memory:
, Memory:
Coding Evaluation
The format in which information is stored in the various memory stores, e.g. acoustic (sound), semantic used artificial stimuli instead of meaningful material p
(meaning) caution about generalising findings to all memory tas
eg: when processing more meaningful information we
baddeley = 4 groups - word lists to remember were acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically baddeleys researching theorising the use of acoustic
similar and semantically dissimilar suggests findings have limited application to other sc
words recalled immediately for coding on STM and after 20 mins for LTM
BUT
participants did worse on accoustically similar words in STM suggesting memory in STM is coded for identified a clear difference between two memory stores
acoustically (similar sounds conflicted each other) Later research affirmed that STM primarily uses acoustic cod
did worse on semantically similar words in LTM as memory is coded for semantically and the similar
meanings conflicted each other
Capacity Evaluation
capacity = amount of information that can be held in the memory store conducted a while ago, earlier research lacked adeq
eg: distractions during test affect results
jacobs digit span test - presented numbers one at a time and only continued when the order was recited confounding variables weren't controlled so conclusio
back correctly, he continued increasing the list length until ppt could no longer remember the order
BUT has been replicated and similar results have be
miller found that our capacity is 7+-2
(same for chunks of info to increase capacity) + lacks mundane realism as participants were tested
Duration Evaluation
duration = length of time information can be held in memory STM: memorising consonant syllables doesnt reflec
lacking external validity
STM: But not totally irrelevant as phone numbers are mea
Peterson and Peterson = 24 undergraduates presented with trigams eg:TNR
Told to count backwards from 100 to prevent rehearsal forgetting may not be due to meaningless stimuli an
subconsiously) in daily life due to spontaneous deca
retention intervals increased by 3s (3,6,9...18) before recalling trigram
3s later recall was 80% but 18s later was 3%
STM duration = 18s without rehearsal
LTM: high external validity
LTM: By investigating meaningful memories, such as people's na
bahrick et al - 392 America's aged between 17-74 LTM duration
tested on recall from high school classmates year book photos
15 years later - 90% recall accuracy for photos and 60% free recall provided a more accurate reflection of real-world memory p
48 years - 70% photo accuracy and free recall 30%
AO1 - multistore model Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
Atkinson and shiffrin Supporting research: Evidence for more than one STM s
3 stores of memory - sensory register, STM and baddeley proves that STM and LTM are qualitively
LTM different MSM states STM is unitary store with
Ppts mixed up words that are acoustically similar in of short term memory
STM but mixed up semantically similar words in LTM
sensory register: memory store of all 5 senses clearly proves STM has acoustic coding and LTM has
semantic coding but warrington analysed KF who had
eg vision (iconic store with visual coding) or supports MSMs view that the 2 stores are independent Found poor retention of STM digit sp
hearing (echoic store with acoustic coding) of each other when digits were auditorily recited an
when he visually read digits himself
duration of sensory register is less than half a This suggests that the MSM provides a should be atleast one STM store for
second but have high capacity coherent framework for understanding the visual info and auditory info (working
organisation of memory model)
paying attention determines whether
information moves to STM store Empirical methods = high internal validity suggests the existence of multipl
short term memory: 7+-2 item capacity stores for different types of inform
BUT artificial stimuli:
duration = 18 seconds without rehearsal and is processing
primarily coded for acoustically Words had no meaning for baddeleys short term
memory study LTM - unitary but we might have one
for memories of world (semantic mem
after lots of maintenance rehearsal, information questions the validity of the MSM in one for actions (procedural memory)
passes from STM to LTM explaining memory processes in naturalistic
(elaborative moves to LTM According to craik contexts where meaningful information MSM oversimplifies the complexi
and watsin) dominates functioning by assuming a unitary
, this suggests that the applicability of the MSM
LTM: stored after prolonged rehearsal may be limited in capturing memory
unlimited capacity and years of duration operations in real-life situations
info coded semantically
