We accept

Comparison Of Two Selected Memory Models

This essay will look at the study of memory. It will compare two particular recollection models those being Atkinson and Shiffrin's multi store model (1968) and Craik and Lockhart's Levels of control model (1972). It will explain the idea behind each model and compare and measure the advantages and weaknesses of both. The essay will likewise incorporate circumstance studies and tests carried out in conjunction with the theories. It will look at how the models connect with different peoples talents of processing the information in a way that fits the theories. The article will also emphasize the anomalies that are not resolved by these models. It will conclude by assessing the validity of the models to every day storage area recall and rehearsal and show why the Levels of Processing model is a more applicable and practical application of memory space.

Atkinson and Shiffrin's Multi-Store model (1968) tries to illustrate how the ram system works. The model identifies how the memory space system is made up.

The model suggests that the memory comprises of a number of different stores, the three main stores are; the sensory memory store, the short term storage store and the long-term memory store. It's advocated that the sensory store comprises of five different stores one for every single of the senses. All senses are capable of and will ingest information. If the information that is taken in is paid attention to, then it can be moved on directly to the short term storage area store. If the information is rehearsed in the first stages it will move on to the long term memory space store where it would remain indefinitely. However if the information is not rehearsed it will decay and swiftly become lost. (Haralambos et al 2002).

Atkinson and Shiffrin imagine the short-term memory does not have the capacity to carry lots of information for extended periods of time. This therefore means recall from short term recollection is time limited. Recall from permanent storage on the other side can be recalled indefinitely unless the mind receives any destruction or stress.

A case study was carried out of a man (K. F) brain ruined consequently of an motorbike automobile accident. The subject's short-term memory was greatly impaired and he cannot remember all recent memories. However the review showed that his permanent memory, in connection with events occurring after his crash, was completely normal. (Shallice and Warrington 1970).

This implies that the theory of short and long term storage area stores being split is much more likely. However it also implies that information can be taken right to the long-term memory without going right through the other memory stores first.

The multi store model was very influential and became the grounding for further studies of research and resulted in more models being developed.

It provides evidence to distinguish between the short term recollection and permanent memory.

However the model works only one way which is structurally and there is no in between. When there is little or nothing in-between each store how are lost memories accounted for when they are rehearsed and really should stay in the long term ram indefinitely? This question remains unanswered by Atkinson and Shiffrin. Alternatively how do people remember unrehearsed information and frequently after long time periods? Because of the multi store model theory these memory should have decayed and therefore are no longer stored yet people are often in a position to recount these stories.

The model is not in depth and will not look at all prospects. The model will not describe why brain damage or injury would impact the memory. In addition, it does not sophisticated on the have an impact on for example whether it could just influence the safe-keeping of remembrances or the copy between stores and whether it could continue to have an effect on them over time.

The model was criticised by Craik and Lockhart in 1972 which led to the introduction of a new model of storage area called the Degrees of Handling model. They did not completely reject the thought of the separate storage area stores and accepted the living of short-term and long term memory space. Their model however centers more on encoding and the value of the procedure of information. (Haralambos et al, 2002)

This model suggests that information can be encoded and prepared at different levels. The levels at which the information is processed directly accounts to how it'll be appreciated and stored.

It is recommended that there are many levels of control from shallow to deep. The shallow levels are information that is prepared through visible stimuli and the deep levels are things that are prepared acoustically. The model reveals that the memory will last longer when gained through deeper control.

Craik and Lockhart carried out an experiment to verify their theory; the test used three independent groups of themes who each were given words in several forms. One group of topics were asked to process what superficially, for case what the word looked like. The next group were asked to process the words acoustically for example what each term rhymed with. Finally the third group was made to take into account the words by putting them in to sentences. The analysis entirely on recall the superficial process only recalled fifteen percent whereas the third group could recall seventy percent of the words. (Hayes 1984)

The strength of the model is based on the actual fact that before 1972 it was thought that the same stimulus would be refined just as by everyone on all occasions. The Degrees of processing model launched that storage area is affected by a person's attention and belief of an stimulus. (Gross et al 2000)

The model "changed the course of memory space research" and "led to hundreds of experiments most of which confirmed the superiority of deep semantic processing". (Haralambos et al 2002 pg 15)

Just as the multi store model was grounding for further research this model altered the way in which memory space research was done.

The model was criticised by Eysenck and Keane in 1995 because it fails to describe why deeper handling brings about better recall and it is difficult to establish or assess what 'depth' happens to be. (Eysenck M. W and Keane M. J 1995)

The experiment itself can be criticised as it only shows that information, profound or shallow, would be appreciated in the framework of the test used. For instance it does not ingest to accounts that if the themes were given similar information in an alternative situation (without the data these were being examined) the recall rate may be different.

The model depends on the value of senses and reveals clear advantages of certain senses over another such as acoustic over aesthetic. How then would a blind person's storage differ from a person with perfect eye-sight? The model would signify their storage would be worse. This might also apply to a person who is experiencing impaired. However there is absolutely no evidence to claim that a loss of sense can have a primary connection to memory function or recall.

It is recognized that different people have different learning styles and process information in different ways. For example some individuals find it easier to maintain information when they may have visually recognised it as well as others when they have obtained it acoustically. (Cottrell 2008)

This would contradict that you sense has a deeper control capacity than another which encoding and process would be wholly right down to the individual's potential to process certain information. Though it does ingest to account perception and attention this is not linked to which sense is stronger.

The two models although having some similarities change quiet significantly. The multi store model is situated mainly on the memory having separate stores and information being transferred between them. The level of handling model, although recommending that memory is encoded and refined, will not completely dismiss the thought of memory stores such as a long term ram and short term memory. The Degrees of Processing model has a deeper reason of the storage area process whereas the multi store model is too uniform and restrictive to take into account every other situations. The Levels of Processing model allows for individual variations when memory space is prepared and does not limit recall or rehearsal from the short-term memory. The degrees of processing model accounts for human differences too, it requires in to bank account that folks have different perceptions and focus on things. The model recognises the value of this and acknowledges the direct correlation between this and handling and storage space of recollection.

Therefore in conclusion the Levels of Control model is a much more powerful more relevant model to real life case studies. The model appears a lot deeper into the process and encoding of recollection than the multi store model. In general it recognises individual notion of information from differing people and permits unrehearsed information to be recalled after extended periods of time. It also points out why people bear in mind some information over other information with or without rehearsal, by centering about how it is used as opposed to how it is stored. (1515 words)

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment