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;
144 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is memory? |
1) the means by which we retain and draw on our past experiences to use that info at the present time 2) as a process, it is the dynamic mechanisms associated with storing, retaining and retrieving info about past experiences |
|
|
Recall v. Recognition Tasks |
Recall task: you have to generate an answer Recognition task: you don't need to generate in answer *IN GENERAL, recall is harder |
|
|
Free Recall |
Recall all the words you can from the list you saw previously |
|
|
Serial Recall |
Have to recall information AS WELL AS order of information |
|
|
Cued recall |
Give participant some clue to trigger recall |
|
|
Explicit Recall |
Involves conscious recollection; can be recall or recognition Participants know they are trying to recall something from memory |
|
|
Implicit Recall |
Requires participants to complete a task and the performance of the task indicates memory indirectly |
|
|
Procedural Memory |
knowing how to do something, i.e. riding a book, touch typing, skiing |
|
|
Declarative Memory |
Memory for facts (semantic) and memory for events (autobiographical) |
|
|
Single Dissociations |
single variable effects one kind of memory but not the other i.e. Phonological WM v. Visiospatial WM |
|
|
Double Dissociations |
*stronger evidence -one variable effects one kind of memory but not the other; another variable does the opposite -demonstrates two separate brain systems -procedural v. declarative memory |
|
|
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) Model |
Sensory M > STM > LTM Sensory M: large capacity, short duration, attention determines what makes it to STM STM: rehearsal keeps things in STM LTM: encoded into LTM w/ lots of rehearsal |
|
|
Sperling (1960) Iconic Memory Test |
Participants reported more letters back using the partial report procedure (tone to indicate which row to recall) |
|
|
Averbach & Coriell (1960) Iconic Memory Research |
Flash a line above a specific letter, showed participants could store up to 12 letters in sensory memory |
|
|
Backward Visual Masking |
iconic memory can be overwritten by new stimuli *can blend with or erase older stimuli |
|
|
Short Term Memory |
-limited capacity: 7 +/- 2 items -take in from sensory memory and LTM -persists as long as it is rehearsed |
|
|
Chunking |
-can increase memory span -use existing knowledge to chunk info |
|
|
Vogel, Woodman & Luck (2001) Visual STM |
-Used colors and orientations -People can remember 3-4 objects -Integrated objects, not just features |
|
|
LTM |
-fed by short term memory -virtually unlimited duration/capacity -getting into LTM takes effort |
|
|
Bahrick's Research on LTM |
People were fairly accurate at remembering people from their HS yearbook Memory decays for a few years than plateaus |
|
|
Craik & Lockhart's Levels of Processing Model |
-deeper processing leads to better memory -shallow processing emphasizes the physical features of a stimulus -distinguished between maintenance rehearsal and elaborative rehearsal |
|
|
Craik and Watkin's 1973 Intervening Word Study |
-Recall of words was independent of the length of time (# of intervening words) it was maintained in STM |
|
|
Craik & Tulving (1975) LOP Study |
Participants studied words through physical/phonemic/semantic ways Words studied semantically recognized best |
|
|
Self-Reference Effect |
High levels of recall when picking words that describe oneself (even if you don't pick that trait) |
|
|
Criticisms of LOP |
-Circular definitions of levels -Transfer appropriate processing effect (=different ways of retrieval led to rhyming words being recalled more) |
|
|
Baddeley's Working Memory Model |
central executive, visuo-spatial sketchpad, & phonological loop |
|
|
Articulatory/Phonological Loop |
-used to maintain verbal information for a short time period and for acoustic rehearsal |
|
|
Word Length Effect (evidence for P Loop) |
memory is better for short words |
|
|
Articulatory Suppression (evidence for P. Loop) |
repeatedly saying a word like "the" while viewing the list prevents phonological formation |
|
|
Sound of Speech Effect (evidence for P. Loop) |
memory span is better for words that can be quickly pronounced |
|
|
The visuospatial buffer |
