Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, Semantic & episodic memory can act as…

- - - - :check: CW case study suffered from amnesia - affected episodic memory however procedural memory still in tact [piano] & learn new skills
    - - :check: KC case study - damage to LTM after motor bike accident - impairment to episodic memory --> unable to recal personal events in his life but semantic mem in tact
        --> distinction between 2 LTM stores & possible ev that regions of brain where diff types of mem are stored
      - :check:Godden & Baddley - context cues
        
        Scuba divers learned & recalled list of words better under water or on land
        
        Found performance was 2x as well when learning & recalling words in same context
        --> App to real world eg : revision, police interviewing techniques
        
        Supported by Kenealy [state cues] ppts performed better when in the same mood they learned it in
      - :red_cross: doesn't account for any interrelationship between each system as they work together when given an episodic memory task --> research into separate stores problematic because they cannot be studied in absolute isolation from each other
      - :red_cross: exp research such as learning word lists don't take into account "guesses" ppt may make. Informed guesses would represent recall from semantic mem rather than episodic so therefore testing the separate stores independently becomes problematic
    - - :red_cross:Difficult to study seperate stores in isolation as they are interrelated
      - :red_cross:Nature of studies into tulvings model is invalid as it doesn't take into account potential informed guesses about a word in the list they needed to remember
        --> liklihood of semantic recall in episodic memory test is high
        -->Separate stores tested independently is problematic
- - - - :check: Spatial span tested using "Corsi block tapping task" - repeat sequence of a series of lit up blocks on a screen
        --> error frequency increased with number in sequence - suggests limited capacity to spatial info
      - :check: Darling et al - spatial interference task disrupted spatial memory but not memory for appearance AND visual disruption task affected memory for appearance but not location
        --> ev for separate visual and spatial memory systems
        :red_cross: However study lacked ecological val as visual mem was focused on 1 category of visual info
      - :check:Supported by KF case study - suffered damage to STM ; digit span of 1 --> impairment to phon store but visual memory was in tact
        :check: HM case study - suffered damage to spatial memory with relatively unaffected STM for verbal info --> ev that WM has 2 subsystems to deal with verbal and visuospatial info
      - :check:Philips et al - Williams syndrome = normal language ability but impaired visual & spatial ability
        They are affected by same Phonological factors [word length & similarity] as gen pop but perform poorly on Corsi block tapping test
        --> seperate visuospatial & phonological subsystems
        
        Children w/ williams syndrome found to have sig problems comprehending sentenences with spatial prepositions [underneath, against, behind] --> association between VS mem and lang acquisition
      - :check: Baddeley & Hitch dual task exp- ppts could complete 2 visual tasks seperately but trouble when doing 2 visual simultaneously --> VSSP compete for limited resource therefore impairing performance
        
        But verbal & visual task could be performed seperately as one used VSSP and other used PL
    - - :check: Alzheimer's sufferers have decreased function of CE as shown in Baddley's study
        --> Dual task exp [verbal & visual]
        
        performance didn't differ when tasks were seperate but when together = significant impairment
        suggests difficulty coordinating subsystems
    - - :check: ARS - explains word length effect
        
        short monosyllabic words are more easily recalled than longer polysyllabic words
        
        this is because longer words fill up the limited capacity of the ARS --> decay of words positioned earlier in the list
      - :check: Language acquisition - Baddley found Italian women with acquired phonological impairment was unable to retain any vocab learned from a diff language - so maybe PL involved
        
        [Baddley et al] Further research with children with Specific Language impairment - difficulty recalling "non-words" --> correlations with size of vocab
        --> suggesting PL used for language acquisition & deficits caused learning difficulties
      - :check: Paulesu et al - provides evidence from neuroimaging [PET scan]
        
        Broca's area activated during subvocal rehearsal task
        
        Supramarginal gyrus activated when phon store was being used
        --> ev for PL and the seperate subcomponents
      - :check: Explain phonological similarity effect : more difficult to remember words/ letters which sound similar words compared to words/letter which sound different
        BUT Baddley 1966a - not true if words had semantic similarity or if semantically unrelated
        --> phon store relies on acoustic encoding for storage
      - Phonological store
        
