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;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Primacy + Recency effect (Glanzer and Cunitz ‘66) |
Participants present with 20 words to recall struggle the most with the middle. The first few go into LTM due to time to rehearse (primacy) and the latest go into STM (recency) due to recent exposure. Suggests 2 separate stores. |
|
|
Peterson + Peterson ‘59 |
Aims- duration of STM without rehearsal. Procedure- Participants are shown trigram. Then asked to count backwards in threes- distractor task, prevents rehearsal. Intervals of 3,6,9,12,15,18 then asked to recall. Repeat with different trigrams (%). Findings- Time delay up = forgetting up. 3s = 80% 6s = 50% 18s = <10% Conclusions- Info lost quickly without rehearsal. Fragile STM, quick forgetting. Evaluation- (+)highly controlled (-) low eco. Validity (-) confusion of trigrams- still recalled but not in order (-) additional task with distraction |
|
|
H.M. : what happened? |
Brain damage due to an operation to treat epilepsy- hippocampus removed. Memory affected- no new LTMs and lost last 10yrs of LTM STM intact, LTM impaired- must be a process between (MSM supported). |
|
|
Digit span technique- Miller + Jacob 59’ |
Aims- capacity of STM Findings- results are usually between 5 and 9 out of 10. Procedure- subjects recall 8 strings of numbers each in a pair. 3 numbers up to 10 numbers. One reads these out (ascending) and the other must recall. Swap roles + record how many digits each could recall. Evaluation- factors: Age- 6.6 for 8yo, 8.6 for 19yo. Culture- lower span in Arabic- less syllables on avg. Chunking- more info means less capacity |
|
|
Bahrick et al ‘75 |
Aims- investigate recall over long periods of time Procedure- ~400 US graduates from a high school (17-74). Shown yearbook photos of people. One group had to recall, no names provided. Another had to recognise, w/ list of names to match up. Findings- Recall 60%- 7yrs >20%- 47yrs Recog. 90%- 15yrs 80%- 25yrs 75%- 34 yrs 60%- 47yrs Conclusions- Recog. Is easier than recall VLTM is real but declines with time Evaluation- (+) high eco. Validity (-) lacked control (-) only proved visual VLTM (-) is age a factor? Other factors |
|
|
Baddeley |
Aims- Investigate acoustic + semantic coding’s effects on LTM Findings- Recall worse for semantically similar (55%) than dissimilar (85%). No differences with acoustic Conclusions- LTM- semantic> acoustic LTM struggles with semantically similar recall Procedure- 4 groups - 10 words for each category: Acoustic sim Acoustic dis Semantic sim Semantic did 20 mins distractor task, then asked to recall. Repeated 4 times |
|
|
Conrad ‘64 |
Aims- to see if STM codes acoustically even if the stimuli is visual Procedure- random sequence of 6 consonants quickly. Firstly acoustically similar then acoustically dissimilar (BGCTVD, FJXMSR). Asked to write in order afterwards. Findings- frequent errors. Acoustically similar harder to recall. Evaluation- Other codes could be used. Brandimonte et al (1992) - visual code if acoustic uses articulatory suppression. |