-devoted to visual imagery and spatial processing -info can enter the buffer from: direct perception or LTM -info can be treated like a percept |
|
|
Dual-Task Paradigm (Evidence for VS Sketch Pad) |
Dual-Task Paradigm: sketchpad can be disrupted by requiring participants to tap repeatedly a specified pattern of keys or locations while using imagery at the same time |
|
|
Brooks (1968) Study (evidence for VS Sketch Pad) |
Block letter task: participants took much longer for the yes/no pointing task b/c visualizing the letter and pointing both use the VS sketch pad Sentence Task: participants took longer for vocal task (P. loop) |
|
|
Central Executive Main Functions |
Supervise Functions Planning/Coordination Monitoring of mental activity Focuses on relevant items/inhibits others Plans sequences of events, schedules processes, switches attention Updates and checks content, determines next step |
|
|
Mental Workspace as WM Function |
whenever you need to retain some info while processing other info |
|
|
WM V. LTM |
LTM: involves relatively permanent connections b/w neurons, memories stable WM: active maintenance of patterns of neural activity in the brain, once active pattern fades, memory gone |
|
|
Active Maintenance: Delayed Response Task |
cue, delay, response -monkeys remember cue location stimulus specific neurons in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex showed increased activity different locations= different neurons |
|
|
Memory Blindspots |
Lesioned brain areas responsible for active maintenance in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-- animal loses ability to remember the cue in that specific location over the delay time -also happens when cooling neurons |
|
|
"N-back" task studies |
Found more activation in the prefrontal cortex with a larger "N" Larger "N"= longer delay |
|
|
Reverbatory "loops" in Brain |
active maintenance seems to involve sustained firing by certain neurons in prefrontal cortex after the stimulus is taken away |
|
|
Central Executive as a Committee |
A small set of different executive processes or functions that may be dissociable w/ different neural bases Committee Members: selective attention, task switching, inhibition, scheduling, monitoring |
|
|
Frontal Lobe Syndrome |
1) distractibility, difficulty concentration 2) problems with organization/planning 3) Perseveration: failure to stop inappropriate behaviors 4) Changes to "affect"- different emotional expression and control |
|
|
Case Study of "Bill" |
-was a super smart lawyer -after frontal lobe damage: difficulty adapting to changes, difficulty planning, could only carry out the most basic routines, cannot carry out day-to-day activities |
|
|
Damage to PCF |
-very bad at stroop test -can usually do first rule in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task but gets stuck there -have issues encoding sequences |
|
|
Stimulus- Response Compatibility: |
The degree to which the "correct" response for the task is the one the subject would make naturally -compatible responses are faster and more accurate |
|
|
Costs of Switching Attention |
Juggling two or more tasks at a time is less efficient than just focusing on one at a time Pure Blocks v. Alternating Blocks: alternating blocks always have a longer response time |
|
|
Inhibition of Response |
The suppression of a partially prepared task -NO/GO task -dorsolateral PFC active during "go task" but anterior cingulate/orbitofrontal PCF active during "NO go task" -lesions to OF PCF impairs response inhibition |
|
|
Sternberg Sequencing Study |
-Encoding for order vs. item identity: encoding for order took much longer |
|
|
Monitoring |
Assessing one's performance in real time as you are performing tasks -self-ordering task: easy for people with a small amount of images, people w/ PFC damage have trouble |
|
|
Verbal Fluency Task |
Having a certain period of time to write as many English words as you can that start with "c" and have four letters -much harder for people with PCF damage |
|
|
Random # Generator Task |
-must monitor the string of numbers -hard for people with frontal lobe damage |
|
|
Permastore Definition (Bahrick's Study) |
Subjects remembered high school Spanish or the names and faces of their high school classmates 30, 40 or even 50 years later |
|
|
