Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology

This article will discourse research and grounds in support of a unitary memory shop and in support of a dichotomous approach. A unitary shop connotes that a single system for short-term and long-term memory bes and that they happen along a continuum. They are able to interact and happen within each other, for example, long-term learning can happen within short-term memory tasks. A dichotomous attack positions short-term and long-term memory supplies as being separate components. They are independent of each other and, although they are able to share information, for example, short-term memories are transferred to long-term memory, they make not happen across a continuum. Studies by Chester A. Arthur Melton (1963), Donald Hebb (1961, cited in Melton, A. 1963) and Publius Ovidius Naso Tzeng (1973), described in this article, supply support in favor of the unitary memory store. Experimental grounds from Glanzer and Cunitz (1966, cited in Baddeley, 1997) and Glanzer (1972, cited in Baddeley, 1997) support the attack to divide supplies of memory. Studies by Milner (1966, cited in Baddeley, 1997) and Shallice and Warrington (1970) of patients with memory loss owed to encephalon harm have got provided information that throws with the suggestion that separate supplies exist.

Short-term memory (STM) is a shop that holds a limited amount of information for a limited amount of time, usually a few seconds. The short-term memory can hive away information that have recently been provided, information that have been retrieved from long-term memory or information that have been recently processed. Long-term memory (LTM) supplies information that have meaning and can throw it for any amount of time, from 30 secs to decades. Rehearsal can shift information from the short-term to long-term memory store, as long as dry run happens before the information have been forgotten.

Many intervention theorists, such as as Chester A. Arthur Melton (1963) claim that short-term memory and long-term memory are portion of a single continuum, or unitary store. Intervention is the procedure of a memory follow being disrupted by another and therefore forgetting or, maybe just alterations, of the disrupted memory follow happens (Baddeley, A. 1997). Melton (1963) used the Peterson undertaking devised by Peterson and Peterson (1859, cited in Melton, A. 1963) to demo that when an physical object is presented a figure of times, i.e. dry run is possible, the degree of keeping is increased. Donald Hebb (1961, cited in Melton, A. 1963) had devised a presentation that Melton integrated into his ain survey to demo grounds of long-term learning in STM. In Hebb's study, participants were given figure sequences, just above the short-term memory span, and asked to immediately remember them. Every 3rd sequence was a perennial sequence, unknown to the participant.

It was establish that the degree of recollection of this sequence increased with the figure of trials, showing long-term learning. Melton (1963) used 80 tests, during which the perennial 9-digit sequence would be intervened by 3, 4, 5 or 8 sequences. His determinations were that as repeat increased so did the mean value figure of figures right in recall. These were used to back up Hebb's determinations and to add support to the theory of a continuum of memory stores. Because repeat lessenings as the figure of intervening Numbers increases, retroactive intervention is increased in the intervening gap. Retroactive intervention happens when a memory is disrupted owed to learning more than information during a keeping period. Up until this clip period of time, intervention theory had been used to explicate forgetting in LTM. Melton argued that the ability to utilize intervention theory to explicate reduced keeping in short-term memory was grounds that long-term memory and short-term memory should be focussed on as a unitary, uninterrupted store. However, if more than than one implicit in system of memory is identified with peculiar tasks, the supplies are not necessarily unitary. If the first 10 letters of the alphabet are recalled correctly, as would be expected, short-term capacity have not suddenly increased as recollection would be owed to former long-term knowledge of the alphabet.

Ovid Tzeng (1973) studied the consequence of recentness in delayed free recall. Four listings of 10 words were used to prove free recall. In the 1st condition, the 'initial recall' group, the listing was given, the participant counted backwards from 20 then wrote the words from the listing in any order. In status 2, the 'final recall' group, the participants counted back from 20 after each word was given then recalled the words at the end of the list. The recentness consequence was establish in both groups. When the series place of the words was compared with the per centum recollection score, the curved shapes for both groupings gave almost indistinguishable trends. Initial recollection should have got had a higher recentness consequence as words should still be available in short-term memory and not transferred to LTM. Counting backwards in the concluding recollection grouping should have got transferred the words to long-term memory and produced small recency. These curved shapes could be used to reason that 'the recentness effects…could be attributed to the same long-term processes' (Tzeng, 1973). Hence, short-term memory and long-term memory can be viewed as a unitary store.

