Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
AS Cognitive Revision

AS Cognitive Revision

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,085|Likes:
Published by lesley_connor

More info:

Published by: lesley_connor on Feb 28, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Unit 1 ± Cognitive Revision
Cognitive Psychologists are concerned with internal operations in the mind. These are collectively called cognitiveprocesses (or cognition). This includes perception, memory and thinking. 
The Levels of Processing Approach (LoP)
Craik and Lockhart (1972) wanted to explain how memory operates. They said how well something isremembered is due to its processes.Craik (1973) defined depth of processing as the amount of meaning that was extracted from the information.Information that is deeply processed is likely to be remembered. Craik and Lockhart (1972) suggested threelevels of how well information is processed:Structural Processing  What things look likePhonetic Processing  What something sounds likeSemantic Processing  The meaning of the wordSemantic processing is the deepest form and is most likely to be remembered. Craik and Tulving tested thistheory in 1975. 
Craik&Tulving (1975)
AimTo see whether words processed semantically would be better rememberedProcedure20 students were given a reading list of 10 1 -2 syllable words. Asked whether it wasin capitals, rhymed with another or whether it fitted into the sentence. Questionsand words were rotated for a different combination ± counterbalancing. Later participants were tested on recall from a list.ResultsWords remembered best when processed semantically. 96% semanticallyprocessed recalled from a list whereas only 18% of structurally processed wordswere recalledConclusionDepth of processing affects how well words are recalled ± semantic processing isbestThere is support from Nyberg (2002). He examined brain -scanning studies looking at information processing andmemory. Found activity in frontal and temporal lobes is greater when semantically proces sed.Priming The involuntary recall of words where words are linked through meaning. Ramponiet al(2004) did a study on this: Investigated the extent of deep processing and ageinfluences how well words are recalled under voluntary and involuntary conditio ns.48 adults and 48 students. Participants encountered priming words. Semanticallyprocessed words were best recalled and young people were better at recall. Theassociation of words was strong and involuntary. They concluded: words can beinvoluntary recalled regardless of process at the time. 
For and Against Levels of Processing
For Against
Experimental support ± Craik and Tulving 1975. Thisshowed semantic words best recalledIt has proved extremely helpful in helping usunderstand memory although the model in its classicform has limitationsSupport from brain scanning studies like Nyberg(2002). Material processed semantically showed moreactivityLoP helps students with revision. Those who revisesemantically learn better than those who just readOther factors play a part e.g. Reber et al (2004)especially words of emotional significance. Thus LoP isnot a complete explanation to how memory worksPriming (Ramponi et al (2004)). Strong involuntaryassociations can cause recall of words 
The Multi-Store Model (MSM)
Atkinson &Shiffrin (1968) proposed an early MSM, which suggested there are three types of information store:
Sensory Memory
Duration  ¼ to ½ second
Capacity  All sensory experience (larger capacity)
Encoding   Sense specific (e.g. different stores for each sense 
Short Term Memory
Duration  0-18 seconds
Capacity  7 2 items
Encoding  Mainly auditory 
Long Term Memory
Duration  Unlimited
Capacity  Unlimited
Encoding  Mainly semantic (but can be visual and auditory) 
Peterson and Peterson (1959)
AimTo test memory (STM) when rehearsal is prevented for different timesProcedure24 students tested on recall of test items. Shown a trigram (ACE) and had to countin 3s backwards until a red light showed and recall the trigram. They w ere stoppedat different time intervalsResultsTime delay caused recall to decreaseConclusionWhen rehearsal is prevented items in STM are lost. They can be hold for amaximum of 28 seconds.LTM is somewhat different to STM. It has an unlimited capacity and information can last a lifetime as its durationin unlimited. Some things however are forgotten very quickly. It is held semanticallythrough meaning rather than phonetically via the STM. 
Evidence for LTM + STM
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) Primacy + Recency effects. Suggests words are transferred in the LTM that areshown  early, whereas words later on are stored in the STM. Words in the middleare most often forgottenSmythe + Costall (2003) LTM + STM are 2 distinct systems. These results are af ter testing a week later  There is also support from Brain Damaged patients and genetic conditions to support to MSM:Case of HM Suffered severe epilepsy and at 27 he underwent brain surgery to treat hiscondition. They removed large areas of the temporal loves on both sides of the
brain. Since the day of the operation he has been unable to form new memories.But his LTM remains intact from before the operation as he can still perform newmotor skills. Although he can¶t form new LTM his STM capacity is the same as mostat 7. Therefore he has a severely damaged LTM but a fully functioning LTM ± thusseparate system.Prader-Willi Syndrome Genetic condition with multiple physical and psychological effects, from shortstature and obesity to learning difficultie s and behavioural problems. Studies haveshown people with PWS have normal LTM but functioning STM. Canners et al(2000) found that their LTM was strong whilst STM was weak. If LTM can functionbut STM is impaired there is evidence to suggest that the memory stores areseparate. But despite all the support for the MSM there is evidence that STM is processed semantically. Gelkopf + Zakai(1991) tested whether information was lost on a first -in first-out basis as MSM had proposed. They found theywere not displaced in this way.Case of FK Suffered brain damage from Carbon Monoxide poisoning at 29. Suffered damage tohis LTM and has difficulty recalling facts although he can recall events. He hasdifficulty recalling words, and when tested found it difficult t o pronounce unknownwords when reading. Reading involves STM. If there was no semantic processing inthe STM, then FK¶s recall should have no difference in pronunciation of unknownwords. This evidence suggests that there are:Separate STM Systems to handle visual and verbal information. Support from FKwho showed this when reading.More than one type of LTM:Semantic Memory ± Memory of FactsEpisodic ± Memory of eventsProcedural Memory -  Memory of how to do thingsThis is supported by the evidence of HM¶s ability to perform new motor skills but notable to form new LTM of facts and FK¶s ability to recall events but not words. 
Evaluation of MSM
For Against
Evidence from experiments. That LTM + STM areseparate ± Smythe + Costall found mobile phone usestimulates STM not LTMHM sustained severe damage to LTM but kept arelatively normal STM. It showed the stores are indeedseparateMore than 1 STM e.g. Seitz + Schumann-Hergsteller (2000) in which verbal information but not a motor  taskinferred with the ability to do maths. Also FK and hisreadingEvidence of FK suggests that the STM is analysed for meaning and not for sound, putting MSM in doubtStrong evidence from the cases of FK + HM that thereare more than one type of LTM, for facts, events andskills 
The Reconstructive Memory Approach (RSM)
This concerns what happens when information is stored and retrieved from memory. Bartlett (1932) suggestedmemory was more µan imaginative reconstruction of past events; influenced by our attitudes and responses tothose events at the time they occurred¶.Retrieval of memory involves an active process of reconstruction. We actively pieceit together using Schema. We activate the relevant schemas and make use of theinformation in them, e.g. War of the Ghosts and data schema.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->