Franco Magnani (artist and LTM) |
recreate scenes from his childhood in Italy; went back to Italy to check accuracy and it was fairly accurate |
|
|
Baddeley (1990) Forgetfulness Survey |
-Pretty common to forget where you put something, tip of tongue phenomenon, have to go back and check that you did something -Less common to fail to recognize close friends/relatives or important details of what you did yesterday |
|
|
Ebbinghaus Memory Studies |
Ebbinghaus forgetting curve created from self-studying nonsense words and then recalling over different periods of time Drops very quickly over 2 days, the levels off |
|
|
What factors improve retention/recall? |
-spacing of learning -organization of info -state/context dependent memory -encoding specificity effect |
|
|
Encoding Specificity Effect |
Our ability to remember a stimulus depends on the similarity between the way a stimulus is processed at encoding and the way it is processed when tested |
|
|
Spacing Effect of Memory |
Distributed spacing is better for memory Possible causes: 1)pay less attention during prolonged study 2) Richer/more diverse encoding of info 3) greater encoding variability as you focus on and encode slightly different aspects of the material |
|
|
Organization of Info Effect on Memory |
Bower, Clark, Lesgold and Winzenz (1969) When info was organized, subjects remembered 65% as opposed to 19% remembered in disorganized condition |
|
|
Context (external, environment) Dependent Memory Studies |
Godden & Baddeley (1975): scuba diving v. land recall of words- 40% more words remembered when learning/test contexts measure Grant et. al's "study" experiment: music v. no music Shown in babies by their kicking mobile action in context of crib material Time of day important |
|
|
State (internal condition) Dependent Memory Studies |
Recall is improved if internalphysiological or emotional state is the same during testing and initialencoding -Eich and Metcalfe's (1989) "mood" study- happy v. sad -Bipolar manic v. depressed |
|
|
Nelson (1971) Cued-Recall Study that Supports "It's Still There" Theory |
When participants relearned the same word pairs, they recalled more vs. participants who learned different words pairs |
|
|
Decay Theory of Forgetting |
Memory weakens with disuse, but not completely gone |
|
|
Proactive Inference Theory |
Old affects NEW. Old memories interfere with recall of new info. |
|
|
Retroactive Inference Theory |
New affects OLD. New memories interfere with recall of old info. |
|
|
Explicit Memory |
-conscious recollection -declarative knowledge (recall & recognition) |
|
|
Implicit Memory |
-Unconscious change -Includes procedural knowledge -Priming |
|
|
Anterograde Amnesia |
Inability to learn new explicit info after trauma takes place |
|
|
Retrograde Amnesia |
Inability to receive explicit info prior to trauma Temporally-graded: recent info more vulnerable, old info typically intact |
|
|
Brain Structures Important for NEW explicit LTM info |
-medial temporal lobe/hippocampus -not responsible for storage of permanent LTM -critical for encoding, "bind" together activity in different parts of the cortex |
|
|
Patient HM and Others.... |
-still learn something -show music preferences although they do not recognize memories -poor on EXPLICIT memory tests |
|
|
Mirror Reading Study |
–For new words, Normalsand Amnesics improved about the same (implicit only) –For old words, Normalswere better than amnesics (implicit + explicit). |
|
|
Tower of Hanoi, Word Fragment Completetion & Amnesics |
Tower of Hanoi: Similar results for normal people and amnesics: implies implicit memory/procedural info WF Completion: Amnesiacs has normal priming effects, but poor recognition memory |
|
|
PET study of explicit/implicit memory |
Explicit task: hippocampus & frontal lobe activity Implicit task: posterior visual area activity |
|
|
Dissociation Between Implicit and Explicit Memory (affects implicit but not explicit) |
Modality (auditory or visual) presentation of stimuli affects implicit memory performance but not explicit |
|
|
Dissociation Between Implicit and Explicit Memory (affects explicit but not implicit) |
Depth of processing of a stimuli affects explicit memory performance but not implicit |
|
|
Explicit Memory: Semantic Memory |
-general knowledge and facts -NOT tied to a specific time/place |