It have since been argued that implicit in systems bring forth the difference in consequences in different public presentation tasks. Evelyn Waugh and Jessye Norman (1965, cited in Baddeley, A. 1997) used the term primary election memory and secondary memory to mention to short-term and long-term memory systems, respectively. Primary and secondary memories are different to short-term memory and long-term memory because they mention to the storage of information, rather than the supplies themselves that clasp the information.

Melton's survey have got provided of import grounds into a unitary memory store, but many surveys since have provided grounds for separate memory stores. Glanzer and Cunitz (1966, cited in Baddeley, 1997) showed, using free recall, that points from the beginning and end of a listing are recalled better than those in the middle. This is called the primacy-recency consequence and can be simply explained by the first words being transferred to the long-term memory and easily retrieved from there during recall. The end words are still available from the short-term memory and so are recalled easily. When the listing is followed by a little filled delay, the recentness consequence cannot be seen. This is because the filled hold have resulted in words in short-term storage being not able to be rehearsed. They cannot be transferred to long-term memory and so they decay. Glanzer (1972, cited in Baddeley, 1997) showed that recentness consequence is unaffected by many variables including acquaintance and presentation charge per unit of the word, the age of the participant or the ability to execute other undertakings at the same time. These variables have got instead been shown to impact primacy effect.

Some of the strongest grounds in support of separate memory supplies come ups from memory loss patients. Milner (1966, cited in Baddeley, 1997) studied a patient called H.M World Health Organization had suffered encephalon harm after surgery to handle epilepsy. H.M could retrieve events from early on in his life, but he had terrible troubles with recent memories and new information. He was able to retrieve events and experience from early life, such as as as how to cut down a lawn, but could not larn in progress experience or retrieve recent events, such as where he left the lawnmower. Although he was severely impaired in learning new information, his short-term memory span was intact. This proposes a combination of a faulty secondary shop and a normal primary store. If memory was unitary, both supplies would be faulty and there would not be a difference between the long-term memory memories of early life and in progress experience. It have been suggested that a seemingly normal short-term memory and faulty long-term memory may be a consequence of short-term memory diagnostic diagnostic tests being easier than long-term memory tests. Therefore, the short-term memory would be less disrupted than LTM.

Shallice and Warrington (1970) studied a patient, K.F., suffering with lesions on his brain. The Peterson task, free recollection and a proactive intervention diagnostic test were used to measure short-term capacity and establish this was greatly reduced. The free recollection showed primacy consequence but no recentness effect. Probe acknowledgment and lacking scan establish that retrieval failure was not the cause of this. K.F.'s public presentation on long-term memory related undertakings showed normal LTM. The suggestion that easiness of short-term memory and long-term memory undertakings impacts the consequences in amnesiac patients cannot business relationship for these results, as the short-term memory undertakings were harder for K.F. than H.M. Type A double-dissociation is presented between these consequences and H.M.'s results. Contrasting disagreements in short-term memory and long-term memory on public presentation undertakings impart strong grounds in support of two separate memory systems.

During the 1960's and 1970's much research was conducted to make up one's mind whether memory bes along a continuum or as two separate stores. Although Melton and Tzeng provided grounds in support for a unitary system that was widely accepted by intervention theoreticians at the time, it have since been assumed that there are two separate stores. Amnesic patients have got provided outstanding supportive grounds that a duplex house house bes and, owed to a bigger measure and quality of support for this theory, the thought of a duplex is now largely accepted as the right attack to memory stores.

Facilitated Communication - Possibility of Third Party Influence

The article I read was entitled: "Facilitated Communication Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies." (Mostert, 2001) This review examined FC studies that were published since previous reviews by Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz (1995). The results of the review support and confirm the conclusions reached by previous reviewers of empirical FMC literature. Studies using tight control procedures did not support FC.