retrieval transfers info from LTM to STM before
recall
displacement from STM + decay loses memory
AO1 types of long term memory Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
Tulving challenged the oversimplified model of Clinical evidence: Practical applications:
long-term memory (LTM) by proposing three HM and CW had their episodic memory impaired belleville et al demonstrated that epis
distinct LTM stores: episodic, semantic, and due to amnesia but semantic memories were
unaffected as well as procedural memories could be improved for olde
procedural memory
with mild cognitive impairment via tra
(couldnt remember personal events like owning a
episodic memory - LTM store for personal dog but understood concept of dog and knew This is especially the case for me
events how to do basic actions eg: CW was a professional
musician who could still play but couldnt events that happened recently, a
includes time stamped memories of when it
remember career) episodic memories remain intact
happened and includes several elements such
as details of people, places, and actions supports Tulvings MSM as one memory store can trained participants performed better
be damaged while others are unaffected
so types of memory are different + where they memory test than control group
memories from this store must be retrieved are stored within brain
consciously and with effort episodic memory most often affected
BUT case studies are unique one off cases and cognitive impairment highlighting ben
may not be representative of an entire population distinguishing between types of LTM
semantic memory - stores shared knowledge of
the world, such as facts, concepts, and treatment
Lack of control of variables such as the timing and
meanings nature of injuries
+ Can lead to creation of reha
lacks time stamps and relates to impersonal,
This limitation hinders researchers' ability to programs for those recover
factual information, continually expanding strokes or suffering from de
require deliberate recall to retrieve info precisely assess the impact of brain damage
+ Insights into human memor
Less vulnerable to distortion/forgetting than on memory functioning
inform the development of A
episodic memory mimicking memory process
So clinical studies dont have the most retrieval systems
procedural memory - LTM store for knowledge generalizable insights into memory
on how to do things including memories of
learned skills
encodes actions and skills, such as driving a
car, which become automatic through practice
recalled without making a conscious or
deliberate effort + challenging to articulate
AO1 working memory model Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
Baddeley and hitch: dynamic processor which Clinical evidence: Dual task performance:
is a representation of STM consisting of a Shallice and Warrington's case study of KF who
central executive, phonological loop. visuo- suffered from brain damage baddeley showed ppts had greater d
doing 2 visual tasks than doing both
spatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer
KF had poor short term memory ability to recall verbal verbal task at the same time
info but could process visual info easily in STM
, central executive - oversees incoming data, could remember digits over sounds etc
allocating attention and tasks among increased difficulty occurs as both vi
proves that only the phonological loop was damaged
subsystems but other areas of memory were intact (visuo-spacial compete for the same slave system
sketchpad)
lacks storage capacity and primarily supervises
(visuo-spacial sketchpad) compared
operations supports existence of separate visual and acoustic
stores competition between phonological lo
proves theres a different slave syste
phonological loop - processes auditory however results not generalisable as KF is a unique processing visual info
information case after trauma
utilises a phonological store for word storage Visuospatial sketchpad = visual
KFs injuries occured due to trauma of motorcyle
and an articulatory process for maintenance accident raising the possibility of trauma-related Phonological loop = verbal
rehearsal cognitive effects beyond the identified phonological
loop damage
Capacity is limited to approximately two
Support from neuroscientific stud
seconds worth of speech This uncertainty challenges the reliability of clinical
studies relying solely on brain injury cases to
support memory models Studies using FMRI or PET scans fo
visuospatial sketchpad - processes visual or correlational evidence for the differen
spatial info called 'inner eye' components of WMM being localised
this highlights the need for caution in interpreting
consists of visual cache storing visual data and brain
findings from such studies due to potential
inner scribe records arrangement of objects confounding factors.