|
|
Explicit Memory: Episodic Memory |
-tied to a specific time/place -personal point of view -i.e. first kiss or walk to class this morning |
|
|
Explicit/Implicit Memory and the Brain Structures they correlate to |
Explicit Memory: hippocampus & medial temporal lobe Implicit: Skills/habits (procedural): striatum Implicit: priming: cortex Implicit: Classical conditioning: cerebellum |
|
|
Dissociation of Semantic and Episodic Memory |
-less evidence, based on case studies -double dissociation through pt. KC and italian patient |
|
|
Category Definition |
A mental grouping of persons, events, ideas, or objects that share a common properties |
|
|
Concept definition |
Members of a category; mental representation of an item and associated knowledge and beliefs about that item |
|
|
Two types of concepts/categories |
1) natural concepts/categories; occur naturally, share physical traits/behaviors/appearances/evolutionary Hx 2) artificial concepts/categories: created by humans, function is key |
|
|
Categorization allows... |
Inferences about members of a class |
|
|
Wasserman et al Categorization by Pigeons |
Pigeons peck 1 of 4 keys depending on a stimulus (car, cat, chair, flower) and are trained over 30 days Were able to correctly categorize 81% of old exemplars Were able to correctly categorize 64% of new exemplars |
|
|
Category Theories: Defining Feature Theories |
Concept is defined by a set of necessary jointly sufficient features that item MUST have to be considered a member |
|
|
Problems with Defining Features Theory |
-Difficult to specify necessary features of some concepts (i.e. monster, family) -Some things do not necessary and sufficient conditions (i.e. game) -Problems with exceptions (i.e. is a monk a bachelor) -Typicality effects -Essence V. Superficial changes |
|
|
Typicality Effects Definitions |
Some things are a better example of a concept than others (i.e. robin is better example of a bird that an ostrich) |
|
|
Prototype Theory |
Abstracted representation of a category based on salient features that are true of most instances Evidence: typicality judgments General process is innate, but experiences shape details of concepts/prototypes (i.e. experts restructure categories |
|
|
Exemplar View |
No single prototype but multiple examples convey what concept represents Similar to prototype theory but more concrete examples, not abstract |
|
|
Theory Based View |
-Knowledge of the world defines and shapes our predictions about concepts -Features in a complex network of explanatory links that indicate important and relations of features -objects classified into concepts that best explain patterns of attributes |
|
|
Rips Sorp/Doom Study |
Sorp: described like a bird Doon: accident or metamorphosis After Doon “incident:” describedlike a insect Accidentalchange group decided that sorp isnot similar to other birds but is still a bird Essentialchange group: no longer a bird |
|
|
Semantic Network Model |
-Nodes represent concepts in memory -relations representated by links b/w nodes |
|
|
Collins and Quillians Semantic Network Model (1969) |
-structure is hierarchial -time to retrieve info based on number of links -Cognitive economy: stored properties stored only at highest level possible -Inheritance: lower levels inherit higher level properties |
|
|
Problems with Collins & Quillians 1st Semantic Network Model |
-typicality effects -reverse distance effect |
|
|
Basic Level Properties |
-Easiest to name features or say what features objects have in common -Children learn basic level categories first - |
|
|
Revised Semantic Network Model |
-spreading activation -not hierarchical; based on experience -links differ in length/strength |
|
|
Bransford & Franks Sentence Memory Study |
Subjects hear a story and then look at a sentence and must determine if they heard the sentence Results: If you put enough details/ideas from original story (3 or 4) in a sentence, they will be confident they heard that sentence |
|
|
Galileo Experiment |
Subjects read galileo story and then were presented four types of sentences: original, synatically different, semantically different, and word order different Subjects were correct for all four types at first, but after 80 syllables were only mostly correct about semantically different sentences. |
|
|
