
         • Spatial component involved in (i.e. planning way through shopping centre)
       • PHONOLOGICAL LOOP::Stored as two compnets-->PHONOLOGICAL STORE- holds AUDITORY memory traces for few secs before they fade. AUDITORY VERBAL INFO. enters phonological store and VISUALLY PRESENTED LANGUAGE (i.e. text when being red) transformed into PHONOLOGICAL CODE due to silent articulation so it can therefore be placed in the phonological store. The PHONOLOGICAL STORE can be regarded as the INNER EAR as it remembers VOCAL SOUNDS in temporal order. ARTICULATOry REHEARSAL PROCESS- essentially SUB-VOCAL SPEECH. It has limited capacity (3-4 items). ARTICULATORY PROCESS regarded as INNER VOICE as REPEATS words order to prevent fading away after 2 secs.
         • Evidence for phonological loop
           • SIMILARITY IN SOUND OF S. (I.E. DISSIMILAR WORDS/LETTERS RECALLED BETTER THAN WORDS/LETTERS THAT SOUND SIMILAR. SUGGESTS CODE = PHONOLOGICAL
           • WORD LENGTH EFFECT OF S. (I.E. SHORTER WORDS RECALLED BETTER THAN LONGER WORDS. SHORTER WORDS = SILENTLY ARTICULATED FASTER SO MORE ARTICULATED BEFORE TRACE DECAYS.
           • EFFECT ON ARTICULATORY SUPPRESSION OF S. (I.E. SAY SOMETHING ALOUD AT SAME TIME AS REHEARSAL OF MATERIAL IN PHONOLOGICAL LOOP, MEMORY FOR REHEARSED MATERIAL = IMPAIRED.
           • Research Evidence
             • Baddeley et al. (1998)
             • Key findings associated with regions of the brain associated with use of phonological loop
               • Research Study for AO2: Hunt (1980)
       • EPOSODIC BUFFER- is a LIMITED CAPACITY STORE which BINDS together info. from VERBA, VISUAL, SPATIAL & CHRONOLOGICAL info. Can use access to different sub-systems & from conscious awareness. It was added by Baddeley in 2000 beacsue the WMM had a few issues starting to emerge. One issue was that three component model had difficulty explaining interaction between WM and LTM. Another issue is that on original WMM, no mechanism linking all sub-systems togetherand allowing them to interact.

2. Types of LTM

   • PROCEDURAL MEMORY- Implicit. Skills and habits that people possess, i.e. riding a bike. We carry out this task UNCONSCIOUSLY
   • DECLARATIVE- Explicit. Inspected CONSCIOUSLY.
     • SEMANTIC MEMORY- Our GENERAL KNOWLEDGE about world and FACTS we know. NO SPECIFIC link of TIME and PLACE of learning info.
       • Research Study: Bower et al. (1969)
     • EPISODIC MEMORY- Memories of specific episode in person's life. COHEN (1993), argued that episodic is split into a further two sections.
       • AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL EPISODIC MEMORY- Specific lifetime events which have PERSONAL meaning i.e. where you went on holiday last year
       • EXPERIMENTAL EPISODIC MEMORY- i.e. learning list of words which stored in SEMANTIC memory already but now are tied to specific episode of processing list of words experiment.
       • FLASHBULB MEMORY- Very DETAILED and VIVID memory of event stored after one occasion and lasts LIFETIME! Such events generally life-changing AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL events (i.e. births, deaths, or important historical events- 9/11). Usually comes with EMOTIONAL AROUSAL when memory first encoded. EMOTIONAL CONTENT = EXTREMELY VIVID MEMORY!
         • Research Study: Conway et al. (1994)
   • Case Studies
     • HM
     • Clive Wearing
   • INTERACTIVE NATURE OF LTM- Memory systems considered largely independent, everyday tasks require interaction between the stores.

