Models of Memory

Memory

A cognitive process involving the storing, encoding, and processing of information

Memory model

A hypothesized conceptualization of how information enters, is stored, and flows through memory

Cognitive approach

Approach that investigates mental processes like memory, which cannot be directly observed

Multi-store memory model (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968)

Model proposing three separate memory stores — sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM)

Flow of information in MSM

Information moves unidirectionally from sensory memory → STM (via attention) → LTM (via rehearsal)

Sensory memory

Receives and briefly holds sensory input before transferring to STM if attended to

Short-term memory (STM)

Temporary store for information being actively processed

can be transferred to LTM through rehearsal

Long-term memory (LTM)

Permanent store of information retained through sufficient rehearsal

Working memory model (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)

Model expanding on the STM, proposing multiple subsystems and a central executive

Central executive

Component of the working memory model that acts as a “command centre,” directing attention and allocating resources

Phonological loop

Component responsible for processing verbal and auditory information, including subvocal rehearsal

Visuospatial sketchpad

Component that processes and stores visual and spatial information

Episodic buffer

Integrates information from the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad to form meaningful episodes

H.M. (Milner & Scoville, 1966)

Longitudinal case study investigating the role of the hippocampus in memory

HM’s surgery

Removal of parts of his medial temporal lobe, including hippocampus, to reduce epileptic seizures

HM’s symptoms

Anterograde amnesia — could not form new long-term memories but retained old ones

HM’s preserved abilities

Retained childhood memories, personality, above-average intellect, procedural memory, and spatial memory

HM’s deficits

Could not form new episodic or semantic memories

could not recall meeting researchers

Methods used with HM

Intellectual and cognitive tests, interviews, observations, and MRI scans

Findings from HM

STM and LTM are separate stores; hippocampus involved in transferring information from STM to LTM

Evaluation of HM

Used method triangulation, ethical considerations (constant re-consent), and strong biological support via MRI

HM’s relevance to MSM

Supports MSM by showing separate STM and LTM stores, highlights model’s simplicity

HM’s challenge to MSM

Procedural memory retention shows memory is more complex than MSM suggests

Landry & Bartling (2011)

Study investigating effects of articulatory suppression on recall of phonologically dissimilar letters

Articulatory suppression

Task where participants produce a sequence of verbal sounds while completing another task, preventing rehearsal

Procedure of Landry & Bartling

Experimental group recited numbers while recalling letters; control group only recalled letters

Results of Landry & Bartling

Experimental group recalled ~50%, control group ~70% articulatory suppression impaired recall

Explanation of results

Articulatory suppression overloaded the phonological loop, preventing subvocal rehearsal

Strengths of Landry & Bartling

Experimental design allows cause-and-effect clear evidence of phonological loop’s role

Limitations of Landry & Bartling

Did not account for individual differences, lacked baseline test for recall ability

Support for working memory model

Findings confirm the role of the phonological loop but not the entire model

Limitation of working memory model

Difficult to empirically test all components (e.g., visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer, central executive)

Contrast between models

Working memory model is more complex, multi-store model more general and linear

Complexity vs. explanatory power

MSM simpler and has strong empirical support, WMM more detailed but harder to test

Empirical support

HM supports MSM separation of stores, Landry & Bartling support WMM’s phonological loop

Research limitations

MSM oversimplifies; WMM difficult to verify experimentally

Overall contribution

Both models advance understanding of memory by explaining different aspects of how it functions

Conclusion

Both models differ in focus and structure but collectively enhance psychological understanding of memory and information processing