Role of Prior Knowledge |
Helps us understand & encode sequences of events Improves the retention of info usually |
|
|
Prior Knowledge & Balloon Memory Study |
Illustration showed before the text allowed subjects to set a schema and understand the ideas of the test |
|
|
Schema definition and functions |
Schema: highly disorganized cognitive framework containing info about a person, group or event -generalized conceptual knowledge used in understanding -meaningfully organizes concepts -tells us what to expect and also what unobserved or unstated info we can infer |
|
|
Evidence for Schemas |
-evidence for what is in schemas -recall steps from schemas in order -read faster if story fits schema -Recall schema items that were not actually in story |
|
|
Scripts |
-type of schema about events -structure captures general info about routine events (i.e. out to eat at a restaurant) -have typical roles (i.e. server, cook, customer) -when we hear/read about a scripted event, our entire schema for that script is activated and we can infer/fill in missing info |
|
|
Brewer and Treyens (1981) Scene Schema |
-subjects asked to recall items from office they were waiting in -memory was good for things that fit schema (expected items) and items out of the norm, not as good for items with no expectations -false memories created for things not there but fit office schema |
|
|
Schematic Intrusions |
May "remember" something because it is consistent with a schema, not because is really happened |
|
|
Bower, Black and Turner (1979) Scene Schema Study |
Participants read 3 stories and were asked to recall events from them Results: subjects were confident about actual events they did read and about schema-consistent events not actually in story *more stories read about a schema, more confident schema-consistent event was in story |
|
|
Schema Inferences at Retrieval |
Subjects read story about a difficult young girl "carol" 1/2 were told later that is was really helen keller The half that thought it was helen keller were much more likely to think the sentence "she was deaf, blind and cannot think" was in the story when it was not. |
|
|
War of the Ghosts Study |
British subjects would recall things from the story that were consistent with their schemas that werent actually in the story |
|
|
Constructive Memory |
Episodiccombines memory from actual experience as well as infofrom scripts/schemas/existing knowledge |
|
|
Autobiographical Memory (AM) |
Part of declarative memory; recollected events from a person's past and history -both episodic and semantic parts |
|
|
The Reminiscence Bump |
Most people can remember the period from teens-early 20s well Hypotheses: Self-image (period of assuming one's self image), cognitive (encoding is better during rapid change), cultural (culturally shared expectations structure recall) |
|
|
Immigration & Reminiscence Bump |
People who immigrated had their bump shift to a little later in life because it takes a while from an immigrant to have a stable life |
|
|
Extraordinary AM |
Subject AJ: can recall any date in past 25 yrs SAM: Superior autobiographical memory |
|
|
Logical Inferences Study: Bransford, Barclay, and Franks |
Subjects study a sentence, then have a recognition test (i.e. the box is to the left of the tree) and participants say if that is true or false Results: people make inferences consistent with spatial organization |
|
|
Pragmatic Inferences |
Not all inferences follow logically from the info you are given (i.e. read "pounding the nail" --> recognize "hammering") |
|
|
Inferences during encoding: Owens, Bower and Black Study |
Subjects were able to recall more of a story when given background info but they also inferred more incorrect information (intrusions) |
|
|
Inferences during storage: Barlett's "War of the Ghost" story |
Results: memory was more distorted four months later than immediately -memory changed during storage, changed to fit schemas better |
|
|
Inferences at retrieval: Carol Harris/Helen Keller Study |
Retrieval conditions changed recall results |
|
|
Source Monitoring Error |
-Misidentifying source of memory Source memory: process of determining the origins of our memories |
|
|
Jacoby's et al "Becoming Famous Overnight" Study |
