100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
3.5 Memory - Summary of Everything you Need for the Exam €9,99
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (EUR)
  4.  
  5. 3.5 Memory (FSWP3087B)

Samenvatting

3.5 Memory - Summary of Everything you Need for the Exam

2 beoordelingen
 21 keer verkocht

In my summary you can find all the information required to know for the tutorial meetings, including notes from all the articles as well as from the book chapters. This combination of text and graphics helped me to obtain a grade of 9.0, as it provides all the information relevant for the exam in a...

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 4 van de 47  pagina's

Document informatie

  • 18 november 2021
  • 47
  • 2020/2021
  • Samenvatting

Onderwerpen

Geschreven voor

Alle documenten voor dit vak (4)

2  beoordelingen

review-writer-avatar

Door: margheritacdc • 3 jaar geleden

Even presented the more complicated models in an understandable manner! I recommend

review-writer-avatar

Door: luisaphiline • 3 jaar geleden

Covers all exam relevant content! Can recommend!!

Verkoper

avatar-seller
timschfer

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

Meeting 2 – Short Term Memory

1) Retrieval in Short-Term Memory

-exemplary situation: being told a list of names of people attending a party (on the phone) while spotting a friend on
the other side of the street -> remembering whether this friend was mentioned required retrieval of info from STM
=> 3 theories of STM search investigated in Sternberg’s experiment:

1) serial self-terminating search -> people search through items (e.g. names) one at a time in STM and their search
ends when having found their target item => expectation: longer retrieval times for increasing number of items +
difference in RT included for yes/no responses

2) serial exhaustive search -> people search through items (e.g. names) one at a time in STM & they continue even
after having hit the target until the end of all items => expectation: longer retrieval times for increasing number of
items + no difference in RT included for yes/no responses

3) parallel search -> people search all items in STM simultaneously -> assumes that content of STM is either in/close
to consciousness => expectation: same RTs regardless of the number of items in STM (parallel lines to x-axis)

*findings of Sternberg study: longer RTs for increasing number of items BUT no difference between yes/no response
-> supports idea of serial exhaustive search (we search all items) => HOWEVER: contradicting evidence exists, too
=> ongoing debate continues on whether serial or parallel processes underly certain memory processes
 consensus: parallel & serial components are combined in cascading processes during complex memory processes

2) Working Memory: Looking Back and Forward

INTRODUCTION

-info-processing theory: WM = limited capacity system, which temporarily maintains & stores information +
supports human thought processes by combining info from perception, long-term memory and action

-multi-component model of WM (Baddeley & Hitch, 1972) -> differences from earlier conceptions of STM:
1) emphasis on combined processing & storage, 2) emphasis on its functional importance as a system that facilitates
a range of cognitive activities (e.g. reasoning, learning and comprehension) => 3 components:

1) central executive; 2) phonological loop; 3) visuospatial sketchpad

PHONOLOGICAL LOOP

-phonological loop consists of 2 parts:
1) phonological store -> can hold memory traces for a few seconds before they fade
2) articulatory rehearsal process -> analogous to subvocal speech => keeps info active
=> together: responsible for saving & manipulating acoustic info

-main function of phonological loop: acquiring new language words
-> fact: phonological loop capacity is a good predictor of the ability of children & adults to learn a 2 nd language
=> two-fold mechanism: 1) the store should provide relatively unconstrained temporary representation for new
phoneme sequences, and 2) the articulatory system should facilitate learning through rehearsal, given that the new
sounds can be represented using/combining existing language patterns/habits (retrieved from LTM)

*supportive evidence:
1) phonological similarity effect: reduced immediate serial recall of words when phonologically similar
2) word-length effect: word span is greater for shorter words than for longer words & the effect disappears when
subvocal speech is disrupted by verbal interference task

EVALUATION OF PHONOLOGICAL LOOP

-remaining question, unresolved by the multi-component model: How do we remember serial order? -> 2 ideas:

1) chaining models -> each item forms a cue for the following item, with the result that once the initial item is
activated, the sequence runs off relatively automatically => problems: 1) how do we deal with items that occur twice

,within a sequence & 2) why do phonologically similar items that are presented alternatingly with dissimilar items
(e.g. CXDWPZ) not cause more recall errors in the following phonologically dissimilar items (due to similar cueing)?

