Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Learning and memory represented in the
brain by... |
physiological changes at the synapse
|
|
|
Enhanced firing of neurons after repeated stimulation
• Structural changes and enhanced responding |
Long‐term potentiation (LTP)
|
|
|
How do neurons produce LTP?
|
Either more neurotransmitter released from
presynaptic neuron, or more receptors in the postsynaptic neuron |
|
|
When firing in pre‐synaptic neuron doesn’t lead
to firing in the post‐synaptic neuron, the connection is weakened further |
Long‐term depression (LTD)
|
|
|
With ___ plus ___, learning can occur while the overall
rate of neural activity remains approximately constant. |
LTP plus LTP
|
|
|
A general term for structural changes in the
brain due to experience |
Neuroplasticity
|
|
|
What did Maguire et al.'s study find in their London taxi driver study
|
More experience as
a taxi driver was correlated with a larger right posterior hippocampus More experience as a taxi driver was correlated with a smaller right anterior hippocampus |
|
|
when a memory is retrieved, it is apparently reformed, and is once again subject
to interference |
Reconsolidation
|
|
|
Describe Nader et al's study on fear conditioning in rats
What were the results? |
Learning: day 1 tone then shock
day 2 tone onle day 3 tone only Condition 1 rat freezes in response to tone on day 3 Condition 2 rat does not freeze to tone on day 3 condition 3 rat does not freeze to tone on day 3 Condition 1: inject anisomycin after consolidation Condition 2: Inject anisomycin before consolidation Condition 3: Inject anisomycin during reactivation |
|
|
What are the implications of the fear conditioning in rats study?
|
In Condition 3, memory formation is blocked
when the memory is recalled/reactivated, and this causes the memory to be forgotten |
|
|
Describe Hupbach, et al's study on reconsolidation in humans
What were their results? |
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
Group 1 learn List 1 learn List 2 test List 1 Group 2 learn List 1 recall Day 1 test List 1 learn List 2 Simply remembering Day 1 on Day 2 allowed List 2 to interfere with memory for List 1 |
|
|
Memory depends on...
|
What actually happened
plus – Person’s knowledge, experiences, and expectations |
|
|
Describe Bartlett’s (1932) “War of the Ghosts” study
What were the results? |
Had participants (British) attempt to remember a folk
story from a different culture (Canadian First Nations) Over time, reproduction became shorter, contained omissions and inaccuracies – Changed to make the story more consistent with their own culture, e.g. “canoes” became “boats” |
|
|
Process of determining origins of our memories
|
source memory
|
|
|
Misidentifying source of memory
– Also called “source misattributions” |
Source monitoring error
|
|
|
What can the errors in Bartlett’s study be interpreted as?
|
inability to separate memories from story with
memories from other experiences |
|
|
Describe Jacoby et al.'s study (1989) “Becoming Famous Overnight” and their results
|
1) read non-famous names
2) read non famous names from previous plus new non famous names and new famous names and determine which names are famous 3)delayed test Results: some non famous names were misidentified as being famous |
|
|
what were the errors the participants made in Jacoby et al.'s study (1989) “Becoming Famous Overnight"?
|
Failed to identify the source as the list that had been
read the previous day |
|
|
Based on knowledge gained through experience
|
Pragmatic inferences
|
|
|
Describe Bransford & Johnson's study on Pragmatic inferences
what were their results? |
Experimental group:
– John was trying to fix the birdhouse. He was pounding the nail when his father came out to watch him and help him do the work. • Control group: – John was trying to fix the birdhouse. He was looking for the nail when his father came out to watch him and help him do the work. • Test for both groups: – John was using a hammer to fix the birdhouse when his father came out to watch him and help him do the work. researcher asked if subjects had seen test sentence before those in experimental group said they saw test sentence more often |
|
|
Describe the false memory cog lab study
|
Presented list of semantically related words:
Bed, rest, awake, tired, dream, blanket, doze… • Recognition memory test: – Words on list (rest, tired, dream) – Unrelated distractors (cake, mountain, cloth) – Semantically‐related distractors (sleep) |
|
|
what were the general results of the false memory coglab
|
related distractors were reported almost as often as words in the list and unrelated distractors were hardly reported
|
|
|
Misleading or suggestive information presented
after a person witnesses an event can change how that person describes the event later |
Misinformation effect
|
|
|
Describe Loftus et al.'s study on the power of suggestion regarding Misleading post‐event information
What were the results? |
Step 1. See 30 slides of traffic accident
Step p 2. Answer 20 questions about slide show: No MPI Group: “Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the stop sign?” MPI Group: “Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the yield sign?” Step 3. 20‐minute filler activity: Read an unrelated story and answer questions about it Step 4. Forced‐choice recognition test Which of these pictures was in the slide show? The no MPI group recalled the correct picture more often than the MPI group (Misleading post‐event information) |
