PAPER 1
Memory
Coding, capacity and duration
Coding A01
- How information is processed into a memory- acoustic/ visual/ semantic/ coding
- STM/LTM- Acoustic/ semantic study
- Baddeley (1966)- ppts recalled semantically/acoustically similar/ dissimilar words.
- Immediate recall was worse when words were acoustically similar, showing coding in STM is
acoustic as coding interfered with the storing of the words.
- Delayed recall (20 mins) worse when words semantically similar- coding in LTM is semantic as
coding interferes with storing.
Coding A03
- LOW MUNDANE REALISM- task artificial/ not representative of real life memory tasks. Results lack
ecological validity.
- CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Brandimote et al (1992)--- found ppts used visual coding in STM if
given visual task and prevented doing verbal rehearsal before visual recall.
- EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE- early evidence supports the idea of different types. - reliable findings led to
development
- HIGH CONTROL- lab experiment, findings high internal validity
Capacity AO1
- Amount of information memory system can hold
- STM- digit span study — Jacobs (1887), ppts could recall 9.3 no. and 7.3 letters
- Miller (1956) – literature review of capacity of STM, found 7+/- 2. – increased through chunking,
grouping into meaningful units.
Capacity A03
- INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES- jacobs found digit span recall increased with age. – 8 yrs only 6.6 but 19
8.6
- LOW MUNDANE REALISM- task was artificial and not representative of real life memory tasks. Lacks
ecological validity.
Duration AO1
- Length of time info held in system
- STM (constant trigram study) - Peterson/ Peterson (1959) – ppts asked to recall consonant trigrams
after counting backwards, IV= time in seconds.--- after 3s, average was 80% after 18+ less than 10%.
- LTM (yearbook study)- Bahrick et al (1975) – 300+ ppts 17-74 from USA, had recognition test from
highschool yearbooks/ free recall test (names from graduate class). —- 15yrs 90%/ 48yrs 70% (recog)--
15yrs 60%/ 48yrs 30% (free)
Duration A03
- METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES- (P/P) – task was artificial/ not representative of real life tasks.
Sometimes meaningless info does need to be remembered.-- results have questionable
ecological validity– although due to high control they have high internal validity.
- HIGHER ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY- (Bahrick)- ppts memory was tested in their own high
school classmates. – higher mundane realism and results more generalisable to other
settings.--- confounding variables mean results have lower internal validity.
, The multi-store model of
memory
AO1
- Atkinson/ shiffrin (1968)
proposed model- first memory model
- Suggests three separate
stores, all differ in c,c,d
- linear , sequential model– info passed through the store in turn.
- For info to reach stm - attention paid to it
- Info to ltm, must be processed through a rehearsal loop.
- When recalled info is retrieved from LTM
- Can be lost from STM through decay (not rehearsed)/ displacement( new pushes old)
-
sensory STM LTM
coding Modality specific acoustic semantic
capacity Very large 7+/-2 Potentially unlimited
duration Less than 1/2s 18-30s Potentially infinite
AO3
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM CASE STUDIES- HM, LTM was severely
damaged. Could reread magazines without remembering.-- STM intact (good at the
digit span)-- shows more than one store, increases the validity of model
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM BRAIN SCANS- Beardsley (1997)-- found
prefrontal cortex active during STM and not LTM tasks. — Squire (1992)
hippocampus active in LTM.--- objective / highley scientific evidence increases
validity.
- OVEREMPHASISED THE ROLE OF MAINTENANCE REHEARSAL- Craik/
Lockhart (1972) - suggested elaborative rehearsal is more important– gave ppts list
of words, asked a question involving shallow/deep processing. Found ppts
remembered more words processed deeply— challenges one of the central features
of model
- TOO SIMPLISTIC- HM refutes LTM is one unitary store– HM unable to create new
episodic/semantic memories but new procedural memories were fine.-- LTM is more
than one store.
,The working memory model
AO1
-
- Baddeley and hitch (1974)- proposed
WMM- explains how short term
memory works
- Different from msm- memory active
processor of info not massive store,
suggests STM not a unitary store.
- CENTRAL EXECUTIVE - supervisory role,--- directing attention and allocating tasks
to slave systems. – limited storage and modality free.
- PHONOLOGICAL LOOP- process auditory info- divided in 2, articulatory control
process (allows maintenance rehearsal) +phonological store (holds for 2 seconds)
- VISUO-SPATIAL SKETCHPAD- processes visual info– divided in 2, visual cache
(store) and inner scribe (spatial relationships)- 3-4 items.
