Memory2bjw - PSC100
–
Memory
II
 Short‐Term
vs
Long‐Term
Memory
 • 

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: PSC100
–
Memory
II
 Short‐Term
vs
Long‐Term
Memory
 •  For
over
100
years,
psychologists
have
dis@nguished
 between
2
types
of
memory
 •  Short‐term
memory
(STM;
primary
memory)
is
the
 informa@on
that
is
currently
ac@ve
 –  Usually
called
“working
memory”
nowadays
 –  Small
storage
capacity
 –  Rapid
decay
in
the
absence
of
rehearsal
 •  Long‐term
memory
(LTM;
secondary
memory)
is
the
 informa@on
that
is
available
but
not
currently
ac@ve
 –  Very
large
storage
capacity
 –  LiOle
or
no
decay
‐‐
failures
of
retrieval
are
primarily
due
to
 interference
 Computer
Analogy
 •  STM
is
like
a
computer’s
internal
memory
(RAM)
 –  Amount
of
memory
is
highly
limited
 –  Extremely
fast,
direct
access
 –  Useful
for
performing
computa@ons
 –  6
+
2
+
7
=
15
 •  LTM
is
like
external
storage
(hard
drive,
flash
drives)
 –  Amount
of
memory
is
very
large
 –  Slow
access
via
internal
memory
 –  Useful
for
retaining
informa@on
not
currently
in
use
 Neuropsychological
Evidence
 •  “Neuropsychology”
is
the
study
of
the
effects
of
 brain
damage
on
psychological
processes
 •  Neuropsychological
studies
have
shown
that
STM
 and
LTM
can
be
dissociated
 –  STM
deficits
without
LTM
deficits
 –  LTM
deficits
without
STM
deficits
 STM
has
limited
capacity
 •  STM
capacity
typically
measured
by
“digit
span”
tasks
 Limited
Capacity
of
STM
 •  Normal
digit
span
is
around
7
items
 –  Miller
(1956):
“The
Magical
Number
7±
2”
 •  STM
capacity
has
been
regarded
as
a
good
measure
 of
intelligence
for
over
a
century
 –  19th‐Century
journal
ar@cle
@tles:
 •  “Primary
Memory
in
Idiots”
 •  “Memory
Span
in
the
Feeble‐Minded”
 –  Kyllonen
&
Christal
(1990):
“Reasoning
Ability
Is
(LiOle
 More
Than)
Working‐Memory
Capacity”
 •  Examined
data
from
2144
army
recruits
and
found
high
 correla@on
between
reasoning
ability
and
STM
capacity
 –  Digit
span
is
some@mes
a
component
of
IQ
tests
 Rapid
Decay
in
STM
 Subject Experimenter 506 503 500 497 CHJ 506 0 1 2 3 4 5 CHJ STOP 6 7 Time (Seconds) 100 Peterson
&
Peterson
 (1959)
found
evidence
 for
rapid
decay
in
STM
 80 Percent Correct 60 40 20 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Retention Interval (Seconds) 8 Capacity
of
LTM
 •  LTM
capacity
is
virtually
infinite
 –  Standing
(1973)
asked
subjects
to
memorize
between
20
and
 10,000
pictures
and
gave
them
a
forced‐choice
recogni@on
test
2
 days
later
 –  He
found
almost
perfect
reten@on
regardless
of
the
number
of
 study
items
 Capacity
of
LTM
 •  Did
Standing’s
subjects
remember
gist
or
details?
 –  Brady
et
al
(2008):
Subjects
looked
at
2500
objects
for
3
sec
 each
and
were
later
tested
with
foils
that
varied
in
similarity
 Sample
 Test
 %
Correct
 New
 Category
 93%
 New
 Example
 88%
 New
 State
 87%
 Durability
of
LTM
 •  Forgenng
in
LTM
may
be
en@rely
due
to
retrieval
failure
 rather
than
loss
of
informa@on
 •  Analogy:
Searching
for
informa@on
on
the
Web
 –  If
you
don’t
use
the
right
search
terms,
you
won’t
find
what
 you’re
looking
for
(cues)
 Google 
Advanced
Search 

