Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

memory - Coggle Diagram

- - - - separate memory stores: identified STM and LTM, supporting the multi store model.
      - artificial stimuli: word lists had no personal meaning.
  - - - a valid study: later studies replicated findings (e.g. Bopp and Verhaegen 2005) , so valid test of digit span.
      - not so many chunks : Miller overestimated STM, only four chunks according to Cowan.
  - - - meaningless stimuli in STM study: Peterson used consonant syllables, lacks external validity.
      - high external validity: Bahrick et al , used meaningful material, better recall than studies with meaningless stim (Shepard).
- - - - real world interference: Rugby players remembered less if they played more games over a season (Baddeley and Hitch 1974)
      - interference and cues: interference effects are overcome using cues (Tulving and Psotka 1971).
      - Support during studies: tacking diazepam after learning reduces interference and forgetting = retrograde facilitation (Coenen and Van Luijtelaar).
      - validity issues: lab studies have high control but use artificial materials and unrealistic procedures.
  - - - real world application: cues are weak but worth paying attention to as strategy for improving recall.
      - research support: wide range of support suggests this is main reason for forgetting (Eysenck and Keane 2010). however no forggeting unless contexts are extreamly differrnt , like land Vs water (Baddeley et al 1975).
      - recall vs recognition: no context effects when memory assessed using recognition test (Godden and Baddeley).
      - problems with ESP: research support for the principle but no independent measure of cue encoding.
- - - - real world application: insights applied to police interviewing and expert witnesses. however film clips in labs are less stressful than every day life , no consequeses. EWT is more reliable.
      - evidence against substitution: central details not much affected by misleading information (Sutherland and Hayne 2001).
      - evidence challenging memory conformity: post event information on hair colour blended, supporting contamination (Skagerberg and Wright).
      - demand characteristics: Lab environment enables control but answers in lab studies influence the desire to be helpful.
  - - - unusualness not anxiety: poor recall due to unusualness (chicken and handgun) not anxiety (Pickle) .
      - support for negative affects: London dungeon- anxiety reduced accurate recall of an individual (Valentine and Mesout 2009) .
      - support for positive effects: the most anxious eyewhitnesses at a bank robbery had the most acurate recall ( Chistenson and Hubinette). however, interviews where long after the event, lacks control over confounding variables.
      - problems with inverted u theory: explains contradictory findings but focuses just on physical arousal. ignores cognitive aspects of anxiety.
- - - - clinical evidence: Clive Wearing and HM had damaged episodic memories but semantic and procedural memory was in tact. however clinical studies lack control over key variables ( like memory before the injury).
      - conflicting neuro imaging evidence: research links semantic memory to the prefrontal cortex and episodic to the right (Buckner and Petersen) others reverse this (Tulving 1985) .
      - real world application: old age memory loss improved by intervention to target episodic memory (Belleville et al 2006).
      - same or different: Tulving now suggest that episodic memory may be a specialised sub category of semantic memory but Alzheimer's patients could forms new episodic memoirs not semantic (Hodges and Paterson 2007)
- - - - clinical evidence: KF had poor auditory but good visual memory damaged phonological loop but intact visual special sketch pad. however, KF may have had other impairments that effected his WMM.
      - dual task performance: difficult to do two visual or verbal tasks at once , but one of each is ok ( Baddeley et al 1975)
      - nature of the central executive: not well specified , needs to be more than attention.
      - validity of the model : dual task studies support the WMM but are highly controlled using artificial tasks (like letter sequences).