Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Memory PY4
We start with the sensory information which is picked up by a person's sensors (eyes, nose etc). If this information is paid attention to it get moved into the short term memory. Once there if it is rehearsed it will be remembered and moved into the long term memory.
Each of the stores have different capacity, durations and encoding.
Three Memory Stores
The following is evidence for three separate stores.
Theories and Researchers
Strength & Weaknesses
The following is analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of MSM
Gave evidence of how brief the duration of the sensory store. Show participants a grid of information, when only shown for a short amount of time recall was bad.
Peterson & Peterson 1959
Gave evidence to the duration of STM, participants were asked to recall 3 letters followed by 3 numbers, however they also had to count backwards immediately after. Those that had the shorter interval had better recall. This suggests that when rehearsal is prevented, STM lasts about 20 seconds at most.
Bahrick et al 1975
Natural experiment of the duration of the LTM. Asked people of various ages to name people in their school yearbooks, 48 years later people were about 70% accurate. Suggesting that the LTM is potential limitless and works best for information that 'means' something to the person.
Used the digit span technique to assess the capacity of STM. The average span of digits was 9.3 items whereas it was 7.3 for letters.
Proposed the idea of chucks of information rather than items, chunks refer to a meaningful collection of information.
Found that the size of the chunk does affect memory, were are more likely to remember shorter chunks than longer ones (bullet points rather than paragraphs)
Gave participants lists of words that were acoustically similar or dissimilar and words that were semantically similar or dissimilar. He found that it was more difficult to remember acoustically similar words in STM but not in LTM, whereas semantically similar words posed little problem for STM but led to muddled LTM.
Beardsley found that the prefrontal cortex is active when participants are working are a STM task and Squire et al found that the hippocampus is involved when LTM is engaged.
An important factor of the scientific method is to encourage further research. As this was the first model produced it sparked loads of other research as its theory was testable.
The main criticism being that the theory oversimplifies memory. Further research suggests that there are more parts to LTM and that there is more than just verbal rehearsal.
Logie pointed out that STM actually relies on LTM and therefore cannot come first. For example in order to chuck information you need to recall the meaningful factors, these meaning are kept in the LTM.
Alternatives to the Multi-Store Model
The following are the alternatives to the MSM, these include the LOP (levels of processing) and WMM (working memory model). These are the more recent (and plausible) theories of memory.
The Working Memory Model
Baddeley & Hitch 1974
The central executive directs attention to particular tasks, phonological loop deals with auditory information. Visuo-spatial sketchpad deals with spatial tasks and the episodic buffer which acts as a general store and integrates information from everywhere.
The following is research done around the Working Memory Model
Baddeley et al 1975
Demonstrated the existence of the visuo-spatial sketchpad. When asked to do two spatial tasks at the same time, participants struggled, however this was not the case when asked to do one spatial and one verbal.
Shallice & Warrington 1970
Studied KF who's brain was damaged in a motorcyle incident. Showed that STM and LTM were separate as his LTM was fine however aspects of STM was impaired. He struggled with auditory information more than visual further suggesting the damage was restricted to the phonological loop.
Dolcos et al 2007
Using brain scans he was able to find evidence of the separate stores when different areas of the brain was activated when doing different tasks.
As it only focus' on the short term memory, as a model of memory it is limited.
A key criticism is that a number of the stores are poorly defined. For example the central executive is too vague and doesn't really explain anything. Some also believe that rather than just a single central executive there are actually several components (Eslinger and Damasio 1985).
The Levels of Processing
Craik and Lockhart 1972
Rather than needing to rehearse memory in order to remember it the LOP approach believes that it depends on the level of processing we attach to the memory. At the lower levels its physical and sensory features, and then deeper it's semantic and comparison.
The following is research for the Levels of Processing