 Web


Show
op*ons...
Results
1
‐
10
of
about
176,000
for
doctor
bong.
(0.07
seconds)
 Search
Results



Image
results
for
doctor
bong
‐
Report
images
 Doctor
Bong
‐
Wikipedia,
the
free
encyclopediaSep
15,
2009
...
Doctor
Bong
first
 appeared
in
Howard
the
Duck
#15
(August
1977),
and
was
created
by
Steve
Gerber
and
 Gene
Colan.
...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Bong
‐
Cached
–
Similar
 Doctor
Bong

As
yet
nothing
more
has
been
revealed
about
how
Lester
Verde
became
the
 costumed
criminal
Doctor
Bong.
Hence,
it
is
unknown
how,
and
why
Verde
adopted
 his
...www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/d/doctorbong.htm
‐
Cached
–
Similar
 Dr
Bongs
‐
Bongs,
Pipes,
Grinders,
Lighters,
Legal
Highs,
JokesDr
Bongs
smoking
 equipment.
Glass
bongs,
grinders,
glass
pipes,
vaporisers,
legal
highs,
lighters
and
more! Glass
Bongs
&
Water
Pipes
‐
Smoking
Accessories
‐
Giant
Bongs
 www.drbongs.com/
‐
Cached
‐
Similar
 Durability
of
LTM
 •  Interference:
Searching
is
harder
when
there
are
many
things
 that
are
similar
to
what
you
are
looking
for
 –  Example:
Finding
an
old
high
school
friend
who
happens
to
 be
named
Barak
Obama
 •  Evidence
for
interference
–
Both
retroac@ve
&
proac@ve
 –  (List
A
‐>
List
B
‐>
Test
A)
worse
than
(List
A
‐>
Rest
‐>
Test
A)
 •  Retroac@ve
Interference‐
later
informa@on
interferes
with
earlier
 informa@on
 –  (List
A
‐>
List
B
‐>
Test
B)
worse
than
(Rest
‐>
List
B
‐>
Test
B)
 •  Proac@ve
Interference‐
earlier
informa@on
interferes
with
later
 informa@on
 List
A:
Apple,
Dog,
Roof,
Chair,
Purse
…
 List
B:
Coffee,
Sun,
Tree,
Watch,
Shoe
…
 The
Modal
Model
of
Memory
 •  Atkinson
and
Shiffrin
(1968)
proposed
a
model
 of
memory
that
was
widely
adopted
and
was
 later
called
the
“modal
model”
of
memory
 Sensory Inputs Sensory Memory Short-Term Memory Decision & Response Systems Long-Term Memory More
@me
in
STM
yields
 beOer
transfer
to
LTM
 Modal
Model
Reconsidered
 •  The
modal
model
has
been
mostly
abandoned
by
 memory
researchers
 –  Capacity
limits
and
decay
in
STM
can
be
explained
by
 dis@nc@veness
and
interference
 –  Maintaining
informa@on
for
a
long
@me
in
STM
(via
 rehearsal)
is
not
the
main
determinant
of
LTM
storage
 –  Some
brain
damage
pa@ents
have
impaired
STM
but
not
 impaired
LTM;
how
does
informa@on
get
into
LTM
in
the
 absence
of
STM?
 –  Some
pa@ents
with
impaired
STM
perform
well
on
complex
 tasks
(e.g.,
math
problems,
logic
problems);
these
pa@ents
 should
be
analogous
to
computers
with
no
internal
memory
 (RAM)
 Von
Restorff
effect
 •  Von
Restorff
effect:
Items
 that
are
dis@nc@ve
are
 beOer
remembered
 •  Basically
another
name
for
 the
oddball
effect
 •  Think
“bootylicious”
 TZ
 XF
 RG
 PK
 LZ
 NX
 65
 RZ
 GJ
 FW
 WT
 RG
 KP
 QN
 FH
 KZ
 VS
 JN
 MV
 DV
 Working
memory
model
 •  Model
proposed
by
Baddeley
&
Hitch
(1974)
 •  Central
Execu@ve
–
Mul@purpose
control
system
 •  Phonological
loop
(aka
ar@culatory
loop,
rehearsal
 loop)
–
Where
rehearsal
takes
place
 •  Visuospa@al
sketchpad
–
For
storing
mental
images
 The
Central
Execu@ve
 •  The
central
execu@ve
is
like
the
CPU
of
a
computer
 –  It
manipulates
informa@on
and
controls
the
transfer
of
 informa@on
among
the
other
systems
 •  This
explains
why
it
is
possible
for
a
pa@ent
to
have
 STM
impairments
without
impairments
in
tasks
 such
as
reasoning
 –  These
pa@ents
have
deficits
in
the
phonological
loop,
but
 the
central
execu@ve
is
intact
 The
Phonological
Loop
 •  The
phonological
loop
stores
verbal
informa@on
in
an
 acous@c/phonemic
format
 •  It
has
a
storage
capacity
of
approximately
2
seconds
 worth
of
informa@on
 “one”
 “six”
 “one

