Two Contrasting Models of Memory

- Researchers have developed several models to describe how our memory works. In the
following section, we first discuss the multistore model. Then we examine the
levels-of-processing model and also consider an integrative model of working mem-
ory. Subsequently, we will explore some more conceptualizations of memory systems
and lastly get to know a connectionist model.

Atkinson and Shiffrin’s Multistore Model

There are several major models of memory (Carey, 2014; Foster, 2008; McAfoose & Baune,
2009; Murdock, 2003). In the mid-1960s, based on the data available at the time, researchers
proposed a model of memory distinguishing two structures of memory first proposed by William
James (1890/1970): primary memory, which holds temporary information currently in use, and
secondary memory, which holds information permanently or at least for a very long time
(Waugh & Norman, 1965). Three years later, Richard Atkinson and Richard Shiffrin (1968)
proposed an alternative model that conceptualized memory in terms of three memory stores:

● sensory store: capable of storing relatively limited amounts of information for very brief
periods
● short-term store: capable of storing information for somewhat longer periods but of
relatively limited capacity as well
● long-term store: capable of very large capacity and of storing information for very long
periods, perhaps even indefinitely (Richardson-Klavehn &
Bjork, 2003)

The model differentiates among structures for holding information, termed stores, and the
information stored in the structures, termed memory. Atkinson and Shiffrin were not suggesting
that the three stores are distinct physiological structures. l
 - The model emphasizes the passive storage areas in which memories are stored, but it
also alludes to some control processes that govern the transfer of information from one
store to another.

Sensory Store
- The sensory store (iconic store) is the initial repository of much information that
eventually enters the shorthand long-term stores. Strong (although not undisputed; see
Haber, 1983) evidence argues in favor of the existence of an iconic store.
- The iconic store is a discrete visual sensory register that holds information for very
short periods. Its name derives from the fact that information is stored in the form of
icons. These in turn are visual images that represent something. Icons usually resemble
whatever is being represented

Sperling Discovery
- The existence of the iconic store was first discussed in a doctoral dissertation by a
graduate student at Harvard University named George Sperling (1960).

- He addressed the question of how much information we can encode in a single, brief
glance at a set of stimuli.

- Sperling found that when participants were asked to report on what they saw, they
remembered only about four symbols.

- The procedure used by Brigden and in the first set of studies by Sperling is a
whole-report procedure. In this procedure, participants report every symbol they have
seen. Sperling then introduced a partial-report procedure. Here, participants need to
report only part of what they see.
- Sperling found a way to obtain a sample of his participants’ knowledge. He then
extrapolated from this sample to estimate their total knowledge. His logic was similar to
that of school examinations, which also are used as samples of an individual’s total
 knowledge of course material. Sperling presented symbols in three rows of four symbols
each.

- Using this partial-report procedure, Sperling found that participants had available roughly
9 of the 12 symbols if they were cued immediately before or immediately after the
appearance of the display.

- These data suggest that the iconic store can hold about nine items. They also suggest
that information in this store decays very rapidly.

.
 - Sperling's results indicate that information in iconic memory fades quickly, but we don’t
consciously notice this fading. This is partly because we rarely experience such brief
stimuli as in his experiments. More importantly, we can’t separate what we briefly hold in
iconic memory from what we see in our surroundings—our brain treats them as the
same.
- Sperling's partial-report method had limitations similar to the full-report procedure, as
participants still had to recall multiple symbols. This could lead to memory fading during
the report and potential output interference, where the act of reporting affects their ability
to accurately recall iconic memory.
Subsequent Refinement
- In subsequent work, participants were shown displays of two rows of eight randomly
chosen letters for a duration of 50 milliseconds (Averbach & Coriell, 1961). In this
investigation, a small mark appeared just above one of the positions where a letter had
appeared.

In this study, participants only reported one letter at a time, reducing output interference. When
the mark appeared right before or after the letters, they reported accurately about 75% of the
time, suggesting they held around 12 items in sensory memory. This implies that Sperling’s
estimate of iconic memory capacity might have been conservative, and it may hold as many as
12 items.

- A second experiment (Averbach & Coriell, 1961) revealed an additional important

characteristic of iconic memory: It can be erased. The erasable nature of iconic memory
 definitely makes our visual sensations more sensible. We would be in serious trouble if
everything we saw in our visual environment persisted for too long.
- The investigators found that when a stimulus was presented after a target letter in the
same position that the target letter had occupied, it could erase the visual icon (Averbach
& Coriell, 1961).
- This interference is called backward visual masking.
- Backward visual masking is mental erasure of a stimulus caused by the placement of
one stimulus where another one had appeared previously. If the mask stimulus is
presented in the same location as a letter and within 100 milliseconds of the
presentation of the letter, the mask is superimposed on the letter

Visual information first enters memory through an iconic store, holding it briefly. This information
is either transferred to another memory store or erased if new information overlaps it too quickly.
A similar process occurs with auditory information in echoic memory.

Short-Term Store
- It holds memories for a few seconds and occasionally up to a couple of minutes.

