Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Memory - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Assessed STM with digit tests
      - reveiwed studies
      - STM capacity was 7 +/- 2 items
      - Recall more accurate with 7 dots flashed on screen then 15 dots
      - Also found poeple recall 5 letters as well as they recall 5 numbers
      - Chunking
        
        grouping sets of digits or letters into meaningful units
    - - The capacity of STM may be more limited
        
        MIllers findings have not been replicated
        
        Cowan
        
        reviewed studies on the capacity of STM
        
        concluded 4 rather than 7 chunks
        
        Suggest STM is not as extensive as 7 +/- 2 items
      - Size of the chunk matters
        
        Research shows the size of the chunks affects the number of chunks
        
        Simon 1974
        
        found people have a smaller memory span for larger chunks
        
        (e.g multi-syllable words)
        
        supports the view that STM has a limited capacity despite the benefits of chunking
  - - - found PS were 90% correct in recall of consonant syllables after 3 seconds but of 3% after 18 seconds
      - evidence supports the duration theory
    - - HSYB test
        
        photo recognition tests
        
        Ps could remember names of former classmates with
        
        90% accuracy in 15 years
        
        70% after 48 years
        
        Free recall was about 60% after 15, but 30% after 48
    - - Testing STM is artificial
        
        STM tends to take place in labs
        
        Much of the research involved remembering meaningless syllables
        
        doesn’t reflect IRL memory
        
        low mundane realism
        
        Does sometimes relate (e.g postcodes) so it isn't completely irrelevant
      - STM results may be due to displacement
        
        Peterson and Peterson didn’t measure what it set out to measure
        
        counting back in number may have displaced the syllables to be remembered
        
        Reitman used auditory tones rather than numbers and found the duration of STM was much longer
        
        suggests forgetting in PP study was due to displacement rather than decay
  - - - Procedure:
        
        ps read a list of words that were either acoustically similar or dissimilar, and words which were semantically similar or dissimilar
        
        e.g cat, cab, can, cad
        
        e.g great, large, big
        
        Baddley tested these list in a STM task (immediate recall) or as a LTM task (delayed recall)
      - Findings:
        
        found that Ps could remember acoustically similar words better in LTM but not STM
        
        Semantically similar words were recalled better in STM but not LTM
      - Conclusion:
        
        acoustic confusion caused showed that STM prefers to be coded acoustically
        
        semantic confusion
- - - - held at each of 5 senses
      - capacity is large
      - lasts for milliseconds
      - Most info is lost as it recives no attention
        
        if attention is focused on info, it passes to STM
        
        STM
        
        short term stores a lmited amoubt of info for limited time
        
        info used for immediate tasks like wokring on math problem
        
        limted duration od 18 secs approx.
        
        decays rapidly unless rehearsed
        
        New info displaces old
        
        Maintenance ehearsal leads to info being transferred from STM to LTM
        
        LTM
        
        Potentially unlimited duration and capacity
        
        can be returned to STM (to be used) by retreival
        
        repitiion keeps info in STM but hten eentually it becomes a LTMemory
        
        More info is rehearsed, the better it is remembered
      - where info is held at each of the senses
      - sensory register
        
        where info is hled at each of the senses and the corresponding areas of the brain
        
        constanc receiving info
        most info receives no attention and remains in SR
    - - Supporting evidence for MSM model
        
        Controlled lab experiments support existence of separate stores
        
        studies with brain scan techniques demonstrated a difference between STM and LTM
        
        Beardlsey found preferiontal cortex is active for STM
        
        Squire found hippocampus is active for LTM tasks
        
        supports idea of separate short and long term memory stores- basis of MSM
      - Case studies
        
        studies of brain damage indivs show differnt areas are involved
        
        HM
        
        damage caused by operation to remove hippocampi
        
        couldn’t form new LTM memories
        
        affected LTM which implies that Hippocampi has something to do with that
        
        supports for MSM as HM couln’t transfer memories to LTM from STM
      - Overly simplistic
        
        reductionist
        
        suggets STM and LTM are single unitary stores despite research
        
        Working Memory Model
        
        model + supporting research shows the STM (working memory) is divided into a number of qualitatively different stores
        
        i.e it’s not just a difference in terms of capacity + duration but the kind of memory stored there
        
        same for LTM
        
        Research shows there are a number of qualitatiely different kinds of LTM and each behaves differently
        
        e.g Maintenace rehearsal can explain long term storage in semantic memory
        
        but doesn’t explain long term episodic memories
        
        suggests that MSM is overly simplistic
      - Invlolves more tha maintenance rehersal
        
        MSM criticised for the emphais on maintenance rehearsal
        
        Craik and Lockheart
        
        suggetsed that enduring memories are created by the processing you do rather than mintenance rehearsal
        
        things that are processed more deeply are more memoryable because of the waya they’re processed
        
        Craik and Tulving
        
        gave Ps a list of nouns and asked a question that involved shallow or deep processing (printed in caps (shallow) or fit into a sentence (deep)
        
        Ps remembered more words with the deep processing
        
        Suggests that the process of rehearsal does not fully explain the process of creating LTmemories
        
        Elaborative (deep) processing is also a key part
      - how separate are STM and LTM?
        
        MSM suggets that STm is involved before LTM
        
        claim questioned by other reseearchers
        
        Logie 1999
        
        pointed out that TSM actually relies on LTM and therefore cannot come first
        
        e.g memorising random letters
        
        in in order to chunk you need your LTM to be able to recall the meaningful groups of letters and those are stored in the LTM
        
        Ruchkin 2003
        
        demonstrated this by asking Ps to recall a set of words and psuedo words (not real words)
        
        found moe brain activty with real words being processed
        
        indicated involvement of other areas
        
        Suggets STM is part of LTM