Memory Research PDF

Wagenaar (1986)- recorded a diary everyday for six years- included both events and cues; Cues: who, what, when, where; Results: memories were better with more cues to retrieve it, Who, What, and Where cues were better than when cues; typically remembered events with more and more cues. Gluck and Blu...

Wagenaar (1986)- recorded a diary everyday for six years- included both events and cues; Cues: who, what, when, where; Results: memories were better with more cues to retrieve it, Who, What, and Where cues were better than when cues; typically remembered events with more and more cues. Gluck and Bluck (2007)- used memory probe method, collected life memories from 650 participants; Asked for ratings of emotional valence (was emotinal stimulus pleasant or not), personal importance, and level of control over events. Results: Positive memories are reported more than negative or neutral memories, we see that memories were easier to recall from a certain portion of the lifespan. Rubin, Groth, and Goldsmith (1984)- do cues to memories need to be cues? Used smells instead to cue our memories and asked participants to report the age that a memory was from based on smell. Results: smell cued memories were reported at earlier ages and more emotional than word-cued memories. Berntsen and Thomsen (2005)- What kinds of situations tend to cause flashbulb memories? surveyed the memory of Danes who were alive during WWII about invasion and liberation of Denmark. They were asked about memories and memories were evaluated for accuracy. Results: Participants who were involved with the Danish resistance had higher accuracy scores for invasion/liberation memories, Suggests that flashbulb memories are motivated by strong social and emotional relevance. For balck americans they have flashbulb memoires for MLK and assination of Malcolm X Neisser and Harsch (1992)- How accurate are flashbulb memories? surveyed participants one day after Challenger disaster (rocket that exploded after takeoff), then two and a half years later. Interviews were extensive and attempted to cue recall. Results: The average is around 2.95 out of 7 and 11 people got none of the details right and only 3 people got all of it right. So this suggests people are not as accurate as they think even though the flashbulb memories feel really salient. They also looked at confidence ratings and from a scale of 1-5 and people are veryyyy confident even though they shouldn’t be Talarico and Rubin (2003)- Participants recalled memories of 9/11 and of everyday events -In both cases, participants were cued with their own previous recollections -3 Independent groups came back at varying intervals and reported their memories again One group was tested a week later another group 6 weeks later and another group 32 weeks later. Results: They found no effect of flashbulb memory regardless of whether the details people reported were consistent or not consistent with what they originally reported When we compare the flashbulb and everyday memories they are both forgotten similarly *****Flashbulb memories are not different than typical autobiographical memories in accuracy. Instead, the difference is how long they remain vivid and are regarded as highly accurate. Berntsen (1996)- Conducted a diary study to determine the emotional valence of involuntary memories, Involuntary memories are unlikely to reflect a deliberate memory search-They were testing memories that just popped into mind, Results: positive and neutral memories are reported higher than negative Walker, Vogl, and Thompson (1997)- Participants recorded autobiographical events for extended period of time (three months to 2 years) -Recorded one event per day, provided a rating for how this event made them feel -Then returned months or years later and provided a second rating of the same memory Results: taller bars on the graph mean there are more of a decrease in emotional intensity. So there is more of a drop of intensity over time especially for the unpleasant memories. More people thought their positive memories would fade more than negative but not true. Conway, Wang, Hanyu, and Haque (2005)-They looked at different countries age at encoding for the reminiscence bump and found that the reminiscence bump is a universal phenomenon, though the specific nature of the memories recalled can differ according to cultural context. Storm and Jobe (2012) - *positive bias and difficulty accessing negative memories - Individual difference in selective retrieval should be present in both autobiographical memory and lab tasks - Autobiographical memories: given neutral prove cues (pool) then recall and rate memories based on these - Recall: a positive or negative memory associated with that cue - Retrieval task: complete a retrieval-induced forgetting task, compare RP- NRP Results - Retrieval induced forgetting score; for negative memories - Negative correlation - Better at retrieval induced forgetting means less autobiographical recall - Inhbiiton processes happens with negative memories Lindholm and Christianson (1998) - *confirmation bias* - Ppl watched vid of a crime, they were either swedish or an immigrant (committed crime) - People