eight

four

six
…”
 The
Phonological
Loop
 •  The
phonological
loop
stores
verbal
informa@on
in
an
 acous@c/phonemic
format
 •  It
has
a
storage
capacity
of
approximately
2
seconds
 worth
of
informa@on
 “hyperbolic
an@coagulant
…”
 The
Phonological
Loop
 •  The
phonological
loop
stores
 verbal
informa@on
in
an
 acous@c/phonemic
format
 •  It
has
a
storage
capacity
of
 approximately
2
seconds
worth
 of
informa@on
 •  Evidence:
 –  Increased
acous@c
similarity
 impairs
STM
 •  “B,
P,
T,
C,
G”
harder
than
“B,
F,
M,
S,
X”
 –  Concurrent
ar@cula@on
(“cola
 cola
cola
cola”)
impairs
STM
for
 visually
presented
verbal
 materials
 Visual
Working
Memory
for
Objects
 •  The
working
memory
system
has
a
buffer
for
the
 temporary
storage
of
informa@on
about
visual
 objects
 •  Visual
working
memory
has
a
capacity
of
3‐4
objects
 •  Visual
working
memory
stores
integrated
object
 representa@ons
(Treisman’s
object
files)
rather
than
 separate
features
 –  Subjects
can
store
4
mul@ple‐feature
objects
just
as
easily
 as
4
single‐feature
objects
 Visual
Working
Memory
for
Objects
 Estimating Storage Capacity S1 (100 ms) S2 (2000 ms) ISI (900 ms) Idealized Data 100 Percent Correct 50 0 4 8 12 Set Size (Luck
&
Vogel,
1997)
 Visual
Working
Memory
for
Objects
 Verbal Load (2000 ms) Memory Array (100 ms) Delay (900 ms) Test Array (2000 ms) Report Digits 47 100 No Load Percent 75 Correct Load 50 0 4 8 Set Size 12 (Luck
&
Vogel,
1997)
 Visual
Working
Memory
for
Objects
 S1 (100 ms) S2 (2000 ms) 3
Condi@ons:
 Remember
Color
 Remember
Orienta@on
 Remember
Both
(Conjunc@on)
 100 Percent 75 Correct Orientation Color Conjunction 50 2 4 Set Size 6 (Luck
&
Vogel,
1997)
 Long‐Term
Memory
 •  STM
storage
is
primarily
modality‐specific
(e.g.,
visual,
 ar@culatory,
etc.),
but
LTM
storage
is
primarily
modality‐ independent
and
seman@c
 –  This
statement
is
primarily
true
for
“lists”
 •  Evidence
for
seman@c
storage:
 –  Grossman
&
Eagle
(1970):
More
false
alarms
to
 seman@cally
related
lures
than
to
unrelated
lures
 –  Bousfield
(1953):
Recall
order
tends
to
reflect
seman@c
 rela@onships
(e.g.,
animal
names
recalled
together,
even
 though
they
were
presented
at
different
@mes)
 –  Language
memory:
When
asked
to
remember
a
paragraph,
 people
remember
the
“gist”
of
the
paragraph,
but
they
 don’t
remember
the
exact
words
 •  “Once
upon
a
@me,
a
young
person
named
LiOle
Red
Riding
Hood
 lived
at
the
edge
of
a
forest
with
her
mother”
OR

