PSY 368 Human Memory Working Memory cont. Demos and reviews

  • Published on
    31-Dec-2015

  • View
    216

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • PSY 368 Human MemoryWorking Memory cont.Demos and reviews

  • Baddeleys ModelArticulatoryControlVisual scribe

  • Phonological LoopTwo parts: Phonological Store (PS) and Articulatory Control Process (ACP)PS - stores auditory info for 1-2 s and then it starts to decayACP - recodes visual info into auditory code for storage and controls rehearsal4 Main Effects in Serial Recall Task to account forPhonological similarity effectArticulatory suppression effectIrrelevant speech effectWord length effect

  • Phonological LoopDemosListen to list, recall words in orderRhinocerosZincGorillaTuberculosisMeaslesCalciumUraniumCarbonHippopotamusMumps

    Listen to list, recall words in orderPlanetMusicianLandPropertyTrumpetHouseStarCometOrchestraMoon

    Listen to list, recall words in order, while I read the words say the aloud BlockBrickStickBlueChewTrickPrickClueClickBlimp

    Read list, recall words in order, while I read the words say the aloud GoldCodeBoldHoldToldColdModeSlowedHopeGoad

    Listen to list, recall words in order, while I read the words say the aloud BronzeBookMagazineBikeCopperDressCopierSodaShoeRock

  • Phonological LoopMemory worse for items that sound alike than those that look alike or have similar meaningsVisual items are recoded to auditory for storage and rehearsal by ACPWhat happens if you prevent the recoding of visual information into auditory information?Works for both auditory presentation and visual presentation of the letters.Phonological Similarity Effecte.g., Baddeley (1966)

  • Phonological LoopArticulatory Suppression EffectEngaging in an auditory task after study removes phonological similarity effect for visual itemsProcedure: Say the aloud over and over No re-coding of visual info by ACPPhonological info gets in directly, doesnt need re-codingAuditory presentation: PGTCD (similar sounding) harder to recall than RHXKW (different sounding)Visual presentation: PGTCD (similar sounding) recalled equally as RHXKW (different sounding)No re-coding, so no chance for similar sounds to interfereWith suppression

  • Phonological LoopIrrelevant Speech EffectBackground speech presented during study decreases memory for visual itemsSalame & Baddeley (1982)

  • Phonological LoopIrrelevant Speech EffectBackground speech presented during study decreases memory for visual itemsSalame & Baddeley (1982)Amount of disruption is determined by phonological similarityIn other experiments showed no word-length effect for irrelevant speechIf rehearsal is prevented, irrelevant speech effect disappeared Conclusions:Irrelevant speech interferes with recoding of visual info to auditory

  • Phonological LoopWord-length EffectResultsRecall decreases as the length of time it takes to say a word increases.Rehearsal takes longer for longer words - cant rehearse as many timesBaddeley, Thomson, and Buchanan (1975)Retrieval from PS also takes longer due to auditory coding of itemsReading rate correlated with memory abilityDigit span depends on language - how long it takes to say numbers

  • Potential Problems with the modelSome of the supportive results cant be replicated (e.g., irrelevant speech effect)Model cant explain all results: why word-length effect is larger for visual than auditory items why it differs based on serial list positionWhy some effects persist after extended delays (e.g., 5 mins)Model is not precise in explanation of effects

    Baddeleys Model

  • Cowans Activation ModelCowan (1999)WM = info that is currently highly activated from STM or LTMFocus of attentionEmphasizes attentions role in activationActivation of info when attention is oriented to itActivation will decay to cause loss of info from WM (also interference)

  • Cowans Activation ModelCentral Executive Focuses attention and other control processesCapacity of about 4 chunksDuration of 20s without reactivationSTMactivated items that are just outside of attention - passive storeThings within attentional focus are available to consciousness

  • Potential problems with the modelOnly general descriptions so specific predictions are hard to makeActivation is not operationally defined very well - when is something is activated?What causes decay? Passage of time isnt causalCowans Activation Model

  • Nairnes Feature ModelItems represented in WM as individual features (e.g., color, length, etc.)Features indicate presentation info (e.g., font, size, gender of voice, etc.) meaning info (e.g., what the item means, category, etc.)Stays the same regardless of presentationFeatures represented by -1 or +1 when studied (yes or no for a feature, 0 if no info for feature)Interference: Later items with same features overwrite feature info for previous items

  • Nairnes Feature Model Bold Lower Upper BlueSCHOOL +1 -1 +1 -1fish +1 +1 -1 -1 fish presented after SCHOOL- features in common can be overwritten - SCHOOL can become 0, -1, +1, 0- interferenceDuring retrieval, item features are compared with items in memory - lost features can be updated and restored

  • Nairnes Feature ModelQuantitative model - numerical predictions are possible - can simulate data to generate predictions for studiesSimulations show that model can predict:1) Recency effect2) Suffix effect3) Phonological similarity effect4) Word length effect

  • Summary of WMFocus on processing (vs. storage)Three main modern modelsBaddeley model Central executive controls VS, PL, EBCowan activation model WM = attention focus, STM = activatedNairne feature model (quatitative)Items coded as features with overwriting interference

  • Exam 1 review

    *Episodic buffer = back-up storage - allows for recall when other systems are engaged with other tasks*This model of the phonological loop is consistent with several memory effects:*Word list: rhinoceros (4), zinc (1), gorilla (3), tuberculosis (5), measles (2), calcium (3), uranium (4), carbon (2), hippopotamus (5), mumps (1)Count backward from 756*We talked about this last time in terms of studies that compared letters that looked or sounded alike (Conrad) and words that had similar meanings or sounded alike (Baddeley).*Auditory task = repeating theAlso lowers auditory recall*Presumably, there is still something stored in the visuospatial sketchpad, but this system not as efficient as the phonological loop *Presumably, there is still something stored in the visuospatial sketchpad, but this system not as efficient as the phonological loop *Word list: rhinoceros (4), zinc (1), gorilla (3), tuberculosis (5), measles (2), calcium (3), uranium (4), carbon (2), hippopotamus (5), mumps (1)Count backward from 756*Irrelevant speech effect failed to be replicated by some later studies. Other studies found that the effect is produced with a non-speech sound (tone).Some critics prefer a more quantitative model that can make more specific predictions and has more precise explanations of certain phenomena (e.g., Nairne model).

    *Activation is proposed to increase when attention is paid to items in WM.*Outside of attention = not activated enough to be within conscious attention**Developed to address some criticisms of Baddeley and Cowan models - quantitative to make more specific predictions - interference instead of decay, etc.*0 = no info available for that feature*Simulations done in studies show that the feature model can predict these effects: Based on overwriting aspect of model - #4 due to more features to encode in longer words so more errors possibleRecall that the suffix effect is a reduction of the recency effect when an auditory item follows the last item in the list.*Parsimony is one of the canons of the scientific method.*Parsimony is one of the canons of the scientific method.