Download Memory Models

Memory Models:
1. Multistore Model of Memory (MSM) AKA Traditional Memory Model
2. Reconstructive Model
3. Working Memory Model
4. Levels of Processing (LOP)
3.5 Evaluate two models of memory
Multistore Model of Memory (MSM)
• Memory is comprised of three different
memory stores/stages
– Sensory
– Short term memory (store)
– Long term memory (store)
Draw this Diagram of MSM
Never Forgetting
• Jill Price
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoxsMMV
538U&feature=related
• Why does this occur… use your diagram
Types of Long-Term Memory
• Declarative
– Semantic
• Stated facts
– Episodic
• Personal
experiences
• Procedural
Neurological evidence of MSM
• HM and the
hippocampus
– STM relatively
normal
– Couldn’t transfer
info from STM 
LTM
• Recreate the MSM
diagram for HM’s
memory loss
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/whatson/exhibitions/identity/video-man-without-memory/lifewithout-memory-part-1b.aspx
Loftus’ Memory
Model
Theory: Reconstructive
Memory Model
• Experience  LTM
• New information
integrated with original
LTM
– Recall reconstructive
memory
* Reference Loftus 1974 (Schema Theory
and research journal)
Working Memory
Model
• Four Separate
Components
– Central executive
– Episodic buffer
– Phonological loop
– Visual-spatial
sketchpad
•
Central executive: It is still unclear weather it is a single system or more
systems working together. Central executive's functions include attention and
focusing, active inhibition of stimuli, planning and decision-making,
sequencing, updating, maintenance and integration of information from
phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad. These functions also include
communication with long-term memory and connections to language
understanding and production centers.
•
Episodic buffer: Episodic buffer has the role of integrating the information from
phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad, but also from long-term memory. It
serves as the storage component of central executive, or otherwise information
integration wouldn't be possible.
•
Phonological loop: According to Baddeley, phonological loop consists of two
components: a sound storage which lasts just a few seconds and an articulatory
processor which maintains sound information in the storage by vocal or subvocal
repetition. Verbal information seems to be automatically processed by
phonological loop and it also plays an important, maybe even key role in language
learning and speech production. It can also help in memorizing information from
the visuospatial sketchpad. (For example, repeating “A red car is on the lawn.”)
•
Visuospatial sketchpad: This construct according to Baddeley enables temporary
storing, maintaining and manipulating of visuospatial information. It is important
in spatial orientation and solving visuospatial problems. Studies have indicated
that visuospatial sketchpad might actually be containing two different systems:
one for spatial information and processes and the other for visual information and
processes.
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
Levels of Processing Model (LOP)
• Craik and Lockhart 1972
– Emphasized the processing NOT the stages
• Did not deny the existence of stages
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
– i.e. Cornell notes and hands on activities in school
QUIZ tomorrow
• Know each model
– Do not focus on research and evaluation at this
time.
Research & Evaluation of the
Memory Models
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
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
Research support for Working
Memory Model
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, only 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
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
Research support for Levels of
Processing
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
Create TWO Venn Diagrams
Comparing the TWO Memory Models