1. 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

2. Draw a Diagram of MSM

3. 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

4. Never Forgetting Jill Price
Why does this occur… use your diagram

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Primacy and Recency Effect
Primacy  LTM Recency  STM

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

13. Clive Wearing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmzU47i2xgw
Use the MSM model and neurology to explain Clive’s behavior
Additional Information on Clive

14. 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

15. 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

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

23. 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

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

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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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