Memory A level psychology AQA

Memory process

process of retaining info over time.

1 stage: Encoding. Process of transforming sensory info so it can be stored in memory.

2 stage: Storage. The process of maintaining information in our minds.

3 stage: Retrieval. The process of taking information out of memory storage.

two types of ways to retrieve memories

Memory Recall: re access memory without having to be reminded about it first

Memory Recognition: encountering information and can identify it as something we already learnt.

three properties which memory stores can vary are

1) Capacity. How much information can be stored

2) Duration: How long things can be stored

3) Coding: What format things are stored in

sensory coding

A type of code which we use to store sensory information. Two main types are acoustic code which we use to store information about sound and the visual code which we use to store information about images

semantic code

storing information by its meaning

sensory register

One of the three memory stores. holds sensory information while we process it. stores information in a sensory code, has a duration of less then three seconds and a very large capacity.

Sperling experiment: method

sperling conducted a labortory experiment investigating the capacity of the sensory register. presented participants with a 4 by 3 grid of 12 letters for 50 milli seconds immediatly testing recall of letters. participants tested in 2 conditions. first was to recall as much letters as they could from the grid. 2nd condition participants asked to recall just 1 of the rows and they was only told which row to recall after having seen the grid.

Sperling experiment: Results

In whole grid recall condition: average no was 4-5 letters recalled. In the one row recall condition: 3 letters recalled. suggests capacity of sensory register is large as in the one row recall condition without knowing which row to recall they still recalled 3 out of 4 which is almost the whole row therefore must have stored information from all 3 rows. The explanation as to why the whole grid recall condition was only 4-5 is that the duration of the sensory register is really short so by the time the participants wrote out 4-5 letters the remaining letters escaped from the sensory register.

Short term memory store

Stores information for a short period while we need it to complete an ongoing task. The duration of the short term memory store is limited to around 18-30 seconds. Capacity is also limited. Coding can be sensory or semantic but Coding is mainly acoustic.

Jacob study of short term memory

Investigated capacity of Short term memory store. Showed participants string of random letters or digits, asked them to repeat back the string of letters or digits in the order they were first presented. Across trials he increased the length of the string of digits to determine the maximum no his participants could recall. Jacob’s found most of his participants could recall 7±2 digits or letters. Providing evidence capacity of the stm is limited

Chunking

Grouping individual letter together into meaningful units.

Miller and short term capacity

miller found capacity of short term memory was 7±2 chunks of information. We can hold more information in stm when we combine information into one or more meaningful chunks

Long term memory store

The store we use to keep information for longer periods of time from hours to years is called the long term memory store. Very large duration and capacity. Store information in a semantic code

Bahricks experiment on LTM

Bahrick investigated duration of LTM. Asked adults to remember the name of classmates 15 years and 48 years after school. First asked to just write the names out with no hints. So testing recall. Then showed them photos of ex classmates and asked them to remember there names or showed them names of ex classmates and told to match to photos class mate. Tested recognition.

Bahricks experiment findings

Found that after 15 years of school recall was 60% accurate and recognition was around 90%. 48 years after school participant recall was 30% but recognition was 80%. So information can be held in LTM for very long duration but ability to retrieve information from long term memory is much better when we are asked to recognise information then when we have to recall it spontaneously.

Bahrick evaluation

High ecological validity: because participants were told to recall information from their own lives. It’s not an artificial stimulus therefore it generalises to how learn and rememeber in everyday life.

Little control of extraneous variables: can’t control how long participants spent with ex classmates in school, and couldn’t control how much participants liked certain class mates. Which affects how accurately participants retrieve names of ex classmates.

Support for coding: Baddely

baddley conducted a laboratory experiment. To investigate coding used in STM and LTM. Asked participants to memorise 4 list of words in the correct order that either sounded similar, sounded different, had a similar meaning or a different meaning. Baddely found that participants recalling acoustically similar words had more difficulty when tested immediately after learning. But 20 minutes after learning participants recalling semantically similar words had more difficulty. So due to the struggle Baddely concluded information is coded for acoustically in the STM and in a Semantic code in LTM.

Multi store model: Atkinson and shiffrin

3 memory stores. Sensory register, STM and LTM. Explains how we transfer info across memory stores. Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed information flow is unidirectional. Flows from the sensory register to the STM to the LTM. To transfer information from sensory register to the STM we have to pay attention to it. To transfer information from the sensory register to the STM to the LTM you have to rehearse it ( repeat info out loud or in your head ).