2) contextual models -> people remember order by associating successive items with an ongoing contextual cue
(unexplained nature) => these models typically separate the mechanism for storing order from the mechanism by
which the items are registered

-phonological similarity effect is very robust & word-length effect seems to withstand most criticism, BUT is also
challenged in a number of ways -> exemplary criticism: long words have less neighbours (words which are the same
except for switching 1 letter) than short ones => when this confounder was corrected, the effect disappeared

-another problem: irrelevant speech (verbal interference) had no greater disruptive effect on memorizing the order
of phonologically similar items than on dissimilar items

VISUOSPATIAL SKETCHPAD

-visuospatial sketchpad -> saves & changes/manipulates visual (what?) & spatial (where?) info
=> also has limited capacity: 4 objects  features within a dimension (e.g. colour, shape, location) compete for
storage capacity BUT NOT features from different dimensions

*NOTE: distinction between spatial & visual memory is supported by presence of double dissociation

-Logie’s fractionation: 2 components -> 1) visual cache (stores info about visual form & colour); 2) inner scribe
(processes spatial & movement info + involved in rehearsal of info from visual cache + transfers info from visual
cache to central executive)

-main function of visuospatial sketchpad -> one visuospatial capacity predicts non-verbal intelligence in areas where
mental rotations of visual objects are required (e.g. architecture & engineering)

*supportive evidence:
1) change blindness -> objects in scenes can change colour, move or disappear without people noticing (when scene
contains more than these 4 objects
2) neuroimaging studies support the visuo-spatial distinction

-criticism:
-> alternative distinctions to visuo-spatial distinction have been proposed -> e.g. dynamic (spatial) vs static (pattern)

CENTRAL EXECUTIVE

-central executive -> doesn’t store info BUT exerts attentional control in 2 ways:
1) control of behaviour by habit patterns or schemas, implicitly guided by cues provided by the environment
2) supervisory activating system (SAS), that can intervene when routine control is insufficient
=> main functions: focusing, dividing and switching attention

EPISODIC BUFFER

-episodic buffer was introduced into the model as a 4 th component due to the original model’s simplicity
-> acts as a limited capacity store (approximately 4 chunks) that integrates info from phonological loop, visuospatial
sketchpad & episodic part of LTM => generates multimodal code to create mental representations of environment
 episodic buffer is the part that is eventually accessed by conscious awareness in a retrieval process

ANATOMICAL LOCALIZATIONS OF THE WM COMPONENTS WITHIN THE BRAIN

-phonological loop -> lesion studies have identified strong activity in left temporoparietal region
=> BA 40 = storage component of the loop & Broca’s area (BA 6/44) as = rehearsal component

-visuospatial sketchpad -> localized in the right hemisphere (in similar regions as PL in left hemisphere)
*visual: right inferior parietal cortex (BA 40), right premotor cortex (BA 6) and right inferior frontal cortex (BA 47)
*spatial: inferior parietal cortex => supports dorsal stream of imaging

,-central executive -> mainly prefrontal activation => bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal (BA9/46), inferior frontal (BA
6/44) cortex  dorsal-frontal activation is associated with executive processes

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH (PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY TO KNOW)

1) deeper investigation of the links between phonological loop & work on language perception and production, and
between work on the sketchpad & research on visual processing

2) investigate the exact relationship between executive processes & central executive

3) find use within the WM model for conative, emotional and motivational control, which are ignored so far

3) Improving Fluid Intelligence with Training on Working Memory

INTRODUCTION

-fluid intelligence (gf) = ability to reason and to solve new problems independently of previously acquired
knowledge -> gf is considered as an important factor in learning => gf is often seen as strongly hereditary

-option to increase performance on gf test -> practicing the test itself => HOWEVER: this practice effect wasn’t
generalized/transferred to other tasks in any studies  meaning: only task performance increases BUT not actual gf

*challenge: identifying a task that shares many of the features & processes of gf tasks, BUT that is still different
enough from the Gf tasks themselves to avoid mere practice effects

-> potentially useful hypothesis: WM & intelligence share a common capacity constraint, which is expressed either
by the number of items that can be held in WM or by the number of interrelationships among elements in a
reasoning task (gf) => reason for a common capacity limitation: there’s a common demand for attention when
temporary binding processes (WM) are taking place to form representations in reasoning tasks