asked to see who criminal is - Results - More likely to pick immigrant when they choose the wrong people - Swedish natives and immigrants picked the immigrant prepertors more - Bc lots of immigrants at the time were committing crimes in sweden - Memory distortions in both groups Tuckey and Brewer (2003)  - *schemas abt crimes affect our interpretations abt ambiguous stimuli - Created a bank robbery story one with unambiguous details and another with similar events that was ambiguous - Unambiguous: robber doesn’t have a gun - Ambiguous: they may have a gun - Results - More correct responses than schema instructions in unambiguous - More schema intrusion than correct responses in ambiguous condition Lindsay, Allen, Chan, and Dahl (2004) - Hear a story then watched clip of robbery - Two conditions - Similar: heard story abt burglary - Dissimilar: heard story abt class field trip - Results - Similar to clip= more falsely recalled info & misremberance - Need at least a day between to see misinformation effect - Source monitoring errors - Forms of interference Biggs, Brockmole, and Witt (2013) - People saw ppl holding a weapon or a neutral object - Ppl always look at the actor's face more than objects - When there is a weapon they look at it more than neutral object Bruce et al. (1999) - Matching a video of a person with a picture of th person - 65% correctly matched - Worse at different viewpoints - Watching longer vid didn’t help - Unfamiliar face recognition low Davis, Loftus, Vanous, and Cucciare (2008) - *unconscious transference - Ppl watch a vid with two bystanders and one perp - Innocent bystander selected as perpetrator 26% of the time Wilson, Seale-Carlisle and Mickes (2018) - Verbal overshadowing - Ppl viewed vid of a crime, half described perp/ ½ didn't - No discriminability (guilty from innocent) if the description was obtained immediately - 20 mins, discriminability was worse for group that gave description - Gabbert, Hope, Fisher, and Jamieson (2012) - *misinformation effect - Bank robbery, some asked to recall events after - One week later all received information then recall - Immediate call group more resistant to misinformation - Immediate recall helps protect memory traces Geiselman, Fisher, Mackinnon, and Holland (1985)\ - *importance of cognitive interviewing - Mental reinstatement of environment - Encore reporting every detail - Describe indecent in multiple orders - Report incident in multiple viewpoints Jones, Dwyer, and Lewis (2017) - Using pics from different angles help improve recognition - Compter simulated images (better performance) Charman, Wells, and Joy (2011) - Dud effect & simultaneous/sequential line ups - Having diverse lineups makes people confident in their mistakes Wells, Steblay, and Dysart (2015) - Studied eyewitness of real crimes, using both types of line ups - Innocent people were identified more often in simultaneous lineups - More “not sure” in sequential Wixted et al. (2016) - Studied eyewitness to real crimes, using both lineups - Performance was slightly between with simultaneous lineups Park and Reuter-Lorenz (2009) - Speed processing vs Age - As we age process of WM and LTM decline but world knowledge increases Ronnlund and Nilsson (2009)  - Impact of flynn effect - Driven by social change (swedish ppl) - Increased body size - Sibling numbers decreased - Education better - Ppl are getting smarter?? May be a slow down or reversing Bopp and Verhaeghen (2005) - Meta analysis of STM & WM - Stm spans of younger and older adults - WM is more sensitive to age than STM - Harder to divide attention as we age Riby, Perfect, and Stollery (2004) - Divided attention - Older adults larger deficits when doing concurrent task - Older adults worse at tasks with greater and control tasks Craik and McDowd (1987) - Taught phrase word pairings - water/pond - Cued recall: reviewed initial phrase, had to produce the word - Recognition: studied words and new distractors were presented together - Results - Recall is higher than recognitions; adults perform worse - Bc its a harder task than just recognition - Recognition - Wasn’t a difference between old and young ppl - Recall takes more effort so harder for old people not much difference in recognition between young and old people. - Castel, Benjamin, Craik, and Watkins (2002) - Value directed remembering - Asked people to remember things and everything has a point assigned to them, ppl wanna get most points - Measured selectivity index - Closer to one = remind more point valued words - If you don't care= score closer to 0 - Less valued words= score closer to -1 - Results - Older adults are more selective, and care about the points - Older adults use cognitive control abilities to choose words with more pts Castel (2005) - Schemas in memory - Younger and older adults; series of grocery prices - Some realistic others unrealistic - Younger adults remember unusual prices - Older adults do better at realistic - Schemas can support memory recall - When material and content is realistic Naveh-Benjamin, Guez, and Shulman (2004) - Learn faces and name pairs - Older adults - Learn faces and names without any other task - Younger adults - Some learned with concurrent