COGNITIVE PROCESSING
Focus Central claim(ish) Study #1 Study #2
Model of memory Peterson and Peterson Landry and Bartling
Aim: Aim:
To investigate the duration of short-term memory, and provide To investigate if articulatory suppression wou
empirical evidence for the multi-store model. recall of a written list of phonologically dissi
serial recall. Testing working memory model
Method and procedure:
A lab experiment was conducted in which 24 participants Method and procedure:
(psychology students) had to recall trigrams (meaningless Sample was 34 undergraduate psychology stu
three-consonant syllables, e.g. TGH). Lab experiment
● Participants were asked to recall trigrams after intervals
of 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 seconds. During the pause, they participants randomly allocated into two grou
were asked to count backwards in 3's from a given ● control group- didn't perform articula
number. This interference task prevented rehearsal. experimenter showed participants a p
five seconds, instructed them to wait
Results: seconds, and then instructed them to
The longer the interval delay the less trigrams were recalled. correct order of the letters on the ans
Participants were able to recall 80% of trigrams after a 3 seconds accurately as possible
delay. However, after 18 seconds less than 10% of trigrams were ● experimental group- performed task
recalled correctly. articulatory suppression task: particip
instructions to repeatedly say the num
Link back: at a rate of two numbers per second f
Short-term memory has a limited duration when rehearsal is presentation of the list until the time
prevented. It is thought that this information is lost from answer sheet.
short-term memory from trace decay. The results of the study also Participants were tested individually
show short-term memory is different from long-term memory in 10 lists each consisting a series of 7 random
terms of duration. Thus supporting the multi-store model of didn't sound alike, each series presented one
memory.
Results:
The results showed that the scores from the e
group were much lower than the scores from
group. The mean per cent of accurate recall i
group was 76% compared to a mean of 45%
experimental group.
Link back:
In line with the Working Memory Model, art
suppression is preventing rehearsal in the pho
because of overload. This resulted in difficul
, memorising the letter strings for participants
experimental conditions whereas the particip
control condition did not experience such ove
In the study of Landry & Bartling, the contro
not have the articulatory suppression task onl
of recalling a list of letters. This meant that th
been able to process the sounds in their phon
long enough to complete the recall task. In co
experimental group had a second task of repe
1 and 2 which prevented the rehearsal of the
recalling the list of letters. The two tasks ove
phonological loop and prevented the working
processinging information from either task, t
memory. This aligns with the WMM theory b
presented the working memory as a multi-co
with sub-systems that processed different mo
information.
Model of memory Lab experiment - controlled Lab experiment (Landry and Bartling)
methodology environment, allows for reductionist
approach, causal relationship Aim:
established between the two variables. To investigate if articulatory suppression would influence recall
However, low ecological validity of a written list of phonologically dissimilar letters in serial recall.
Testing working memory model
Method and procedure:
Sample was 34 undergraduate psychology students
Lab experiment
How?
IV: presence of articulatory suppression task
DV: mean accurate recall of phonologically dissimilar words.
participants randomly allocated into two groups:
● control group- didn't perform articulatory task, the
experimenter showed participants a printed list for five
seconds, instructed them to wait for another five seconds,
and then instructed them to write the correct order of the
letters on the answer sheet as accurately as possible
● experimental group- performed task with articulatory
suppression task: participants received instructions to
repeatedly say the numbers '1' and '2' at a rate of two
numbers per second from the time of presentation of the
list until the time they filled the answer sheet.
Participants were tested individually (independent measures
design)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller teahsmith. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