**supportive evidence: gf & WM rely on similar neural networks, most consistently located in lateral prefrontal and
parietal cortices -> CONSEQUENTLY: practice on WM tasks could transfer partially to improvements in gf

PRESENT STUDY

-reasoning of this study: training intervention that strongly relies on binding processes & attentional control (WM)
may be able to produce transfer effects from a trained task to a reasoning task in which performance relies to a large
extent on the same processes

-method: 4 experiments are conducted: each included a control group & training group that received daily WM task
training sessions -> only difference between the 4 experiments: number of training sessions completed
=> 8 days, 12 days, 17 days, 19 days

*training task (WM): n-back task -> subjects saw 2 series of
stimuli that were synchronously presented at the rate of 3 s per
stimulus: 1) single letters & 2) individual spatial locations
marked on a screen => goal: deciding for each string whether
the current stimulus matched the one that was presented n
items back in the series  IMPORTANTLY: the value of n varied
from one block of trials to another, with adjustments made
continuously for each participant based on performance
 intention: tailoring the practice to the individual, so that it
always remained demanding

*transfer task (gf -> pre- & post-assessment was conducted): standardized fluid intelligence tests

RESULTS

-all 4 groups increased their performance on the WM task to a relatively comparably
-> this means: smallest improvement for 8d group & largest for 19d group

, -improvement on gf test was significant for control groups (probably due to practice effects) BUT this improvement
was significantly larger for the training groups -> meaning: training effect on WM task transferred to gf task

-interaction effect of number of training sessions & training condition was found
-> 17 & 19d training yielded significantly larger transfers to gf than 8d + transfer of 12d was smaller than 19d
=> indicates that the gain in fluid intelligence was responsive to the dosage of training

IMPORTANTLY: the gain in gf was independent from 1) initial differences in WMC or 2) initial differences in gf
=> the cognitive training proved to be useful for all participants

DISCUSSION

-proposed reason for occurrence of gf gain effect: WM task focused on executive processing (especially attentional
control) & involved binding processes (i.e. binding letter to spatial location) -> THUS: it required key aspects involved
in gf => HOWEVER: the gain in gf can’t be completely attributed to increases in WMC, because other factors
underlying gf might be enhanced by the WM training too (even though the measures weren’t sensitive to them)

4) Working Memory Training May Increase Working Memory Capacity but Not Fluid Intelligence

INTRODUCTION

-WM training is assumed to benefit fluid intelligence (gf) -> problem with these studies: simple span tasks/n-back
tasks were used => THEREFORE: they don’t reflect the same construct as the effects of training on complex span
tasks, which are generally used in training studies  NOTE: there’s even some evidence for complex span tasks &
n-back tasks (both meant to assess WMC) not assessing the same construct

-2 types of transfer:
1) near transfer = 2 tasks have formal similarity
2) far transfer = surface & structural features of the tasks appear to be different
-> goal of training studies: showcase far transfer (from WM to gf) => HOWEVER: for far transfer to happen, near
transfer must occur in the first place (WM training must improve WMC as a construct)  not proven by studies

PRESENT STUDY

-goal: determining whether WM training improves WMC (near transfer), and if so, whether such improvements
transfer to measures of fluid intelligence (far transfer) -> 3 conditions:
1) simple span (allowing comparison to earlier studies); 2) complex span; 3) control (visual-search training condition
-> has been shown to be unrelated to WMC)

-3 different levels of transfer were measured:
1) WMC improvement on tasks similar to our training
tasks but that required memory for different stimuli &
on tasks dissimilar from our training tasks but that
required memory for the same stimuli (both: near
transfer)
2) transfer effect to tasks dissimilar to our training
tasks but theorized to reflect WMC (moderate
transfer)
3) transfer effect of training on complex span tasks to
on a battery of Gf tasks (far transfer)

METHOD

-procedure: 55 subjects were randomly assigned to the
3 conditions & conducted a battery of pre- & post-tests
regarding near, moderate & far transfer effects, after
having engaged in 17-21 training sessions

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper timschfer. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €9,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 66184 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis
€9,99  21x  verkocht
  • (2)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd