Memory (1) . Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) Model of Memory. Visual Sensory Store. It appears that our visual system is able to hold a great deal of information but that if we do not attend to this information it will be rapidly lost. Sperling (1960)
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
X M R J
C N K P
V F L B
Mean number of words reported
Delay of cue (in seconds)
Short-term memory (STM) is a limited capacity store for information -- place to rehearse new information from sensory buffers
Items need to be rehearsed in short-term memory before entering long-term memory (LTM)
Probability of encoding in LTM directly related to time in STM
Distractor task (e.g. counting) after last item removes recency effectSerial Position Effects
Early items can be rehearsed more often
more likely to be transferred to long-term memory
Last items of list are still in short-term memory (with no distractor task)
they can be read out easily from short-term memorySerial Position Effects
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
Switzerland Nicaragua Afghanistan Venezuela Philippines
Articulatory control process
Baddeley et al. (1975).
Therefore, recall for numbers should be different across languages
E.g. memory for English number sequences is better than Spanish or Arabic sequencesWorking memory and Language Differences
(Naveh-Benjamin & Ayres, 1986)
Levels of processing effect:
Deeper levels of processing (e.g., emphasizing meaning)
leads to better recall.
Memory experiment with deep-sea divers
mood primes certain memory contents
Why do we forget?
proportion of items classified with confidence levels:
confidence rating 4 3 2 1
studied items .75 .11 .09 .05
unrelated .00 .02 .18 .80
critical lure .58 .26 .08 .08
False recognition of words not presented in four groups of women with lists containing eight associates.
Clancy et al. (2000)
Anderson and Green (2001)