For example, can you remember the name of the researcher who discovered the iconic store?
What about the names of the researchers who subsequently refined this work? If you can recall
those names, you used some memory-control processes for doing so.

- According to the Atkinson–Shiffrin model, the short-term store does more than hold onto
a few items. It also has some control processes available that regulate the flow of
information to and from the long-term store, where we may hold information for longer
periods
- Typically, material remains in the short-term store for about 30 seconds, unless it is
rehearsed to retain it. Information is stored acoustically (by the way it sounds) rather
than visually (by the way it looks).

How many items of information can we hold in short-term memory at any one
time?

- In general, our immediate (short-term) memory capacity for a wide range of items
appears to be about seven items, plus or minus two (Miller, 1956). An item can be
something simple, such as a digit, or something more complex, such as a word. If we
chunk together a string of, say, 20 letters or numbers into 7 meaningful items, we can
remember them.

For example, most of us cannot hold in short-term memory this string of 21 numbers:
101001000100001000100. However, if we chunk this string of numbers into larger units, such
as 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 1,000, and 100, we probably will be able to reproduce the 21
numerals as 6 items (Miller, 1956).
 - Luck & Vogel's team investigated the capacity of the short-term store for visual
information using two visual displays presented in sequence.

- Bad-deley & Warrington and Shallice & Warrington have both highlighted the distinction
between short-term memory and long-term memory in patients with amnesia. Patients
with hippocampus damage struggle with storing new information or retrieving old
memories.

Long-Term Store
- We keep memories that stay with us over long periods, perhaps indefinitely. All of us rely
heavily on our long-term memory.
- Some theorists have suggested that the capacity of long-term memory is infinite (Brady
et al., 2008; Rose & Craik, 2012)
- According to Penfield that long-term memories might be permanent.
- The term permastore refers to the very long-term storage of information, such as
knowledge of a foreign language (Bahrick,1984a, 1984b; Bahrick et al., 1993) and of
mathematics (Bahrick & Hall, 1991)
- Some researchers have suggested that permastore is a separate memory system.
Others, such as Neisser (1999), have argued that one long-term memory system can
account for both. There is to date no resolution of the issue.

The Levels-of-Processing Model

- The levels-of-processing (LOP) framework is a radical departure from Atkinson and
Shiffrin’s multistore model of memory. The LOP framework suggests that memory does
not comprise three or even any specific number of separate stores, but rather it varies
along a continuous dimension in terms of depth of encoding (Craik & Lockhart, 1972,
2008).

- In other words, there are theoretically an infinite number of levels of processing (LOP) at
which items can be encoded through elaboration—or successively deeper
understanding of material to be learned. There are no distinct boundaries between one
level and the next.
- The levels-of-processing (LOP) framework applies to nonverbal stimuli and benefits
various groups, including individuals with schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia often
have memory issues due to limited semantic processing, but deeper processing can
improve their memory.

- The self-reference effect significantly boosts recall by having participants relate words to
themselves. When asked if words describe them, participants remember these words
well—even those they feel don't describe them.

- Many other researchers (e.g., Bower & Gilligan, 1979; Reeder, McCormick, & Esselman,
1987) have found similar self-reference effects. Objects can be better remembered, for
example, if they belong to the participant (Cunningham et al., 2008)

- the self-reference effect—a phenomenon where individuals tend to remember

information better when it's related to themselves.
-
- Some researchers see the self-reference effect as unique, while others think existing
memory models explain it. The Levels of Processing model suggests that self-referential
encoding improves recall by using our knowledge about ourselves. Self-schemas, or
organized memories of personal experiences, also help us remember. Sometimes,
strategies like rhymes can surprisingly improve memory, which shows a "retention
paradox."

- acoustic and semantic—and their impact on memory retrieval. In one condition,

participants encode information through rhyming (acoustic encoding) and retrieve it
using similar acoustic cues. In the other, they encode and retrieve information based on
meaning (semantic encoding), such as categorizing or contextualizing words. Research
by Fisher and Craik (1977) shows that semantic encoding generally leads to better
performance than acoustic encoding, suggesting that deeper, meaning-based
processing enhances memory retrieval. ​

- The effectiveness of memory retrieval depends significantly on two variables: the method
of encoding (such as phonological or semantic) and the method of retrieval. According to
Morris, Bransford, and Franks (1977), retrieval improves when the type of encoding
 matches the retrieval task. This finding suggests that a congruent relationship between
encoding and retrieval processes enhances memory performance.

Two kinds of Strategies for Elaborating the Encoding.

1. Within-item Elaboration
- It elaborates encoding of the particular item
(e.g., a word or other fact) in terms of its characteristics, including the various
levels of processing.
For example, imagine your dog Spot with his black fur, long snout, and floppy
ears. You form a strong image of Spot. That image will help you retrieve the word
dog

2. Between-item Elaboration
- It elaborates encoding by relating each item’s features (again, at various levels)
to the features of items already in memory.
For example, imagine your dog Spot chasing after a ball and putting it in his
mouth. The image of Spot putting the ball in his mouth helps you remember the
words dog and ball.