Subjects read a list of nonfamous names, and then read a list of old nonfamous names, new nonfamous names and famous names After a delay, subjects sometimes thought the old nonfamous names were famous because of source monitoring error |
|
|
Misinformation Effect |
Information that comes AFTER an event affects memory of event |
|
|
Loftus & Palmer "Hit" vs. "Smashed" experiment |
Results: 14% of control said they saw broken glass, 32% of smashed group said they saw broken glass |
|
|
Misinformation Effect: Stop Sign Study |
Subjects were asked a series of questions, and the mislead group was asked about "yield sign" in a question. Test: was it stop sign or yield sign? Control group who said stop sign: 75% Misled group who said stop sign: 41% |
|
|
Overwriting Hypothesis |
witness event -> misinfo -> new info overrules memory and replaces it |
|
|
Competitive Hypothesis |
witness event -> misinfo -> competition of info |
|
|
Testing Overwriting V. Competitive Hypothesis (Hammer Experiment) |
Group 1: Man was carrying a tool -> hammer or screwdriver? 72% hammer Group 2: Man was carrying a screwdriver -> hammer or screwdriver? 63% hammer Group 3: Man was carrying a screwdriver -> hammer or wrench? 75% hammer *supports competition hypothesis |
|
|
Misinformation Acceptance |
Accepting new info as if it were true of original event 2 reasons: source confusion and strength (new info is stronger) |
|
|
College Student Implanting False Memories Study |
Results: 90% remembered real childhood memories by 2nd interview, 25% remembered false memories by 3rd interview |
|
|
Life Events Inventory False Memory Study |
Fill out LEI, go through imaginative events, refill out LEI Results: when participants were led through events that did not happen to them they were more likely to say they did happen to them |
|
|
"Mr. Science" False Memory Study |
Results: after parents discussed false happenings at mr science demo w/ their kids, kids were likely to later report that these things happened |
|
|
Factors that Influence False Memories |
-easier to implant plausible events -repetition of false info helps -"Imagination Inflation": ask subjects to imagine it happening -some individuals more susceptible than others |
|
|
Eyewitness Memory |
-single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, contributed to 75% of overturned cases from DNA testing -not always inaccurate |
|
|
Stanny & Johnson's Weapon Focus Experiment |
Presence of weapon fired decreases attention to other info including victim and perpetrator |
|
|
Ross et al's Photospread Experiment |
Subjects mixed up male teacher and perpetrator when teacher was in photospread and perpetrator was not (60%) *still happened 20% of time when perpetrator was in photospread |
|
|
Well and Bradfield's "Good, You Identified the Subject" Study |
Subjects rating of confidence in choosing the criminal out of a photospread was influenced by feedback |
|
|
Children's Eyewitness Memory |
-Be wary of repeated questioning -Leading questions may distort memory -Younger chn are more suggestible |
|
|
Cognitive Interview |
Techniques for helping victims or "friendly" witnesses recall details of crime -research involved listening to tape recordings of interviews and looking at recs from other domains -reinstate conditions of event (encoding specificity), interview soon after event, no "hints", use reverse order |
|
|
Problems with Standard Lineups |
-assume perp is in lineup -distractor selection in important -police behavior can influence |
|
|
Skepticism on Recovered Abuse Memories |
-therapists can have biases and plant ideas -hyponosis is vulnerable -hard to find corroborating memories -no consensus on issue- depends on sample |
|
|
Emotion/Flashbulb Memories |
Events that are particularly surprising or arousing that form vivid/unforgettable memories |
|
|
Amygdala & emotional memories |
Plays special role in memories that are very emotional (i.e. fear conditioning) -damage to amygdala impairs acquistion and expression of Pavlovian fear conditioning |
|
|
Emotion/Memory Connection |
Strong correlation between emotion and vividness of memory (.90) but not necessarily accurate -more resistant to forgetting: perhaps encoded better or recalled more often |
|
|
Flashbulb Memory Study |
Accuracy of everyday vs. Flashbulb memories decays at same rate, but confidence in flashbulb memories remains much higher |
