1 / 34

MEMORY

MEMORY. Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)—stage model of memory. Buffer/sensory memory—selective attention test (Simons and Chabris ) and…. George Sperling (1960)—Buffer/sensory memory study. George Miller (1956)—short term memory capacity study—magical number seven + or - two Row 1 Row 2

blondelle
Télécharger la présentation

MEMORY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MEMORY

  2. Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968)—stage model of memory

  3. Buffer/sensory memory—selective attention test (Simons and Chabris) and…

  4. George Sperling (1960)—Buffer/sensory memory study

  5. George Miller (1956)—short term memory capacity study—magical number seven + or - two Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 6 Row 7 Row 8

  6. Chunking? (Ericson and Kintsch, 1995) Row 1 UVAFDICDBSAI Row 2 DVDFBIUSACIA

  7. Baddeley & Hitch (1974)—working memory/STM

  8. Frog Boots Tree Bells Horse Clock Butterfly Book Lizard Box Berry Pan Lion Rug Bee Record Aligator Brush Flower Stroller

  9. Lockhart & Craik (1990)—LTM—elaborative rehearsal (focus on meaning of information) Self-reference effect Visual imagery Primacy and recency effect?

  10. Loftus & Collins (1975)—long term memory—semantic memory network model How many _____________ can you list?

  11. True or False “An ostrich is a bird.” “A canary is a bird.” reaction time measured

  12. long-term semantic memory network model

  13. Ebbinghaus (1885, 87)—LTM—forgetting curve study

  14. retrieval cues exercise (Branford and Stein, 1993)

  15. Serial position effect? Free recall? Cued recall? Recognition?

  16. encoding specificity principle—context effect—Godden & Baddeley (1975) with deep sea divers state-dependent retrieval, mood-dependent retrieval, mood congruence, too

  17. Does physical state matter? state-dependent retrieval Eich et al. (1975): study while smoking normal or marijuana cigarette. Test words under same or different physical condition

  18. Brewer & Treyens (1981)—memory and schema (organized cluster of information) study Write down as many details as you can remember about the office.

  19. 30 university student participants Atypical/aschematicitems—skull, bark, pliers, wine bottle, picnic basket Typical items not present—telephone, books

  20. Roediger & McDermott (1995) bed, rest, awake, tired, dream, wake, night, blanket, doze, slumber, snore, pillow, peace, yawn, drowsy

  21. Bartlett (1932)—LTM—“The War of the Ghosts” (a Native American legend) study One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals and while they were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war-cries, and they thought: "Maybe this is a war-party". They escaped to the shore, and hid behind a log. Now canoes came up, and they heard the noise of paddles, and saw one canoe coming up to them. There were five men in the canoe, and they said: "What do you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on the people." One of the young men said,"I have no arrows." "Arrows are in the canoe," they said. "I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not know where I have gone. But you," he said, turning to the other, "may go with them." So one of the young men went, but the other returned home. And the warriors went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people came down to the water and they began to fight, and many were killed. But presently the young man heard one of the warriors say, "Quick, let us go home: that Indian has been hit." Now he thought: "Oh, they are ghosts." He did not feel sick, but they said he had been shot. So the canoes went back to Egulac and the young man went ashore to his house and made a fire. And he told everybody and said: "Behold I accompanied the ghosts, and we went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed, and many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit, and I did not feel sick." He told it all, and then he became quiet. When the sun rose he fell down. Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people jumped up and cried. He was dead. Narrative reconstruction trends?

  22. Loftus and Palmer (1974)—eyewitness testimony and misinformation (post-event information influence) effect study “About how fast were the cars going when they _________ each other?”

  23. Did you see any broken glass?

  24. Loftus and Pickrell (1995)—Lost-in-the-Mall study 3 real events 1 pseudo-event Imagination inflation of all 24 participants—6 of 24 “remembered” the pseudoevent. Loftus—the Bunny Effect Implications for eyewitness testimony?

  25. Loftus and others (1989) Viewed burglary with screwdriver via slides Read account of break in with hammer (post event info.) 60% report hammer Tiananmen Square images study (Sacchi & others, 2007) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119213945.htm Lampinen 2000 Jack story—performed some everyday activities, like washing his car and taking his dog to the veterinarian for shot, some actions consistent with script (filling bucket with soapy water, filling out vet forms) and some not part of typical script (spraying neighbor’s kid with hose, flirting with the vet receptionist) When tested, participants were more likely to recognize and remember atypical actions rather than consistent actions.

  26. Lindsay et al. (2004) ½ participants viewed first-grade class photo and read a description of a prank that they were led to believe had occurred in first grade—putting slime in their teacher’s desk. ½ participants just read the description. After a week of trying to remember the prank, 65% of the participants, who viewed the photo, reported vivid, detailed memories of the prank whereas 23% of participants who tried to remember prank but did not view a school photo developed false memories of the pseudoevent.

  27. Flashbulb memories Neisser and Harsch (1992)—LTM—Challenger explosion study Asked within 24 hours: How did you hear of the explosion? Asked again two and a half years later Talarico and Rubin (2003)—LTM—Sept. 11, 2001—On September 12 they gave 52 student volunteers a questionnaire about their memory of September 11 and an ordinary event of their choosing from the preceding few days. They then divided the volunteers into three groups, and had each group return for a follow-up questionnaire session after a different amount of time had elapsed: 7 days, 42 days, and 224 days. In the follow-up session they were asked the same questions about their memories about both the ordinary event (typically this was something like a party or a sporting event) and the flashbulb memory. “narrative reconstructions”

  28. How reliable is memory?

  29. But is it biological? Karl Lashley (1920s)—rat study—cortex Richard Thompson (1994)—rabbit study—cerebellum Eric Kandel (2001)—Aplysia (sea snails) with 20,000 good-sized neurons, 3 neuron circuit

  30. Amnesia Retrograde (the old) Anterograde (the new)—H.M. case study (Corkin and Milner)—damage due to frontal lobe surgery that removed part of hippocampus Both—Clive Wearing case study—damage to hippocampus due to encephalitis Infantile—language or hippocampus dependent? Alzheimer’s (Thompson) images of 12 patients—temporal, frontal, limbic system, brain

  31. The brain Hippocampus Amygdala Frontal lobe Prefrontal cortex Cerebellum

More Related