 •  “There
once
was
a
young
person
named
LiOle
Red
Riding
Hood
who
 lived
with
her
mother
at
the
edge
of
a
large
wood.”
 Long‐term
Memory
 •  Stores
abstract
conceptual
informa@on
 –  LTM
is
impaired
when
items
are
seman@cally
 similar
(apple,
pear,
orange,
lemon,
grape,
 strawberry)
rather
than
when
items
are
acous@cally
 similar
(B,
P,
T,
C,
G)
 –  LTM
is
not
impaired
by
concurrent
ar@cula@on
 –  Free
recall
tends
to
occur
in
seman@cally
related
 groups
 •  “Apple,
lion,
dog,
pear,
deer,
orange”
recalled
as
“Apple,
 orange,
pear,
deer,
lion,
dog”
 Episodic
vs
Seman@c
Memory
 •  Tulving
(1972)
made
a
dis@nc@on
between
two
 types
of
LTM:
Episodic
and
Seman@c
 •  Episodic
memory
is
informa@on
@ed
to
a
specific
 @me
and
place
(episode);
it
is
oxen
 autobiographical
 –  What
did
you
have
for
breakfast
this
morning?
 –  Was
the
word
STEREO
on
the
list
you
just
studied?
 •  Seman@c
memory
is
informa@on
that
is
known
 without
informa@on
about
the
learning
context
 –  3
X
4
=
12
 –  Coca‐Cola
is
sold
in
red‐and‐white
cans
 –  The
world
is
round
 Acquiring
Memory
for
Facts:
Prac@ce
 •  Prac@ce
makes
perfect
 –  Ebbinghaus
(1895)
taught
himself
lists
of
16
 nonsense
syllables
(e.g.,
JUK,
VIB,
POZ,
etc.)
and
 then
relearned
the
lists
the
next
day
 –  The
more
@mes
he
had
previously
learned
a
list,
the
 faster
he
could
relearn
it
 It
took
him
1270
seconds
to
learn
a
 list
the
first
@me.
 This
figure
shows
how
much
faster
 he
was
at
relearning
the
same
list
 mul@ple
@mes.
 This
is
called
“savings.”
 Acquiring
Memory
for
Facts:
Spacing
 •  Spacing:
In
most
cases,
learning
is
beOer
when
 learning
episodes
are
distributed
over
@me
rather
 than
being
massed
 •  Example:
Bahrick
&
Phelps
(1987)
 –  Students
are
taught
Spanish
vocabulary
as
Spanish‐ English
word
pairs
 –  The
total
amount
of
study
@me
was
constant,
but
study
 episodes
were
separated
by
0,
1,
or
30
days
 –  Immediate
reten@on
did
not
differ
across
condi@ons
 –  Axer
8
years,
reten@on
was
2.5
@mes
beOer
in
the
30‐ day
condi@on
than
in
the
0‐day
condi@on
 •  So
don’t
cram!
(or
only
cram
for
the
stuff
you
don’t
 care
to
remember
down
the
road)

 Acquiring
Memory
for
Facts:
 Levels
of
Processing
 •  Craik
&
Lockhart
(1972)
proposed
that
reten@on
 depends
on
“levels
of
processing”
 –  Deeper
processing
leads
to
beOer
memory
 •  Example:
Hyde
&
Jenkins,
1969
 –  Subjects
were
presented
with
words
and
did
one
of
three
 tasks
 •  Visual:
Upper
or
lower
case?
 •  Phonemic:
Rhymes
with
log?
 •  Seman@c:
Judge
the
pleasantness
of
the
word
 –  Subjects
were
then
given
a
surprise
memory
test
 –  Performance
was
best
for
deep
(seman@c)
encoding,
worst
 for
shallow
(visual)
encoding
 Acquiring
Memory
for
Facts:
 Encoding
specificity
 •  Effects
of
type
of
encoding
may
depend
on
type
 of
retrieval
(Morris
et
al.,
1977)
 –  Encoding
Task
1:
Judge
seman@c
consistency
of
 sentence
 •  “The
_____
had
a
silver
engine”
(train
or
eagle)