Capacity = 3-4 objects Phonological loop linked to activity in
hemisphere (particularly brocas area
episodic buffer - links working memory to LTM VSS linked to right hemisphere
integrates visual, spacial, and verbal info
cognitive model reflect biological sys
processed by other stores
correlation doesnt equal causation
Limited to around four chunks = storage
component of the CE
AO1 interference theory Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
interferance is forgetting because one memory Real world interference: Interference is temporary and can
blocks another - one or both memories overcome by cues:
baddeley and hitch asked rugby players to recall names
distorted/forgotten of teams they played against
Tulving et al gave ppts lists of words
number of intervening games varied between players 70% recall for first list but got progre
proactive interferance - older memory interferes due to eg: injury etc worse for each additional list learnt
with new one argued words werent lost from LTM
players who played most games = greater interference
retroactive interferance - newer memory = poorer recall needed cues for recall
interferes with old one increases validity of theory - real life
at the end of test ppts were given a c
High external validity - interference affects scenarios
research on effects of similarity: mcgeoch and outside of controlled lab conditions test (given category name) and reca
mcdonald to 70% again
BUT
participants had to learn 10 word wordlist until
interference temporarily loses acces
they remember 100% and then learned a new mcgeoch/mcdonalds research proves only fairly similar
memories can be interfered with so doesnt occur in not permanently gone (against interf
list consisting of 6 groups
real life as much theory)
(synonyms,antonyms,words unrelated to
original ones, consonant syllable, no list (rest) Lab conditions means the stimulus can be controlled to
be very similar to each other - unlike real life
etc) Practical applications:
forgetting could be due to lack of cues instead of Can be used in educational settings
synonyms produced worst recall of original list - interference (retrieval failure) understanding how interference affec
interferance strongest when memories are to enhance teaching strategies
Therefore limited applicability of interference theory to
similar most scenarios Eg: spread out content of similar nat
prevent interference
BUT laboratory study of lists dont reflect real life Or students can alternate between m
The impact of similarity on recall suggests two
memory subjects to prevent retroactive interfe
potential mechanisms: Proactive , where
existing information prevents storage of similar
, Memory:
Coding Evaluation
The format in which information is stored in the various memory stores, e.g. acoustic (sound), semantic used artificial stimuli instead of meaningful material p
(meaning) caution about generalising findings to all memory tas
eg: when processing more meaningful information we
baddeley = 4 groups - word lists to remember were acoustically similar, acoustically dissimilar, semantically baddeleys researching theorising the use of acoustic
similar and semantically dissimilar suggests findings have limited application to other sc
words recalled immediately for coding on STM and after 20 mins for LTM
BUT
participants did worse on accoustically similar words in STM suggesting memory in STM is coded for identified a clear difference between two memory stores
acoustically (similar sounds conflicted each other) Later research affirmed that STM primarily uses acoustic cod
did worse on semantically similar words in LTM as memory is coded for semantically and the similar
meanings conflicted each other
Capacity Evaluation
capacity = amount of information that can be held in the memory store conducted a while ago, earlier research lacked adeq
eg: distractions during test affect results
jacobs digit span test - presented numbers one at a time and only continued when the order was recited confounding variables weren't controlled so conclusio
back correctly, he continued increasing the list length until ppt could no longer remember the order
BUT has been replicated and similar results have be
miller found that our capacity is 7+-2
(same for chunks of info to increase capacity) + lacks mundane realism as participants were tested
Duration Evaluation
duration = length of time information can be held in memory STM: memorising consonant syllables doesnt reflec
lacking external validity
STM: But not totally irrelevant as phone numbers are mea
Peterson and Peterson = 24 undergraduates presented with trigams eg:TNR
Told to count backwards from 100 to prevent rehearsal forgetting may not be due to meaningless stimuli an
subconsiously) in daily life due to spontaneous deca
retention intervals increased by 3s (3,6,9...18) before recalling trigram
3s later recall was 80% but 18s later was 3%
STM duration = 18s without rehearsal
LTM: high external validity
