1 Memory Models Multistore Model of Memory AKA

1. Memory Models: Multistore Model of Memory AKA Traditional Memory Model Working Memory Model LOP 3. 5 Evaluate two models of memory

Draw a Diagram of MSM

Memory Models • Traditional Memory Model or Multistore Model of Memory (MSM) • Levels of Processing • Working Memory Model

Never Forgetting • Jill Price • http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=Soxs. MMV 538 U&feature=related • Why does this occur… use your diagram

Multistore Model of Memory (MSM) • Memory is comprised of three different memory stores – Sensory – Short term memory (store) – Long term memory (store)

Research support for MSM • Duration of short-term memory – Peterson and Peterson, 1959 • Free recall studies and serial position curve – Murdock, 1962 • Support Glanzer and Cunitz, 1966

Peterson and Peterson, 1959 • Hypothesis: information is stored in STM for a limited time, especially when rehearsal is prevented • Experiment • Procedure – – Consonant triplets (KDK, CLS) Count backwards in threes Varied amount of time (3 -19 seconds) Measured recall • Results – 3 seconds 80% – 18 seconds 10% • Implications – Information is rapidly lost from STM if there is no rehearsal • Rehearsal is “working with” the material

Murdock, 1962 • AIM: to investigate the difference between STM and LTM • Experiment • Procedure Free recall tests – Participants given a list – Recall as many words as possible, order doesn’t matter • Results – Items at the beginning and end of the list are recalled better • Primacy effect • Recency effect • Implications – There is a clear distinction between STM and LTM

Glanzer and Cunitz, 1966 • AIM: to investigate Murdock’s results and to see if the lack of rehearsal would impact items in LTM • Experiment • Procedure – Same, Added a distracter to prevent rehearsal • Results – Recency and primacy supported – LTM was not diminished by the lack of rehearsal • Implications – Items at the beginning of the list were already in LTM and there was no need for rehearsal

Primacy and Recency Effect Primacy LTM Recency STM

Neurological evidence of MSM • HM and the hippocampus – STM relatively normal – Couldn’t transfer info from STM LTM • Recreate this diagram for HM

Clive Wearing • http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v= Wmz. U 47 i 2 xgw • Use the MSM model and neurology to explain Clive’s behavior • • Additional Information on Clive http: //www. wellcomecollection. org/whatson/exhibitions/identity/video-man-without-memory/life-without -memory-part-1 b. aspx

Evaluation of the MSM • Positives: – Supported by neurology – Supported by experimental studies – Most alternate memory models owe their foundation to the MSM • New models may be just an elaboration of the original • Limitations: – Overly simplistic

Limitations of the MSM • Importance of rehearsal has been doubted • Various codes are used in memory – Semantic, visual, acoustic • Linear view of memory is too simplistic – Doesn’t investigate how the levels interact with each other • STM has been subdivided – Supported by the working memory model • LTM has been subdivided • Overly emphasizes the structures (levels) and doesn’t investigate the full process

Loftus’ Memory Model Theory: Reconstructive Model • Original experience • Experience LTM • New information integrated with original LTM • Recall reconstructive memory * Reference Loftus 1974 (Schema Theory)

Working Memory Model • Four Separate Components – Central executive – Episodic buffer – Phonological loop – Visual-spatial sketchpad

Evidence of the Working Memory Model • Dual tasks (multi tasking) experiments – Division of tasks between the different slave systems • Based on modality (conform to a pattern) – Two tasks done simultaneously (multi tasking) • Use same system negative impact • Use different system perform well/not impacted

Baddeley and Hitch, 1974 • AIM: to investigate the impact of multitasking using the same function • Experiment • Procedure – Read and understand prose + remembering a sequence of numbers • Results – Increase in reasoning time • 6 #s negative impact, 3 #s no clear impact • Implications – Total breakdown of working memory did not occur, on a disruption

Quinn & Mc. Connel, 1996 • AIM: concurrent stimuli would interrupt the cognitive process • Experiment • Procedure – Learn a list of words • Imagery or rehearsal – Background stimuli • Foreign language or changing patterns of dots • Results – Imagery: impacted negatively by dots, not foreign language – Rehearsal: impacted negatively by foreign language, not dots • Implications – If two tasks use the same component, performance deteriorated

Working Memory Model Strengths • Helps us identify which parts of the memory system may be linked to underlying problems in reading and math skills • Focuses on integration, not isolation – Better basis for understanding executive control in working memory

Limitations • Unclear role of the central function – Adapted model includes episodic buffer • Resembles episodic memory (LTM) • Emphasizes structure more than process

Levels of Processing Model (LOP) • Craik and Lockhart 1972 – Emphasized the processing NOT the stages • Did not deny the existence

Why is this model important? • Memory is a by-product of perception – Helps us understand perception – Memory is a direct consequence of the way information is perceived and encoded • The deeper level the longer lasting the memory

Craik and Tulving, 1975 • Hypothesis: Information processed at a deeper level will be best remembered • Experiment • Procedure: – Asked participants to answer a number of structural, phonological and semantic questions (not told to memorize) – How did they collect data? • Participants given a list of words (ones they had seen and distracter words) – Memory recognition test

• Results – Words processed at the semantic level were best remembered • Implications – Support LOP – Deeper the processing, the better the memory • Follow-up research found the same for recall tests

Evaluation of LOP Limitations/Criticisms 1. No convincing measure of processing depth 2. Theory seems more descriptive than explanatory – EX. Why is semantic better? • • Craik & Tulving said that semantic memory leads to richer memory codes BUT, elaboration is easier in the semantic level 3. Does not address the retrieval stage – Follow-up research Fisher & Craik, 1990 • Information encoded phonologically is easier recalled phonologically but not semantically

Strengths of The LOP Model 1. Supported by a large number of empirical studies 2. LOP has adapted to original critics Not take into consideration retrieval process – • No guarantee that deeper processing is better