I. Capacity
A. generally estimated to be virtually unlimitedII. Coding in LTMB. Landauer (1986)
1. previous quantified estimatesa. number of memories = number of synapses (1013) b. number of neural impulses transmitted in a lifetime = 1020
2. taking into account forgetting, still estimated to be 1 billion bits of info (109)!
A. acoustic, visual, & semanticB. but strongest evidence for semantic codes
1. false alarmsC. organization2. categorization
1. recall evidence
III. Duration
A. Bahrick et al. (1975) & classmatesIV. Forgetting in LTMB. Bahrick (1984) & Spanish
1. drop off in 3 yearsC. Conway et al. (1991) & cognitive psychology2. drop off again at 30-35 years out
3. evidence for permastore
1. correlated with grades!D. recall of spatial info at Ohio Wesleyan University (Bahrick, 1983)1. learning data
a. for street names: occurred at a steady rate over 36 months 2. retrieval datab. for buildings & landmarks: steep and within the first year
a. street names were forgotten quickly (after about 10 years) b. buildings & landmarks: after 46 years, 40% was still retained
A. Ebbinghaus: an early case study1. learned nonsense syllablesB. decaya. 830 hours, 6600 lists, 85,000 syllables!2. forgetting curvea. rapid forgetting that levels off3. savingsa. relearning was faster than learning on the first trialb. the better remembered, the easier to relearn
1. difficult to test, but probably occursC. paired-associates learning2. compare sleep vs. waking
1. pair two words together, use first as a cue to recall the second 2. two phenomena
V. retrieval from LTMa. proactive interference3. with interference, more targets become associated with a single cue1. old learning interferes with new learningb. retroactive interference1. new learning interferes with old learning
A. mnemonic devicesB. principles of retrieval
1. categorization2. encoding specificity (Tulving & Thomson, 1973)
a. paired-associate learning with either highly-related, weakly-related, or no cues 3. context effectsb. weakly-related cues can be effective for retrieval when present at encoding
a. Godden & Baddeley (1975)
2. underwater vs. on land
3. results support state dependent learning
1. odors2. music
3. rooms - psychological context
4. drugs
5. moods (but less reliable)
C. spacing effectc. affects recall rather than recognition1. better learning when study is spaced rather than massedD. cue overloada. encoding variability1. cues are most effective when they are unique & distinctive2. Linton’s (1982) "diary" study
a. difficulty in locating routine memories
VI. Levels of processing (Craik & Tulving, 1975)
A. the problem1. Crowder (1993) and recall of presidentsB. depth of processing defined2. shows a "serial position" effect in LTM
a. but, we can’t use STM to explain recencyb. distinctiveness of encoding
1. different kinds of analysis from sensory to semanticC. evidence2. memorability = analysis at a deeper (more meaningful) level
3. maintenance vs. elaborative rehearsal
1. encoding = retrieval (Craik & Tulving, 1975)D. concernsa. physical, acoustic, vs. semantic encoding tasks2. self-reference effect (Craik & Tulving, 1975)b. incidental vs. intentional learning
c. only type of processing predicted memory
1. mundane conclusion2. vague & untestable
3. circular definition
VII. Neurocognition & LTM
A. localized & distributed1. hippocampus, cortex, thalamus, amygdalaB. anterograde amnesia1. affects LTM, not WM/STMC. retrograde amnesia2. affects memory regardless of modality
3. spares memory for general knowledge
4. spares skilled performance
5. when a skilled is learned, it is learned as hyperspecific memory
1. all amnesics show some level of retrograde amnesia2. features
a. time span for memory loss can vary greatly
1. extensive memory loss for Korsakoff’s, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s & Huntington’s b. most recent memories are most likely to be lost2. temporally limited retrograde amnesia, with full or partial recovery, for head injured and ECT patients
c. spares information that was overlearned
d. spares skill learning
D. separate memory systems?