LTM: By investigating meaningful memories, such as people's na
bahrick et al - 392 America's aged between 17-74 LTM duration
tested on recall from high school classmates year book photos
15 years later - 90% recall accuracy for photos and 60% free recall provided a more accurate reflection of real-world memory p
48 years - 70% photo accuracy and free recall 30%
AO1 - multistore model Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
Atkinson and shiffrin Supporting research: Evidence for more than one STM s
3 stores of memory - sensory register, STM and baddeley proves that STM and LTM are qualitively
LTM different MSM states STM is unitary store with
Ppts mixed up words that are acoustically similar in of short term memory
STM but mixed up semantically similar words in LTM
sensory register: memory store of all 5 senses clearly proves STM has acoustic coding and LTM has
semantic coding but warrington analysed KF who had
eg vision (iconic store with visual coding) or supports MSMs view that the 2 stores are independent Found poor retention of STM digit sp
hearing (echoic store with acoustic coding) of each other when digits were auditorily recited an
when he visually read digits himself
duration of sensory register is less than half a This suggests that the MSM provides a should be atleast one STM store for
second but have high capacity coherent framework for understanding the visual info and auditory info (working
organisation of memory model)
paying attention determines whether
information moves to STM store Empirical methods = high internal validity suggests the existence of multipl
short term memory: 7+-2 item capacity stores for different types of inform
BUT artificial stimuli:
duration = 18 seconds without rehearsal and is processing
primarily coded for acoustically Words had no meaning for baddeleys short term
memory study LTM - unitary but we might have one
for memories of world (semantic mem
after lots of maintenance rehearsal, information questions the validity of the MSM in one for actions (procedural memory)
passes from STM to LTM explaining memory processes in naturalistic
(elaborative moves to LTM According to craik contexts where meaningful information MSM oversimplifies the complexi
and watsin) dominates functioning by assuming a unitary
, this suggests that the applicability of the MSM
LTM: stored after prolonged rehearsal may be limited in capturing memory
unlimited capacity and years of duration operations in real-life situations
info coded semantically
retrieval transfers info from LTM to STM before
recall
displacement from STM + decay loses memory
AO1 types of long term memory Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
Tulving challenged the oversimplified model of Clinical evidence: Practical applications:
long-term memory (LTM) by proposing three HM and CW had their episodic memory impaired belleville et al demonstrated that epis
distinct LTM stores: episodic, semantic, and due to amnesia but semantic memories were
unaffected as well as procedural memories could be improved for olde
procedural memory
with mild cognitive impairment via tra
(couldnt remember personal events like owning a
episodic memory - LTM store for personal dog but understood concept of dog and knew This is especially the case for me
events how to do basic actions eg: CW was a professional
musician who could still play but couldnt events that happened recently, a
includes time stamped memories of when it
remember career) episodic memories remain intact
happened and includes several elements such
as details of people, places, and actions supports Tulvings MSM as one memory store can trained participants performed better
be damaged while others are unaffected
so types of memory are different + where they memory test than control group
memories from this store must be retrieved are stored within brain
consciously and with effort episodic memory most often affected
BUT case studies are unique one off cases and cognitive impairment highlighting ben
may not be representative of an entire population distinguishing between types of LTM
semantic memory - stores shared knowledge of
the world, such as facts, concepts, and treatment
Lack of control of variables such as the timing and
meanings nature of injuries
+ Can lead to creation of reha
lacks time stamps and relates to impersonal,
This limitation hinders researchers' ability to programs for those recover
factual information, continually expanding strokes or suffering from de
require deliberate recall to retrieve info precisely assess the impact of brain damage
+ Insights into human memor
Less vulnerable to distortion/forgetting than on memory functioning
inform the development of A
episodic memory mimicking memory process
So clinical studies dont have the most retrieval systems
procedural memory - LTM store for knowledge generalizable insights into memory
on how to do things including memories of
learned skills
encodes actions and skills, such as driving a
car, which become automatic through practice
