3.5 Evaluate two models of memory 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

Traditional Memory Model or Multistore Model of Memory (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=SoxsMMV538U&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=WmzU47i2xgw Use the MSM model and neurology to explain Clive’s behavior Additional Information on Clive http://www.wellcomecollection.org/whats-on/exhibitions/identity/video-man-without-memory/life-without-memory-part-1b.aspx

Evaluation of the MSM Positives: Limitations: 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 & McConnel, 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

Strengths Working Memory Model 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

Follow-up research found the same for recall tests 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 No convincing measure of processing depth 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 Supported by a large number of empirical studies LOP has adapted to original critics Not take into consideration retrieval process No guarantee that deeper processing is better