Popular in Course
Popular in Psychlogy
This 75 page Class Notes was uploaded by Keara Weissnat on Wednesday October 21, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 373 at Syracuse University taught by Marc Howard in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 38 views. For similar materials see /class/225614/psy-373-syracuse-university in Psychlogy at Syracuse University.
Reviews for Human Memory
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/21/15
Working Memory PSY 373 Human Memory February 23 2009 Housekeeping 0 Should have already completed Sternberg Exp 0 Phonological similarity for Thursday oFirst experiment report due March 5 see supplemental readings o Read Ch 4 if you haven t already Important stuff from last time 0 Methods of Sternberg task probe target lure a Robust result linear slope RT vs set size slope 4O msitem 0 Implications for models serial exhaustive search The first two SU Human Memory classes 55 Ss 900 7 Positive 0 Negative RT ms Pres Abs I Avg 615 720 665 785 790 790 890 900 890 U39IOQI Set size Slope about 50 i 15 msitem Theory vs experiment 0 It s not a theory that you get a linear slope 0 It s not a theory that the slopes are the same for posneg a We saw this in a sloppy at home demonstration Overview of today s material 0 Approaches to Working Memory 0 Baddeley and Hitch s Working Memory 0 Data pertaining to the Baddeley and Hitch framework The arc of history of studies of shortterm memory a In the 1950 s and early 60 s primary memory a In the late 60 s and 1970 s short term memory STS o Thereafter working memory Different meanings of working memory a Working memory capacity studies 0 Focus of attention theory a Baddeley s working memory Differences between STS and working memory 0 WM emphasizes ability to manipulate information control processes oWM emphasizes separable storage areas for different modalities avl storage 0 WM studies generally do not describe tasks to the degree of detail Atkinson and Shiffrin and Raaijmakkers and Shiffrin did Focus of attention fig 45 o Elaborates Raaijmakkers and Shiffrin s idea that STS is the currently activated subset of WM 0 Difference between currently activated memories and focus of attention 0 Amenable to detailed cognitive modeling a la Atkinson and Shiffrin Capacity studies of WM 0 Construct a measure that is referred to as working memory capacity a Eg Reading span Daneman and Carpenter 1980 or Operation Span Turner and Engle 1989 0 Determine if span correlates with other things Where have we seen the term span before Reading span Daneman and Carpenter 1980 0 Read a series Of sentences 0 At the end you re supposed to remember the last word of each sentence oYou presumably hold the word in mind while reading the next sentence WM span measures correlate with a lot of stuff a Reading comprehension language comprehension spelling o vocabulary learning writing and reasoning oPerhaps this working memory is a basic property of human intelligence Operation Span task Turner and Engle 1989 o What do you do 0 What do you measure Operation Span Let s try it What factors could affect performance in operation span Baddeley s Approach 0 Short term memory is something interesting that should be studied 0 The Atkinson and Shiffrin model was taking heat and had equations a Free recall is a poor test of short term memory 0 Let s use immediate serial recall as a test Elaboration over the rehearsal buffer 0 Rehearsal buffer describes rehearsal ok o but not many of the operations needed in short term memory 0 Explicitly separate out the control from the stores A working memory task ls Spain larger than Texas An example of using working memory o Is Spain larger than Texas 1 Retrieve map of Spain 2 Retrieve map of Texas 3 Compare size of maps a Map of Spain must be held in mind somewhere until step 3 0 Also need something to decide what information to retrieve and coordinate steps Baddeley and Hitch model of working memory 41 a Slave systems paces to hold information of different types 0A central executive to determine what information goes where o The phonological loop has received the most attention a Slave systems can retrieve information from LTS How is this different from the Atkinson amp Shiffrin model 0 The way it s tested is very different no longer equations fit to data but ideas fit to different experiments 0 Immediate serial recall span etc a Vast majority of research done on phonological loop The Phonological loop a Old fashioned tape delay loops 0 Finite amount of tape a Maintained by articulatory control processes subvocalspeech o How is this different from PAS The bad news 95 of the work at least done in the context of the Baddeley and Hitch model examines the phonological loop Evidence for the phonological loop business 0 Phonological similarity effect 0 Articulatory suppression o Irrelevant speech effect 0 Word length effect Phonological similarity effect 0 Lists like CDGBEZ are harder to remember than lists like KLMGXF for auditory and visual presentation 0 Perhaps there s some sort of interference in the phonological loop 0 Presumably visual items show the effect because you say them to yourself How would this be consistent with a phonological loop Logic of articulatory suppression 0 To get visual letters into loop you need to say them to yourself a If that could be prevented then there shouldn t be a phonologically similarity for vis presented items oArticulatory suppression is supposed to accomplish this Articulatory suppression oSubject says the the the the during list presentation oSubject gets a tongue depressor during list presentation not making this up oEar and mouth have priveliged access to phonological loop Articulatory suppression picture thethethe Phonological Loop Details of articulatory suppression table 41 o Articulatory suppression removes phon sim effect for vis pres 0 Still similarity effect for auditory items 0 Performance worse for auditory 0 Why is this Why would a phonological loop predict the effects of articulatory suppression Phonological similarity and the loop a Visual presentation results in visual information plus auditory information from internal speech a Auditory presentation lacks visual information o Blocking loop with articulatory speech causes V to rely on V information o Auditory pres always interfered with Another related effect Irrelevant speech effect 0 Same idea as articulatory suppression o Unattended speech removes phon sim effect for vis items 0 Tones don t work The big one Wordlength effect 0 Finite amount of tape in loop 0 Longer words should use up more tape 0 Fit fewer long words into loop than short words a Predicts memory should be better for shorter words Wordlength effect results c There is evidence for a word length effect Figure 42 43 o Articulatory suppression eliminates word length effect Table 42 Methodological problems with wordlength experiments 0 Sometimes you get word length effects other times you don t Table 44 oWhat could go wrong in word length experiments The big problem with Baddeley and Hitch s model a We don t understand immediate serial recall a Long term memory span Fig 44 o In the future models of serial recall The phonological loop isn t really that interesting a How can we study the central executive 0 When do we need it A time when we need the central executive Is it a good idea to do stuff while driving YInnInunklnn m 1 1 3 am mum How exactly do we switch information in and out of our attention An alternative account of working memory Cowan u Hu39 Ann M L Hump hm gmn L A task where we need to be able to switch 0 Keep track of the total number of circles and the squares 0 We re starting with 17 circles and 21 squares 0 Say the correct number as fast as you can Did you notice anything Switch costs 2 MI I39I I Swiiuh E No Switch H39ill RT MEAN S lflill1T W Figure 2 Mean R39M s in mil ixecnnds fur smittth switch ft a FEE for all subjects ExperimEm l Assignment 0 Should have already read Ch 4 a Don t forget about the experiment report 0 Experiment for Thursday