Multi store model predictions

Each memory store can be damaged independently. If the LTM is damaged, info can still be stored in the sensory register and STM. If someone damages short term memory, they can still keep existing long term memories but cant form new ones. As information needs to flow through the stm to reach LTM.

Support for multi store model: case studies (Henry Molaison)

Henry Molaison had his hippocampus removed in a brain surgery. could remember things he heard only a few seconds or a minute ago, minutes later he’d forget everything that happened. case studies like Henry Molaison show that LTM store can be damaged without affecting ability to retain information in STM. Supports the idea we have separate stores for LTM and STM.

Support for multi store model: NeuroImaging studies

Brain imaging studies show that different parts of the brain are active when we hold info over short and long periods of time. The frontal cortex is active when we retain/recall info for a short period of time. And the hippocampus is active when we retain/recall info over a long period of time. The same one which was removed from Henry Molaison which made him forget his long term memories. Suggesting we have separate memory stores to recall/ retain information over short and long periods of time. As predicted by msm

long term memories introduction

Tulving suggested we had 3 long term memory stores as there were many case studies like Clive wearing and Henry Molaison that showed people lost some long term memories but not all. Episodic memory, semantic memory and procedural.

Support for Tulvings long term memory model: case studies

Both Clive wearing and Henry Molaison had damage to there episodic memory, there ability to recall events from their past life’s. But not to there procedural memory, how to preform certain actions. Provides support that there are distinct stores for episodic and procedural memory.

Limitation of Tulvings long term memory model: Squire and Zola

Episodic and semantic memory may not be different types of memory. In there study squire and zola concentrated on people who had damage to their temporal lobe to see if they did lose semantic memory. Found that they had impaired semantic memory which is correct, but they also had impaired espisodic memory. So they suggested that semantic and episodic memories aren’t distinct types of memories, both may be stored in the same memory store and semantic memories might all start as episodic memories.

Limitation of multi store model: Patient KF

it isn’t supported by findings from case studies. MSM predicts that people who have damage to stm store also damages ability to form new ltm as information needs to flow from stm to the LTM. But patient KF could still store new information into long term memory. Despite having sustained damaged to short term memory.

Limitation of Multi-Store model: short term memory store

The multi store model is oversimplified. It says we only have one STM. But patient KF had a brain injury that destroyed his verbal STM ( couldn’t recall short list of words ) but left his visual STM perfectly fine ( he could recall details of pictures ). If STM was one store KF would not be able to store both verbal and visual short term memories. Since only one broke it suggests that there must be at least 2 separate stores for stm.

Limitation of Multi-Store model: short term memory store

The multi store model is oversimplified. It says we only have one STM. But patient KF had a brain injury that destroyed his verbal STM ( couldn’t recall short list of words ) but left his visual STM perfectly fine ( he could recall details of pictures ). If STM was one store KF would not be able to store both verbal and visual short term memories. Since only one broke it suggests that there must be at least 2 separate stores for stm.

The 2 main features of the Working memory model

Created by Baddely and hitch, they said.

1) short term memory is an active store, not a passive store. holds information while its being worked on, also enabling us to manipulate the information.

2) multiple components to working memory.

Phonological loop

The phonological loop is the component of the working memory model that stores auditory and verbal information and remembers the order that verbal information is presented to us. When words are written down on a page we use subvocal rehearsal to store information into the phonological loop

The 2 Subcomponents of phonological loop

The primary acoustic store. Stores all verbal and auditory information for a duration of 1-2 seconds, then discards it. If we we want to hold onto auditory or verbal information for longer then 1-2 seconds. Info is transfered into second subcomponent. The articulatory process. Stores information whilst we need it for an ongoing task.

Capacity of articulatory process and effect of word length on rehearsal

Capacity of articulatory process is determined by how many words we can say in 2 seconds. This means we can recall more words in a list of short words then in a list of long words. Which is called the word length effect.

Visio spatial sketchpad

Store of visual and spatial information that doesn’t rely on rehearsal.

2 Subcomponent of Visuo-spatial sketchpad

Visual cache. Stores visual information . Inner scribe, stores spatial information.

Episodic buffer

It’s a multi modal store that combines information from all 5 senses stored in other components of working memory, to create a memory of the whole event . This can then be transferred to long term memory to create episodic memories.

Central executive

Not a memory store, a component of the working memory model that manages the activity of the three working memory stores.

