NOT DONE Multi Store Model

Multi Store Model

What does it describe?

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968, 1971):

• How information flows through the memory system

• suggests memory is made up of three stores linked by processing

Multi Store Model

What is missing?

Stimulus from the environment

Multi Store Model

What is missing?

sensory register

Multi Store Model

what is missing?

iconic

Multi Store Model

What is missing?

Echoic

Multi Store Model

What is missing?

other sensory stores

Multi Store Model

What is missing

Short-term memory store (STM)

Multi Store Model

What is missing?

response (remembering)

Multi Store Model

what is missing?

retrieval

Multi Store Model

What is missing?

prolonged rehearsal

Multi Store Model

What is missing?

maintenance rehearsal (rehearsal loop)

Multi Store Model

what is missing?

long term memory store (LTM)

Multi Store Model

What is coding?

How info is stored in memory

• sounds (acoustic)

• images (visual)

• meaning (semantics)

Multi Store Model

what is capacity?

Amount of info that can be held in a memory store

• STM = limited

• LTM = potentially infinite

Multi Store Model

What is duration?

How long memory lasts before it is lost

• LTM = potentially forever

• STM = short duration unless you repeat items over and over again

Multi Store Model

How much capacity does the sensory register have?

• Theoretically unlimited - environmental stimuli enters our memory through the sensory register

• If we pay attention it moves to STM

• If we do not it is filtered out by the bottleneck filter

Support evaluation points:

• There's a large base of research that supports STM and LTM being distinct systems

• Makes sense for memories in LTM to be encoded semantically

• The MSM, pioneered memory models, inspiring further research, and other influential models

Challenge evaluation points:

• Some research into STM duration lacks ecological validity/has low mundane realism.

• It's arguably over-simplified.

• It doesn't make much sense to think of procedural memory as being encoded semantically.

• It's assumed that LTM has an unlimited capacity, as research hasn't been able to measure this accurately.

SUPPORT - There's a large base of research that supports STM and LTM being distinct systems eg:

case study patient KF’s STM was impaired following a motorcycle accident, but his LTM remained intact.

SUPPORT - Makes sense for memories in LTM to be encoded semantically eg:

recalling the general message from a political speech, but not all of the words as they were

SUPPORT - The MSM, pioneered …

memory models, inspiring further research, and other influential models - eg: the WMM.

CHALLENGE - Some research into STM duration lacks ecological validity/has low mundane realism:

(the stimuli participants were asked to remember have little resemblance to items learned in real life) - Eg: Peterson and Peterson (1959) used nonsense trigrams such as ‘XQF’ to investigate it.

CHALLENGE - It's arguably over-simplified:

evidence suggests that there are multiple short and long-term memory stores, - Eg: LTM can be split into Episodic, Procedural, and Semantic memory.

CHALLENGE - It doesn't make much sense to think of procedural memory as being encoded semantically

Eg: knowing how to ride a bike through its meaning.

CHALLENGE - It's assumed that LTM has an unlimited capacity …

as research hasn't been able to measure this accurately.

Baddeley (1966) procedure

• Given a list of ten words - one word at a time.

• In condition 1, the words were acoustically similar (sounded the same)

• Then after being given all the words, they had to write down as many as they could remember in 30 seconds.

• In condition 2, the words were semantically similar (they meant similar things).

Baddeley (1966) findings

• Most people remembered more words from the 2nd condition.

• people had difficulty remembering acoustically similar words in STM, but not in LTM.

• Whereas semantically similar words posed little problem for STMs, but led to muddled in LTM.

• Our short and long term memories code differently.

Baddeley (1966) evaluation

• Baddeley may not have tested LTM - LTM was tested by waiting 20 minutes after hearing words. LTM is thought to have a duration of 30s.

• LTM may not be exclusively acoustic - some experiments have shown that visual codes (Brandimote et al 1992) and semantic codes (Wickens et al 1976) are also used.

• STM may not be exclusively semantic - some experiments have shown that visual (Frost 1972), and acoustic (Nelson and Rothbart 1972) were also used.

Miller (1956) - what was it/findings?

• Wrote a memorable article called 'The magic number seven plus or minus two.'

• In it he concluded that the span of immediate memory is about 7 times items sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less (+/- 2)

• He also found that people can recall five words as well as five letters, chunking helps us to remember more.

Miller (1956) evaluation

• The capacity of STM might be even more limited - Cowan (2001) concluded that STM is likely to be more limited, recalling about 4 items. The lower end of Miller's suggestion (7-2=5)

• The size of the chunk matters - Simon (1974) found that people have a shorter memory span for larger chunks.

• Individual differences  - the capacity of STM is not the same for everyone. Jacobs (1887) found that recall increased steadily w/ age. Possibly due to an increase in capacity and/or due to the development of more effective strategies for recall.

Glanzer and Cuniz (1966) procedure

• two groups (random assignment): immediate recall (IR) or delayed recall (DR).

• given a list of 12, one-syllable, words, one at a time at 1 second intervals.

• IR was asked to recall the words as soon at the list was finished.

• DR was asked to count backward by threes for 30s before recall.

• they could recall the words in any order.

Glanzer and Cuniz (1966) findings

• IR recalled more words and the beginning (primacy effect) and end (recency effect) of the list, than in the middle.

• DR also showed primacy effect, but not recency effect.

• suggests that the recency effect is due to the words still being in STM at time of recall, while the primacy effect is due to the words being transferred to LTM.

Glanzer and Cuniz (1966) evaluation

Testing STM was artificial - Day to day, what we are trying to remember is meaningful, tests to explore duration of STM do not reflect this.

What are the experiments/evidence for the MSM

• Glanzer and Cuniz (1966)

• Miller (1956)

• Baddeley (1966)