- THE EPISODIC BUFFER- a store that integrates information form VSS-PL and is
modality free, temp store 3-4 items. (the buffer between)
AO3
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM CASE STUDIES- KF Suffered brain damage,
unable to recall verbal (acoustic) info, could process visual info.--- phonological loop
damaged but VSS still intact.-- more than one store, increasing validity.
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM LAB EXPERIMENTS- Baddely and hitch (1976)-
ppts more difficulty doing 2 tasks requiring phonological loop. – when 1 task involved
loop and other VSS performance good.--- evidence multiple components to stm-
increased model validity. HOWEVER- lab experiment, low ecological validity
- CENTRAL EXECUTIVE NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD- Baddeley admitted CE is
‘least understood’ component- lack of clarity questions validity, not fully
explained/developed.-- brain scan evidence to support CE further research needed.
- DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR MUSICAL MEMORY- the WMM fails to account for
musical memory, able to listen to instrumental music without impairing performance /
acoustic skills- not explained by current model.
, Types of long-term memory
AO1
- Tulving 1972, 3 types of long-term memory
-
episodic semantic procedural
definition Memories Memories which Memories of how
concerned with contain facts and to carry out
personal knowledge about complex motor
experiences. world skills
Involve people,
places objects,
behaviours
Declarative Declarative- Declarative- effort Non declarative-
(explicit)/ non conscious effort not consciously
declarative required to recall- recalled. Hard to
(implicit) affected by explain
amnesia
Time stamped? yes no no
Brain region Right prefrontal Left prefrontal cerebellum
associated with cortex cortex
-
AO3
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM BRAIN SCANS- Tulving et al (1994)- ppts
completed memory tasks whilst in a PET scanner– found episodic/ semantic
memories activated prefrontal cortex. – semantic left, episodic right.--- HOWEVER
other researchers found semantic right and episodic left– shows more research
needed.
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM CASE STUDIES - after HM had hippocampus
removed could form new procedural memories not episodic/ semantic– got better at
mirror drawing but not remember doing it. – shows must be different types.
- TWO STORES NOT THREE- some believe 2 stores, Cohen and Squire (1980) say
2 types as semantic/ episodic stores together– contradictory evidence.
Memory
Coding, capacity and duration
Coding A01
- How information is processed into a memory- acoustic/ visual/ semantic/ coding
- STM/LTM- Acoustic/ semantic study
- Baddeley (1966)- ppts recalled semantically/acoustically similar/ dissimilar words.
- Immediate recall was worse when words were acoustically similar, showing coding in STM is
acoustic as coding interfered with the storing of the words.
- Delayed recall (20 mins) worse when words semantically similar- coding in LTM is semantic as
coding interferes with storing.
Coding A03
- LOW MUNDANE REALISM- task artificial/ not representative of real life memory tasks. Results lack
ecological validity.
- CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Brandimote et al (1992)--- found ppts used visual coding in STM if
given visual task and prevented doing verbal rehearsal before visual recall.
- EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE- early evidence supports the idea of different types. - reliable findings led to
development
- HIGH CONTROL- lab experiment, findings high internal validity
Capacity AO1
- Amount of information memory system can hold
- STM- digit span study — Jacobs (1887), ppts could recall 9.3 no. and 7.3 letters
- Miller (1956) – literature review of capacity of STM, found 7+/- 2. – increased through chunking,
grouping into meaningful units.
Capacity A03
- INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES- jacobs found digit span recall increased with age. – 8 yrs only 6.6 but 19
8.6
- LOW MUNDANE REALISM- task was artificial and not representative of real life memory tasks. Lacks
ecological validity.
Duration AO1
- Length of time info held in system
- STM (constant trigram study) - Peterson/ Peterson (1959) – ppts asked to recall consonant trigrams
after counting backwards, IV= time in seconds.--- after 3s, average was 80% after 18+ less than 10%.
- LTM (yearbook study)- Bahrick et al (1975) – 300+ ppts 17-74 from USA, had recognition test from
highschool yearbooks/ free recall test (names from graduate class). —- 15yrs 90%/ 48yrs 70% (recog)--
15yrs 60%/ 48yrs 30% (free)
Duration A03
- METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES- (P/P) – task was artificial/ not representative of real life tasks.
Sometimes meaningless info does need to be remembered.-- results have questionable
ecological validity– although due to high control they have high internal validity.
