Wikipedia:School and university projects/Psyc3330 w10/Group3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:51, 12 March 2010

Latest revision as of 18:12, 13 October 2018

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

'''Decay theory''' proposes that [[memory]] fades due to the mere passage of time. [[Information]] is therefore less available for later retrieval as time passes and memory, as well as memory strength, wears away.<ref name="emtwo"> Berman, M.G. (2009) In Search of Decay in Verbal Short Term Memory [Electronic Version]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), pp. 317-333. Retrieved March 6, 2010</ref> When we [[learn]] something new, a [[neurochemical]] “memory trace” is created. However, over time this trace slowly disintegrates. Actively [[memory rehearsal|rehearsing]] information is believed to be a major factor counteracting this temporal decline.<ref name="emfive">Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2008). Forgetting in immediate serial recall: decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? [Electronic version]. Psychology review, 115(3), pp. 544-576. Retrieved March 6, 2010.</ref> It is widely believed that [[neurons]] die off gradually as we age, yet some older memories can be stronger than most recent memories. Thus, decay theory mostly affects the [[short-term memory]] system, meaning that older memories (in [[long-term memory]]) are often more resistant to shocks or physical attacks on the [[brain]]. It is also thought that the passage of time alone cannot cause [[forgetting]], and that Decay Theory must also take into account some processes that occur as more time passes.<ref name="emtwo" />

==History==

Line 7:

==Inconsistencies==

[[Image:decaycorrect.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Graph of recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if Decay Theory accounts for forgetting.|Recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if ''[[Decaydecay Theory]]''theory accounts for forgetting.]]

[[Image:interferencecorrect.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Graph of recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if Interference Theory accounts for forgetting.|Recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if ''[[interference theory]]'' accounts for forgetting.]]

Researchers disagree about whether memories fade as a function of the mere passage of time (as in decay theory) or as a function of interfering succeeding events (as in [[interference theory]])<ref name="emone">Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2009). No evidence for temporal decay in working memory [Electronic version]. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 35(6), pp. 1545-1551. Retrieved March 4, 2010.</ref>. Often, evidence tends to favour interference related decay over temporal decay <ref name="emtwo" />, yet this varies depending on the specific memory system taken into account.