1) It is responsible for directing the relevant information to each store. Ie. If you’re driving it would direct what you’re seeing to the Visuo-spatial sketchpad

2) Divides our attention across the three stores. Ie if there is really interesting news on the radio. Central executive may allocate more attention to phonological loop.

DOESNT STORE INFO. NO CAPACITY.

Multi tasking and central executive

The central executive has a limited attentional capacity. It can become overloaded if the tasks we are trying to preform require to much of our attention. If I have many tasks

strength of WMM: Patient KF case study

WMM supported by findings from case studies. Patient KF had a brain injury that destroyed his verbal STM ( couldn’t recall short list of words ) but left his visual STM perfectly fine ( he could recall details of pictures ). This suggests that visual information is processed separately from verbal information. However it’s a case study so it may not generalise to all types of people he may be an exception. Cannot be sure everyone’s memory works the same way. Also hard to establish cause and effect as we don’t know how he was before the accident.

Strength of WMM: dual task studies

The WMM is supported by dual task studies. Baddely et al showed that participants could preform a verbal and visual task simultaneously, but struggled with 2 verbal tasks simultaneously. This suggests the idea that we have seperate working memory stores not one. However dual task studies are conducted in highly controlled laboratory conditions which may lack ecological validity.

Strength for working memory model: neuroimaging studies

The WMM is supported by neuroimaging studies. Different parts of the brain are active during visual and verbal memory tasks. When preforming visual working memory tasks, Occipital lobe active. When preforming verbal memory tasks temporal lobe is active. This suggests there are different stores for storing verbal and visual information in working memory, supporting the existence of the visuo-spatial sketchpad and the phonological loop.

Limitation of working memory model: ecological validity

Relies on evidence from artificial Labaratory studies that may not generalise to everyday life.

Retrieval failure

Cannot retrieve memory from LTM

decay theory and limitation of it

Memories slowly fade from ltm until they completely dissapear. A limitation is that duration of ltm is thought to be unlimited .

Interference theory

we forget because other similar memories interfere with memory retrieval

Proactive interference

A old memory interferes with retrieving a newer similar memory

Retroactive interference

A newer memory interferes with retrieving a older similar memory

Evidence for interference theory - not experiment.

Underwood reviewed data from past studies to see how learning multiple word lists affected the recall of the most recent list after 24 hours. He compare participants who learned only one list vs. those who had learned many lists previously. After 24 hours, participants who learned only one list had 80% recall accuracy. Those who had learned 10+ lists had only 20% recall accuracy. Conclusion: Earlier learning of other word lists caused Proactive Interference, making it much harder to remember the new list.

Evidence for interference theory - real experiment

Procedure: Underwood had 2 groups learn a list of word pairs (List A). The Experimental group then learned a second list (List B) where the first words were the same but the second word changed (e.g., Cat-Tree became Cat-Glass). The Control group rested.

• Task: Both groups were asked to recall the first list (List A).

• Result: The Control group had much higher recall. 70 percent if participants only learnt one word list. 20 percent if they learnt multiple word lists

• Conclusion: New info (List B) "interfered" with the memory of old information (List A), proving Retroactive Interference.

interference theory: 2 limitations

Underwood’s labaratory studies may lack ecological validity. This is because word lists may not resemble the kind of things we recall in everyday life, they are random words that have no meaning. So the results may not generalise to everyday life. can’t be sure interference theory is a good explanation for forgetting in everyday life.

can only explain forgetting that occurs when we have 2 or more memories that are very similar to one another.

Interference theory: limitations of the theory.

can only explain forgetting that occurs when we have 2 or more memories that are very similar to one another.

retrieval cues

a prompt that we associate with a particular memory. when an experience is encoded into memory other things that happen around us at the same time are also encoded into memory. a mental link is formed between these other things and the experience. if we come across one of these other things again or something that looks very similar it activates this mental link and acts as a retrieval cue that triggers the memory of the original experience.

external cues and internal cues

EXT cue: features of the external world that we experience around the time of encoding a memory.

INT cue: Things that we felt and thought around the time of encoding a memory

cue dependant forgetting theory

we forget memories because we are unable to access the associated retrieval cues of the memory

Cue Overloading

memories are likely to be forgotten when a retrieval cue is associated with multiple memories. Memories also more likely to become forgotten if they have fewer retrieval cues.

Cue overloading and interference

if 2 memories are very similar, they are more likely to be associated with the same retrieval cues. if we use a retrieval cue associated with 2 memories to retrieve one of the 2 memories we can end up accidentally retrieving the wrong memory. like interference theory this can explain why we forget when we have 2 similar memories.