- HIGHER ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY- (Bahrick)- ppts memory was tested in their own high
school classmates. – higher mundane realism and results more generalisable to other
settings.--- confounding variables mean results have lower internal validity.
, The multi-store model of
memory
AO1
- Atkinson/ shiffrin (1968)
proposed model- first memory model
- Suggests three separate
stores, all differ in c,c,d
- linear , sequential model– info passed through the store in turn.
- For info to reach stm - attention paid to it
- Info to ltm, must be processed through a rehearsal loop.
- When recalled info is retrieved from LTM
- Can be lost from STM through decay (not rehearsed)/ displacement( new pushes old)
-
sensory STM LTM
coding Modality specific acoustic semantic
capacity Very large 7+/-2 Potentially unlimited
duration Less than 1/2s 18-30s Potentially infinite
AO3
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM CASE STUDIES- HM, LTM was severely
damaged. Could reread magazines without remembering.-- STM intact (good at the
digit span)-- shows more than one store, increases the validity of model
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM BRAIN SCANS- Beardsley (1997)-- found
prefrontal cortex active during STM and not LTM tasks. — Squire (1992)
hippocampus active in LTM.--- objective / highley scientific evidence increases
validity.
- OVEREMPHASISED THE ROLE OF MAINTENANCE REHEARSAL- Craik/
Lockhart (1972) - suggested elaborative rehearsal is more important– gave ppts list
of words, asked a question involving shallow/deep processing. Found ppts
remembered more words processed deeply— challenges one of the central features
of model
- TOO SIMPLISTIC- HM refutes LTM is one unitary store– HM unable to create new
episodic/semantic memories but new procedural memories were fine.-- LTM is more
than one store.
,The working memory model
AO1
-
- Baddeley and hitch (1974)- proposed
WMM- explains how short term
memory works
- Different from msm- memory active
processor of info not massive store,
suggests STM not a unitary store.
- CENTRAL EXECUTIVE - supervisory role,--- directing attention and allocating tasks
to slave systems. – limited storage and modality free.
- PHONOLOGICAL LOOP- process auditory info- divided in 2, articulatory control
process (allows maintenance rehearsal) +phonological store (holds for 2 seconds)
- VISUO-SPATIAL SKETCHPAD- processes visual info– divided in 2, visual cache
(store) and inner scribe (spatial relationships)- 3-4 items.
- THE EPISODIC BUFFER- a store that integrates information form VSS-PL and is
modality free, temp store 3-4 items. (the buffer between)
AO3
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM CASE STUDIES- KF Suffered brain damage,
unable to recall verbal (acoustic) info, could process visual info.--- phonological loop
damaged but VSS still intact.-- more than one store, increasing validity.
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM LAB EXPERIMENTS- Baddely and hitch (1976)-
ppts more difficulty doing 2 tasks requiring phonological loop. – when 1 task involved
loop and other VSS performance good.--- evidence multiple components to stm-
increased model validity. HOWEVER- lab experiment, low ecological validity
- CENTRAL EXECUTIVE NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD- Baddeley admitted CE is
‘least understood’ component- lack of clarity questions validity, not fully
explained/developed.-- brain scan evidence to support CE further research needed.
- DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR MUSICAL MEMORY- the WMM fails to account for
musical memory, able to listen to instrumental music without impairing performance /
acoustic skills- not explained by current model.
, Types of long-term memory
AO1
- Tulving 1972, 3 types of long-term memory
-
episodic semantic procedural
definition Memories Memories which Memories of how
concerned with contain facts and to carry out
personal knowledge about complex motor
experiences. world skills
Involve people,
places objects,
behaviours
Declarative Declarative- Declarative- effort Non declarative-
(explicit)/ non conscious effort not consciously
declarative required to recall- recalled. Hard to
(implicit) affected by explain
amnesia
Time stamped? yes no no
Brain region Right prefrontal Left prefrontal cerebellum
associated with cortex cortex
-
AO3
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM BRAIN SCANS- Tulving et al (1994)- ppts
completed memory tasks whilst in a PET scanner– found episodic/ semantic
memories activated prefrontal cortex. – semantic left, episodic right.--- HOWEVER
other researchers found semantic right and episodic left– shows more research
needed.
- SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FROM CASE STUDIES - after HM had hippocampus
removed could form new procedural memories not episodic/ semantic– got better at
mirror drawing but not remember doing it. – shows must be different types.
- TWO STORES NOT THREE- some believe 2 stores, Cohen and Squire (1980) say
2 types as semantic/ episodic stores together– contradictory evidence.