recalled without making a conscious or
deliberate effort + challenging to articulate
AO1 working memory model Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
Baddeley and hitch: dynamic processor which Clinical evidence: Dual task performance:
is a representation of STM consisting of a Shallice and Warrington's case study of KF who
central executive, phonological loop. visuo- suffered from brain damage baddeley showed ppts had greater d
doing 2 visual tasks than doing both
spatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer
KF had poor short term memory ability to recall verbal verbal task at the same time
info but could process visual info easily in STM
, central executive - oversees incoming data, could remember digits over sounds etc
allocating attention and tasks among increased difficulty occurs as both vi
proves that only the phonological loop was damaged
subsystems but other areas of memory were intact (visuo-spacial compete for the same slave system
sketchpad)
lacks storage capacity and primarily supervises
(visuo-spacial sketchpad) compared
operations supports existence of separate visual and acoustic
stores competition between phonological lo
proves theres a different slave syste
phonological loop - processes auditory however results not generalisable as KF is a unique processing visual info
information case after trauma
utilises a phonological store for word storage Visuospatial sketchpad = visual
KFs injuries occured due to trauma of motorcyle
and an articulatory process for maintenance accident raising the possibility of trauma-related Phonological loop = verbal
rehearsal cognitive effects beyond the identified phonological
loop damage
Capacity is limited to approximately two
Support from neuroscientific stud
seconds worth of speech This uncertainty challenges the reliability of clinical
studies relying solely on brain injury cases to
support memory models Studies using FMRI or PET scans fo
visuospatial sketchpad - processes visual or correlational evidence for the differen
spatial info called 'inner eye' components of WMM being localised
this highlights the need for caution in interpreting
consists of visual cache storing visual data and brain
findings from such studies due to potential
inner scribe records arrangement of objects confounding factors.
Capacity = 3-4 objects Phonological loop linked to activity in
hemisphere (particularly brocas area
episodic buffer - links working memory to LTM VSS linked to right hemisphere
integrates visual, spacial, and verbal info
cognitive model reflect biological sys
processed by other stores
correlation doesnt equal causation
Limited to around four chunks = storage
component of the CE
AO1 interference theory Evaluation 1 Evaluation 2
interferance is forgetting because one memory Real world interference: Interference is temporary and can
blocks another - one or both memories overcome by cues:
baddeley and hitch asked rugby players to recall names
distorted/forgotten of teams they played against
Tulving et al gave ppts lists of words
number of intervening games varied between players 70% recall for first list but got progre
proactive interferance - older memory interferes due to eg: injury etc worse for each additional list learnt
with new one argued words werent lost from LTM
players who played most games = greater interference
retroactive interferance - newer memory = poorer recall needed cues for recall
interferes with old one increases validity of theory - real life
at the end of test ppts were given a c
High external validity - interference affects scenarios
research on effects of similarity: mcgeoch and outside of controlled lab conditions test (given category name) and reca
mcdonald to 70% again
BUT
participants had to learn 10 word wordlist until
interference temporarily loses acces
they remember 100% and then learned a new mcgeoch/mcdonalds research proves only fairly similar
memories can be interfered with so doesnt occur in not permanently gone (against interf
list consisting of 6 groups
real life as much theory)
(synonyms,antonyms,words unrelated to
original ones, consonant syllable, no list (rest) Lab conditions means the stimulus can be controlled to
be very similar to each other - unlike real life
etc) Practical applications:
forgetting could be due to lack of cues instead of Can be used in educational settings
synonyms produced worst recall of original list - interference (retrieval failure) understanding how interference affec
interferance strongest when memories are to enhance teaching strategies
Therefore limited applicability of interference theory to
similar most scenarios Eg: spread out content of similar nat
prevent interference
BUT laboratory study of lists dont reflect real life Or students can alternate between m
The impact of similarity on recall suggests two
memory subjects to prevent retroactive interfe
potential mechanisms: Proactive , where
existing information prevents storage of similar