 –  Encoding
Task
2:
Rhyme
judgment
 •  “_____
rhymes
with
legal”
(train
or
eagle)
 –  Retrieval
Task
1:
Did
you
see
this
word?
 •  Seman@c
encoding
led
to
beOer
performance

 –  Retrieval
Task
2:
Did
you
see
a
word
that
rhymes
 with
“regal”?
 •  Rhyme
encoding
led
to
beOer
performance
 Encoding
specificity
 •  Godden
&
Baddeley
(1975)
–
Had
deep
sea
 divers
learn
lists
of
words
underwater
or
on
land
 •  Recall
test
given
underwater
or
on
land
 50 40 Words learned on land. Physical
state
(loca@on)
during
 retrieval
is
most
effec@ve
when
 it
matches
the
state
(loca@on)
 during
encoding
 30 20 10 Words learned underwater Percent of word 0 Recalled on Land Recalled Underwater Acquiring
Memory
for
Facts:
 Elabora@on
 •  Although
the
levels‐of‐processing
framework
has
 problems,
it
has
a
core
of
truth:
 –  In
general,
memory
is
improved
by
elabora@ve
processing
 •  Example:
Mnemonic
devices
 –  Cranial
nerves:
Olfactory,
Op@c,
Oculomotor,
Trochlear,
 Trigeminal...
‐‐
“On
Old
Olympus’s
Towering
Top…”
 –  Visualiza@on:
DOG,
PENNY,
STAPLE,
EAR
‐‐
Create
image
of
 dog
stapling
penny
to
its
ear
 –  Others?
 Mnemonics
work
 Recollec@on
versus
Familiarity
 •  Two
ways
of
remembering
an
event
 –  Does
it
seem
familiar?
 –  Do
I
have
a
specific
recollec@on
of
the
event?
 •  Episodic
memory
/
Source
memory
 •  Either
can
be
used
for
recogni@on,
but
recall
usually
 depends
on
recollec@on
 •  Recollec@on
is
all‐or‐none;
familiarity
can
be
weaker
or
 stronger
 •  Familiarity
oxen
leads
to
certainty
of
truth
 –  “Illusion
of
truth”
 –  Statements
known
to
be
false
at
encoding
are
later
thought
 to
be
true
(when
recollec@on
is
absent
and
familiarity
 dominates)
 Special
Memories
 •  Prospec@ve
memory
 •  Flashbulb
memories
 •  Eyewitness
tes@mony
 Prospec@ve
Memory
 •  Remembering
to
do
something
 –  Remembering
to
come
to
lecture
 –  Picking
up
roommate
at
airport
 –  Remembering
to
bring
your
baby
to
daycare
before
going
 to
work
 –  Remembering
to
post
a
study
guide
for
the
midterm
 •  Memory
retrieval
can
be
triggered
automa@cally
by
 cues
in
the
environment
 –  Leaving
your
previous
lecture
 –  Hear
baby
cry,
step
on
a
toy,
etc.
 –  Receiving
500
emails,
chatroom
messages,
and
ques@ons
 in
class
about
the
midterm
study
guide
 Flashbulb
Memories
 •  When
a
very
important
event
occurs,
people
report
 having
vivid
and
long‐las@ng
memories
of
the
event
 –  As
if
a
flashbulb
briefly
illuminated
the
scene
 •  Typical
examples:
 –  Assassina@on
of
JFK
 –  Challenger
&
Columbia
space
shuOle
accidents
 –  Princess
Diana’s
death
 –  Terrorist
aOacks
on
Sept.
11,
2001
 –  Personal
events
of
great
significance
and
intensity
 Flashbulb
Memories
 •  Why
are
such
memories
so
vivid?
 •  There
are
several
possibili@es:
 –  Emo@onal
intensity
leads
to
beOer
encoding
 –  Lots
of
elabora@on
at
the
moment
and
shortly
axerwards
 –  Frequent
rehearsal
 Eyewitness
Tes@mony
 •  There
are
several
ways
in
which