        "inner ear" holds info that you hear
        
        [limited amount of verbal info held for only few secs; extended if info was subvocalised or refreshed using ARS]
      - Articulatory Rehearsal System - "inner voice"
      - :check:KF damage to STM after motorbike accident = impairment to PS but visual mem in tact
        Compared to HM had impairment to spatial mem & unaffected STM for verbal info --> supports idea of 2 subsystems dealing w/ verbal & visuospatial info
- - - - :check: Shriffrin et al proposed elaborative rehearsal.
        
        involves semantic encoding -> meaning of info
      - :check: APP - Wells reports case of man who served 10 years in prison for rape after false EWT - later proven not guilty from DNA Evidence
        --> lack of elab rehearsal therefore not transferred correctly in LTM
      - :check:Brady et al provided evidence that thousands of images can be maintained successfully in LTS
      - :check:Bahrick et al found identification of names and faces was 90% after 15yrs of leaving school compared to 70-80% after 48 yrs of leaving school
        -->evid that memory deteriorates over time
      - :check:Baddley found semantically related words were more difficult to recall from LTM compared to acoustically related words --> STM and LTM encoding is different
      - :red_cross:Too much emphasis given to rehearsal ST-LT
        Craik & Lockhart describe different levels of processing : structural, phonemic & semantic--> greater depth of process given to info = more durable memory trace formed
    - - :check: Glanzer & Cunitz : - Primary recency effect - ppt likely to recall more beginning and end words and less from the middle due to primacy words better rehearsed & encoded in the LTM--> middle words are displaced by recency words because of limited cap in STM
      - :check: HM case study - damage to hippocampus unable to make new memories [STM] but could remember from before surgery suggeting LTM in tact
      - :check:Peterson & Peterson :ppt forgot trigrams after 9 sec of interference and almost all after 18 sec
        --> support duration of STM
      - :check: Miller :
        
        STM has capacity of 7 plus or minus 2 "magic number"
      - :check: CW case study - functioning STM to remember things for 20 sec but unable to rehearse info to transfer into LTM. Had damage to hippocampus
      - :check:Baddley found that similar sounding letters & words were poorly recalled than dissimilar -->sugesting acoustic coding in STS
      - :red_cross:Over simplistic --> fails to address dynamic nature of STM mem & dual task performance [WM]
- - - - ERRORS WITH RECONSTRUCTIVE MEM
        
        we change memories to keep schemas in tact and unchanged
        
        levelling = removing or downplay details from the memory
        
        sharpening = adding or exaggerate details
        
        confabulation = use schemas to fill in our memory and influence us to remember things to fit our schema
        
        assimilate = new info makes us change our schemas so that it can be fitted
        
        accommodate = new info changed so that it fits into existing schema
        
        :check: War of the ghosts - 3 patterns of distortion :
        
        Assimilation : changed story to match cultural expectations eg canoes & paddles --> boats & oares
        so memory was filled in by adding new info to make sense to story teller
        
        Levelling : story became shorter as info perceived as unimportant was removed [word count reduced from 330 to 180] after 2 yrs
        
        Sharpening : order of events changed so ppt could make sense of story, details and emotions were added
        
        Longest recall was 6 and 1/2 yrs
        
        :red_cross:Little relevance to everyday memory
        
        :check: Allport & postman - serial reproduction of a photo
        
        ppt reversed appearances - that white person was more respectably dressed and some described black person holding a knife
        --> example of assimilation & sharpening
        
        :check: Loftus and Palmer : broken glass was falsely recalled 12% by the control group, 14% by the "hit" group and 32% by "smashed" group
        --> sharpening memory
        
        APP in real life - EWT are unreliable due to leading questions - incorporated into reconstruction of memory which is accomodated and sharpened into mem
        Devlin Report - British juries shouldn't convict someone from a single EWT