|
|
Describe Loftus and Palmer's car crash experiment
|
1. Shown film of a car crash.
2. Asked questions about film: About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? 3. One week later, asked: Did you see any broken glass? More subjects reported broken glass in the smashed condition |
|
|
MPI impairs or replaces memories that were formed
during original event |
Memory‐trace replacement
|
|
|
More recent learning interferes with memory for
something in the past – Original memory trace is not replaced |
Retroactive interference
|
|
|
Failure to distinguish the source of the information
– MPI is misattributed to the original source |
Source monitoring error
|
|
|
describe Hyman et al.'s study on false childhood memories
what were the results |
Participants’ parents filled out
questionnaires about childhood experiences • Participants repeatedly interviewed about experiences – Real experiences from questionnaires – False experiences added by experimenter, e.g.: during first interview: hardly any false memories recalled during second interview: about 20% false memories recalled during 3rd interview: about 25% of false memories recalled |
|
|
Describe Ross et al.'s study on Errors in Eyewitness Testimony
What were their results? |
1)Experimental condition: view video of male teacher reading to students
control condition: view video of female teacher reading to students 3) view film of female teacher getting robbed by a man 4) subjects choose the suspect among a set of photos when the actual robber was not in photospread more people in the experimental condition identified the male teacher as the robber compared to when the actuao robber was in the photospread |
|
|
Errors in eyewitness testimony due to:
|
• Attention
Poor memory due to a gun shot • Familiarity Source misattribution • Suggestion “Which one of these men did it?” • Questioning “Did you see Joe at the Laundromat on Sunday?” |
|
|
A unit of knowledge.
– A mental representation that picks out a set of entities, or a category. |
Concept
|
|
|
A group of related things.
|
category
|
|
|
The process by which things are placed into groups
called categories |
Categorization
|
|
|
Determine category membership based on
whether the object meets the definition of the category |
Definitional Approach
|
|
|
Features that any object must have to be a
category member – Necessary and sufficient conditions |
Defining features
|
|
|
Family resemblance
– Things in a category resemble one another in a number of ways |
Prototype approach
|
|
|
An average of category members encountered in the past
– An abstract representation of the “typical” member of a category |
Prototype
|
|
|
Features that objects in the category typically have
– The most salient features of the category – True of most instances of that category |
Characteristic features
|
|
|
Describe Rosch 's (1975) “Prototypicality” approach and the results
|
Task:
Rate each category member on how well it represents the category title 1 = very good category example high prototypicality 7 = very poor category example low prototypicality Some objects are more prototypical of a category than others, i.e. they more closely resemble the prototype |
|
|
Describe Rosch & Mervis '(1975) “Family resemblance” study
What were their results regarding the question "What makes an object more or less prototypical?" |
Task: “For each of the following objects, list as
many characteristics and attributes that you feel are common to these objects.” “Dog” Four legs, barks, fur, chases cats, tail… “Deer” Four legs, hooves, fur, eats apples, tail… “Whale” Swims in ocean, baleen, blow hole… Strong positive relationship between prototypicality and family resemblance – When items share many features with other items in the category, the family resemblance of these items is high, and they are rated more prototypical – They share characteristic features |
|
|
Describe Smith et al's study of the . (1974) “Typicality effect”
What were the results |
Task: Sentence verification technique
Respond “yes” if the sentence is true, “no” if it is false More RT for items that were less representative of a prototype e.g. apple vs. pomegranate being a fruit |
|
|
Describe Mervis et al.'s (1976) “Naming” study and their results
|
Task: Name as many members of a category as
possible. • Result: – More prototypical members of a category are named before less prototypical members Bird: robin, cardinal, raven, sparrow, seagull, ostrich, penguin |
|
|
Describe Rosch 's(1975b) “Priming” study and the results
|
Task:
1. Hear a color word 2. Make a same/different judgment about two colored discs Results: When participants heard “green” they brought to mind the prototype for the color green. This acted as a better prime for stimuli that matched the prototype well. |
|
|
Concept is represented by multiple examples
(rather than a single prototype) • Examples are actual category members (not abstract averages) • To categorize, compare the new item to stored exemplars (instead of a constructed prototype) |
Exemplar Approach
|
|
|
Actual examples of a category, i.e. category members
|
Exemplars
|
|
|
How does the exemplar approach explain the typicality effect?
|
The more similar an object is to known category
members (exemplars), the faster it will be categorized. • The more exemplars an object is similar to, the faster it will be categorized. |
|
|
How is the exemplar approach better than the prototype approach?
|
Exemplar approach is better able to handle highly variable categories
Exemplar approach is better able to handle exceptional cases. |
