The Unitary and Duplex Model of Memory - Essay Example

(College) The Unitary vs. the Duplex Model of Memory Through models we can understand and interpret all that lies within our perception. For instance children use models such as blocks and modeling clay and come up with the perception of the world around them. We can refer to memory as storage of information, stimuli as well as the signals that we receive from the five human senses. It is simply a series of stores; talking of sensory memory, short term memory and long term memory. Now the whole idea of memory brings us to the subject of cognitive psychology. To be more concise, in this study we are mainly going to dwell on unitary versus duplex model of memory. In a list of items or words presented in a progressively even manner, one is most likely to remember the last 2 to 5 items from the list. This can be attributed to Sederberg et al (2008) which speaks of the Law of Recency. According to this law, memories of recent past are reflected back in the mind more easily than the memories of distant past. Now let us assume the case of serial learning task in which a group of subjects is presents 25 words one at a time with about three seconds between each word. In this case the pattern of results expected based on correct responses would be that the learner can probably just recall the last few words as affirmed by Sederberg et al (2008). Sederberg et al (2008) goes ahead to reveal that this probability of results works best with short-term store (STS). Supposing no additional items can be retrieved from STS, the recall proceeds to retrieve more information from the long-term store (LTS). In free call, the order of recall does reflect the order in which things come in mind. Due to this, there is a presumable reflection of the organization of memory for the items in list which happens as a result of recall transition from one item to another (Sederberg et al 2008). Therefore, in examining effect of temporal organization of free recall transition list, measurement of conditional response probability as a lag (lag-CRP) function is done. Since the learner recalled an item from serial position i, probability of the next item recalled as indicated by the lag-CRP emerges from position i+lag (Sederberg et al 2008). A learning theorist who was an advocate of unitary model of memory will deny that short-term memory and long-term memory are separate systems. According to such an advocate, short term memories entail temporary activations of long term representations (Jonides et al 2008). This is there for an implication that the long term memory is simply an extension of the short term memory hence bringing about the unitary aspect. Jonides et al (2008) under the architecture of unitary store models further reveals that such long-term and short-term unitary models of memory possess a long history in the cognitive psychology together with early theoretical unification achieved via the theory of interference. Generally, to the learning theorist of unitary model the results would simply appear to them as continuous event of the learner attempting to reveal correct answers. To the advocate the response is regardless of STS or LTS given that to them the whole process appears as one continuous process (Jonides et al 2008). Duplex model of memory involves dividing of memory into two components; a limited capacity which is the short-term memory store (STM) and a large capacity which is the long-term memory store (LTM) (Mewaldt et al 1983). Based on this argument, an advocate of the duplex model would view the results as relevant and suitable for the test. The advocate would go further to explain some of the effects that occur when it comes to the transfer of information from the short term to the long term memory and stipulated by Mewaldt et al (1983). In their research Mewaldt et al reveal experimental results which affirm that diazepam (Valium) selectively impedes the transfer process. It does this by reducing the recall in the primacy portion belonging to serial position function but does not produce performance difference in recency component. Generally, an advocate in the duplex model of memory would conclude that the delay between response and recall reduce retention of recency items which are the STM items with little influence on the LTM items. On the other hand, a slow in response rate significantly Improves LTM performance without change in retention of recency items (Mewaldt et al 1983). Klein et al (2005) talks of an experiment to determine whether performances in serial learning and in multi-trial free recall could be tied to recall instructions or to the differences in the presentation order of study list across trials. There is a difference of recall instruction in both multi-trial free and serial recall tasks as well as in presentation order across trials. In the experiment, comparisons of the paradigms was done with intermediate condition: free recall with a presentation order that is constant. Based on the drawn conclusions from the experiment, differences between serial and free recall were not due to presentation order but only due to recall instructions. An advocate of free recall model would interpret the results are appropriate. According to them the participant is to recall in a collective manner hence no consideration of presentation order. A serial recall advocate would argue that the method of presentation distinguishes items to be recalled by the participant. This is because the advocate might be so, much concerned with the short term memory which mainly suggests that information presented last are the ones most likely to be remembered and passed to long term memory. In Ganzers experiment, participants in a laboratory heard a list of items and had to recall their names in any given order (Parkin 1993). The results of the experiment involved participants recalling items at the beginning of the list which is the primacy effect and those ate the end of the list which is the recency effect producing a broad U shaped curve. Upon being given filler tasks the primacy level dissipated while recency got retained. Based on Peterson task we could say the recency effect way as a result of active words in the STM which is the working memory. The rehearsal effect must have been caused by transfer of information in LTM. From this experiment Petersons task of information being forgotten as more is added remains valid. Objections made by unitary theorists to duplex theorists is answered by the experiment in a way that justifies the idea that recall is independent of the order in which the information is presented. The memory will always tend to recall recently fed information in the active short term memory. Works Cited Sederberg, B. P., Howard, W. M., & Kahana, J. M., A context-based theory of recency and contiguity in free recall. HHS Public Access. (2008). DOI.10.1037/a0013396. 115(4). 893-912 [Print]. Jonides, J., Lewis, L., R., Nee, E., D., Lustig, A., C., Berman, G., M., & Moore, S., K., The Mind and Brain of Short-Term Memory. HHS Public Access.(2008) DOI.10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093615.193-224. [Print]. Mewaldt, P., S., Hinrichs, V., J., & Ghoneim, M., M., Diazepum and Memory: Support for a Duplex Model of Memory. Memory & Cognition. (1993). 11(6). 557-564. [Print]. Parkin, J., A., Memory: Phenomena, Experiment and Theory. Boston: Psychology Press. (1993) [Print]. Klein, A., K., Addis, M., K., & Kahana, J., M., A comparative analysis of serial and free recall. Memory & Cognition. (2005). 33(5). 833-839 [Print]. Read More