3. Explanations for Forgetting

   • TRACE DECAY- info. enters STM leaves TRACE in brain due to EXCITATION of NERVE CELLS. NEURAL ACTIVITY gradually DIES AWAY unless material rehearsed. Hebb (1949)- whilst learning , ENGRAM eventually form very delicate and liable to disruption = ACTIVE TRACE! Learning = TRACE GROW STRONGER- PERMANENT ENGRAM (Structural trace)
     • Some researchers argue if knowledge and skills not used in LTM, engram decay... but Hebb argues it is only in STM as he believes when we rehearse material corresponding neural activity causes structural change in brain (no longer trace).
       • Solso (1995)- also concluded no evidence that major cause of forgetting from LTM is neurological decay.
     • Research Study: Peterson and Peterson (1959)
   • DISPLACEMENT THEORY-
     • Explains STM in terms of capacity being limited.
     • Suggests that STM has a certain number of 'slots' (7 founded by Miller) and so, when STM is at its fullest capacity old info. is pushed out (or DISPLACED) by the new info.
     • Research Study: Waugh and Norman (1965)
   • INTERFERENCE THEORY-
     • Interested in the processes that occur before, during and after learning.
     • Idea is that info in LTM is CONFUSED or COMBINED with info. in STM. This means that the info. would be DISTORTED or DISTURBED.
     • PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE- Difficulty storing NEW info. as SIMILAR info. already exists in LTM
     • RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE- Difficulty RECALLING OLD info. due to something that you have done which is SIMILAR
     • Kepel and Underwood (1962)
   • LACK OF CONSOLIDATION-
     • Don't rehearse and CONSOLIDATE info. in STM, then info. will not get to LTM
     • During consolidation, info. is being repeatedly ACTIVATED. If something was to DISRUPT process then info. in STM cannot be consolidated and memories would not be able to be stored in LTM
     • Yarnell and Lynch (1970)
   • RETRIEVAL FAILURE THEORY-
     • Memories cannot be RECALLED due to the absence of retrieval cues
       • Role of retrieval cues is to demonstrate the 'TIP OF THE TONGUE PHENOMENON'
     • I.e. ENVIRONMENTAL CUES- cues in our environment that aid with memory. If the environmental cues are no longer there, you FORGET/ CANNOT RECALL INFO. This is because we associate environmental cues with what we were trying to remember
     • Tulving (1972)- investigated retrieval failure in LTM
       • In (1974), Tulving used the term: 'CUE-DEPENDENT FORGETTING'- explain that if same cues are not present at recall as during learning, recall = poor!
         • CONTEXT- DEPENDENT FORGETTING- environmental cues NOT PRESENT (external cues) THEN CONTEXT DEPENDENT FORGETTING occurs and recall DECREASES
         • STATE-DEPENDENT FORGETTING- occurs in ABSENCE of PSYCHOLOGICAL/ PHYSIOLOGICAL variables that were present during learning (internal cues)
           • Bower et al. (1981)- participant in happy mood when learning and recalling info. ---> recall HIGH! However, if participant was happy learning but sad recalling info. ---> recall LOW
     • Gooden and Baddeley (1975)
   • MOTIVATED FORGETTING THEORY-
     • According to Freud (1901), some info. is too painful for it to surface in our conscious as it could lead to anxiety so, we REPRESS this painful info. into the unconscious where we cannot access it
     • After traumatic event, ID could win and so making the person deeply affected by the event and therefore, replicates behaviour of the one who inflicted pain upon the person.
       • However, the SUPEREGO could win and so, the person may refuse to leave the house or behave in an immoral way.
         • In order to keep the balance between ID and SUPEREGO, the EGO REPRESSES the info. into unconscious so person not affected by the traumatic event and has no recollection of the event as it is inaccessible.
     • Can access these traumatic events/ memories through PSYCHOANALYSIS therapy of FREE ASSCOCIATION or even through DREAM ANALYSIS or PARAPRAXES (slip of the tongue)
     • Research Study: Glucksberg and Lloyd (1967)

Imagens e arquivos do mapa