task, other didn't - Older adults have - So name-face recognition is very difficult for older adults Rahhal, May, and Hasher (2002) - Viewed photos and listen to description of the person - Two speakers, one spoke highly another talked bad on character - Participants then asked to report on their conceptual (ppls identity) or the perceptual info (report on voice of speaker) - Older adults report conceptual into better when the source is meaningful - Conceptual infor is more attention grabbing Colcombe and Kramer (2003) - Strength and aerobic exercise program improves working memory, attention, and executive functioning in older adults - What improves cognition? - Cardiovascular exercises Rahhal, Hasher, & Colcombe (2001) - Stereotypes abt aging - Trivia statements to both young and older ppl - t/f - Different types of instructions were given - Mememory emphasis vs neutral - Results  - Performanced impaired in older adults when memory is emphasized in instructions Saxton et al. (2001) - Speed of comprehension vs spot the word tasks - Speed is slower with age (speed of comprehension) - Spot the word task stays the same with age Klooster, Tranel, and Duff (2020) - Klooster, Tranel, and Duff (2020)- Compared people with amnesia (Amn) with two groups: current age-matched controls (CA) and people of the same age as when amnesia was onset - -If semantic memory is enriched over time, then the current age-matched CA group should perform best on semantic memory tasks despite being older. Results: Control Group CA performed highest on average. Older group outperforming younger group- evidence that semantic memory is enriched over time. So Amn stopped updating their memory at age of onset and age of onset group have less experience so not as rich as age match control. CA group did best because they dont have amnesia and they have more experience than younger group so semantic memory is enriched. - May, Hasher, and Foong (2006) - Circadian rhythms affect on explicit and implicit memory in young and older adults - Tested at their peak times - Results - Explicit recall in young adults is better - Implicit recall no difference - Performance better at off peak times for implicit - Circadian rhythms is different for implicit and explicit memory Beatty et al. (1987) - Performance of patient MRL - Had hypoxia - Performance decreases, retrograde amnesia has episodic and semantic impairments - While healthy controls stayed the same Kopelman, Wilson, and Baddeley (1990) - Autobiographical interview process and personal semantic memory categories - Autobiographical and semantic memory  - Useful to look for memory processes difference between normal ppl and people with amnesia - Both categories show impairment? Graf, Squire, and Mandler (1984) - Tested people with amnesia with either shallow or deep tasks - Shallow: decided if pair of words shared a vowel - Deep: each word rated on how much they liked it - Results - People with korsakoff (alc), depressed (shock therapy) and anoxia - Those with amnesia are worse on recall tasks - ; Results: amnesia group worst on recall task, normally on word stem definition tasks, implicit memory more intact (procedural memory- stored and accessed unconsciously). compared to episodic memory - Cohen and Squire (1980) - Taught a group of people with amnesia to read mirror writing - Results - All groups show learning of backward reading skill - Amensic groups showed very little memory for individual recall items Yarnell and Lynch (1970) - Studied memory of dazed football players - Players can remember what play resulted in tackle - 3- 20 mins later, they experienced amnesia Konkel, Warren, Duff, Tranel, and Cohen (2008) - Episodic memory deficits - Tested ppl with amesnai on item, spatial, associate and sequential memory - Results - we see that both groups with brain damage or worse overall compared to controls, we did see that there is improved performance for item memory (the ability to remember individual items such as word or object) but this was described as more trivial. Additional research needed for hippocampal group Corkin (1968) - Procedural memory - Compared motor performance of patient HM to typical controls on rotary pursuit task - Normal ppl co better than HM Wilson and Baddeley (1988)  - Person with meningitis= caused poor episodic memory - Could recall a passage immediately but would forget entirely in others - Intelligence and semantic memory intact Kopelman (1985) - Adults with alzhiemers, korsakoff syndrome - Completed memory task using picture recognition for ease of administration - Forgetting tested several day later - Forgetting curves similar between groups - Amensic group doesn’t forget any faster than the control group Baddeley et al. (1986) - WM - Comparing performance of young adults, older, and ppl with alzheimers - Adjusted tasks of each group performed equivalently in tracking dot with stylus - Then performed a concurrent task (repeating numbers, react to tones, digit span) - Results - Interaction in tones and spans conditions - Dementia and alzheimers patients are worse under dual task conditions - Alzheimer's worse at dual task than old and young adults - Dual task good to deciever aging.