eyewitness
 tes@mony
can
be
distorted
 •  Sugges@bility
 –  Loxus,
Miller,
&
Burns
(1978)
 •  “Did
another
car
pass
the
red
car
while
it
was
stopped
 at
the
stop
sign?”
 •  This
sentence
implies
that
therewas
a
stop
sign
 •  When
later
asked
about
signs,
subjects
who
were
 asked
this
ques@on
tended
to
report
that
there
was
a
 stop
sign
even
though
it
was
actually
a
yield
sign
 Loxus
&
Palmer
(1974)
 •  Each
subject
is
shown
7
short
films
of
traffic
 accidents
 •  Axer
each
film,
subject
describes
accident
and
 answers
mul@ple
ques@ons
 •  One
ques@on
is
“About
how
fast
were
the
cars
going
 when
they
_____
each
other?”
 –  Smashed,
collided,
hit,
bumped,
contacted
 –  Between‐subjects
design
 –  N=9
per
condi@on
‐‐
is
that
enough
to
draw
conclusions
 about
the
general
popula@on?
 •  Predic@on:
Reported
speed
greater
when
verb
 implies
more
severe
accident
 Experiment
1
 45 40.8 40 39.3 38.1 34 Reported Speed 35 31.8 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Smashed Collided Bumped Verb Hit Contacted Experiment
2
 •  Experiment
1
does
not
show
that
memory
was
changed
 by
the
ques@on
 –  May
have
changed
how
subjects
converted
their
memories
 into
car
speed
 •  Experiment
2
was
designed
to
show
that
a
ques@on
can
 distort
the
memory
itself
 –  150
subjects
saw
one
1‐minute
film
 –  “Smashed”,
“Hit”,
or
no‐ques@on
(N=50
per
group)
 –  Immediately
asked
to
judge
speed
 –  One
week
later:
“Did
you
see
any
broken
glass?”
 Experiment
2
 35% Percent reporting broken glass 32% 30% 25% 20% 14% 15% 12% 10% 5% 0% Smashed Hit Verb No Question Experiment
2
 Was
the
higher
probability
of
repor@ng
broken
glass
in
the
 “smashed”
group
caused
by
the
fact
that
they
previously
 reported
a
higher
speed?
 Percent reporting broken glass 70% 62% Smashed Hit 60% 50% 50% 41% 40% 30% 27% 25% 20% 10% 9% 6% 9% 0% 1-5 mph 6-10 mph 11-15 mph Reported Speed 16-20 mph Loxus
&
Palmer
Conclusions
 •  People
are
oxen
terrible
at
recalling
numerical
 informa@on
such
as
speeds
 •  A
subtle
aspect
of
a
ques@on
can
influence
a
person’s
 report
of
the
contents
of
memory
 •  Leading
ques@ons
can
distort
the
memory
itself
 –  May
influence
the
responses
to
other
ques@ons
at
a
later
 date
 Eyewitness
Tes@mony
 •  Source
amnesia/confusion:
 –  False
fame
paradigm:
Subjects
see
list
of
fic@@ous
 names
mixed
with
names
of
semi‐famous
people
(e.g.,
 Karl
Rove)
 •  Immediately
axerwards,
they
know
who
is
famous
and
who
isn’t
 •  Axer
a
few
days
they
think
some
of
the
fic@@ous
names
are
famous
 people
 –  Brown
et
al.
(1977):
 •  Subjects
see
a
mock
crime
and
then
look
at
mug
shots
 •  A
few
days
later
they
see
a
lineup
and
pick
out
innocent
people
who
 they
had
seen
in
the
mug
shots
 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/06/2010 for the course CSE 302 taught by Professor Joel during the Summer '05 term at Punjab Engineering College.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online