Studies providing less stringent control offered mixed results. The only two studies that purported to have positive results, Cardinal et al. and Weiss et al. (as cited by Mostert, 2001) were challenged. The review felt positive results were probably due to methodological controls. Cardinal et al. (as cited by Mostert 2001) claimed that: (a) "under controlled conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass accurate information," and (b) "measurement of facilitated communication under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive practice of test protocol." Cardinal's protocol (as cited by Mostert) was as follows:

The recorder asked the facilitator to come into the room.

The student was shown a word on a flash card by a "recorder"

The facilitator said the letters aloud as the student typed them and the

recorder wrote those letters on the data sheet exactly as said.

The student was always given the same positive comment regardless of a

correct or incorrect response; the facilitator left the room and the

recorder repeated the process.

There were 43 subjects ranging from ages 11 to 22, exhibiting a range of disabling conditions such as autism, mental retardation, cerebral palsy and developmental delays. All were identified as having severe communication disorders. Results showed that 75% of the students were able to pass information to a "blind" facilitator to a greater degree than they were able to without FC. Fifty-three percent were able to pass messages in at least 2 out of 5 trials by the end of six weeks.

Mostert felt the study had methodological problems. Possible errors in data collection, degree of possible guessing, inconsistency of researcher presence, prior knowledge, and preconceived assumptions that may have led to a desired study effect were mentioned as problems that could have affected outcomes.

It is important to note that the 27 recorders Cardinal used were teachers and other school personnel who were involved with the subjects in similar educational activities prior to the study. Here is a list of main points:

Like others, Mostert " did not "comprehend" — the possibility of "recorder" influence.

The recorder knew the words that were to be typed.

The recorders had previous relationships with the students as teachers and paraprofessionals.

The students had been using FC for sometime. (Cardinal, 95)

The teachers and paraprofessionals provided a supportive environment. I hypothesize, the "recorders" may have been sending out the image telepathically. They may have also sub-vocalized.

Weiss et al., (as cited by Mostert, 2001) studied a single subject. Study participants were the subject, an experienced "naive" facilitator and Weiss as the experimenter. With the naive facilitator absent, a short story was read to the subject by the experimenter. While the facilitator was out of the room, the experimenter asked the subject questions about the story. The subject answered with the experimenter acting as the facilitator. When the naive facilitator returned, he asked the subject the same questions about the story. Accurate responses were received on trials 1 and 3 but not on trial 2. Trials 1 and 3 occurred in the classroom and trial 2 occurred in the home. Based on the result, Weiss et al. made two claims: (a) Story information elicited by the questions emanated from the subject, not the facilitator, and (b) The subject was unexpectedly able to use inferential and abstract reasoning.

Mostert contends that this also had a problematic methodological approach. Concerns included: 1} possible experimenter influence, 2} the consolidation phase matched the test phase, 3} the experimenters did not explain why in trial 2, the questions asked of the subject were markedly different from the experimenter versus the naive facilitator, 4) a referee was only present for the third trial, and 5) inferential material passed was predictable to the story.

Based on my experiences, I further hypothesis that it is possible the subject was receiving the information from "the experimenter," who was privy to the questions. Answers may have been transferred via "mental prompts." This also helps to explain the unexplained failure in trial 2, when the questions asked of the subject were markedly from the experimenter versus the facilitator.

Mostert does not address the obvious. He suggests the possibility of physical cueing, but steers clear of the communicative relationship that occurs between sender and receiver. Based on years of personal experience, I postulate that it is possible that neither Cardinal's subjects or Weiss's subject would have achieved positive results if the third party influence were not there. I suggest the influence is not necessarily coming from the person who is providing physical support.

Mary Ann Harrington

Reference:

Cardinal D. N. (1995) Presentation of results of a validation study regarding facilitated communication . January 30, 1995 Chapman University, Orange, CA.

Mostert, M.P.(2001) Facilitated Communication since 1995: A Review of Published Studies Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313.

since 1995: A Review of Published Studies Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287-313.