Part A: Compare and contrast two theories of memory

Working Memory and the Multi-Store Model are two theories of memory, both showcasing similarities and differences between them (Jones. S . A., 2021). Both models describe memory to interact and transfer data through various processes expressing memory as interconnected information stores. However, these memory models differ a great deal concerning the functioning of short term memory.
Firstly, both the Working Memory model and the Multi-Store model are theoretical constructs that attempt to explain human cognition including memory. The Multi-Store model was developed by Atkins and Shiffrin (1968) and is a structural model that acknowledges three stores: sensory memory, short-term memory and long-term memory (Manningachali & V. M, 2019). Similarly, the Working Memory model, supported by Baddley and Hitch (1974), follows the principles of the same stores. Both models demonstrate the use of storing, encoding and retrieving information throughout their representation of the memory systems. Although both models have varied values, they both highlight similar features. The concept of rehearsal is represented within the Multi-Store model as moving information from short-term memory to long-term memory (Rundus, 1980), whilst being represented as part of the phonological loop within the Working Memory model (Awh et. al., 1998). The concept of attention is represented within the sensory memory for the Multi-Store model and through the central executive for the Working Memory model. Although both are represented differently within the two models, both incorporate the idea of memory as an active process. (Fisk & Schneider, 1984)
Both models depict long-term memory as an unlimited process from which information can be retrieved. It is within the long-term memory that information in all modalities is stored. Information in the long-term memory is diverse and wide-ranging as well as encoded semantically to allow for improved retrieval. The long-term memory store is a dynamic system, in both models, as the store is consistently revising and modifying the information as new information is presented. The Working Memory model and the Multi-Store model describe long-term memory as the final destination of memory, creating a conclusion for each memory model. Within both models, long-term memory interacts bidirectionally with short-term memory, during retrieval of information to allow for the information to be comprehended with regard to prior knowledge. (Joiner & Smith, 2008) (Kane & Engle, 2000)
However, as previously stated, the two models do have differences, particularly in the way they represent the sequences of events within memory processing. The Multi-Store model follows a linear sequence, where the information is passed through different stores to finally arrive at the long-term memory. Within the first store of sensory memory, information will enter if it is detected by sense organs. If this information is attended to it will enter the short-term memory where, with rehearsal, the information will be transferred to the long-term memory (Jones. S. A., 2021). If maintenance rehearsal does not occur,  information is forgotten and lost from short-term memory, due to sensory information decaying rapidly within this model. It is within this model that short-term memory is described as a simple unitary store, where information will stay within the short-term memory, as a temporary stage, for 30 seconds. It is here that 7 +/- 2 items can be stored before either being displaced or rehearsed into the long-term memory (Baddeley, 1992). 
Alternatively, the Working Memory model describes short-term memory as a complex and multi-component store, unlike the Multi-Store models of being unitary. The Working Memory model showcases the short-term memory store and the long-term memory store to interact bi-directionally to function effectively. Furthermore, within this memory model, short-term memory consists of the central executive, which coordinates activity within the short-term memory. The central executive is responsible for attention and manipulating information consciously, as it monitors and controls sub-systems, known as the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad (Baddeley, 1992). Within the phonological store, 1.5-2 seconds worth of speech-based material is stored that, when rehearsed through maintenance, is then converted to long-term memory in order to prevent a loss of material (Jones. D., 2004). The visuospatial sketchpad holds visual information that is encoded in raw form. The memory store is used to manipulate the mental images, whilst being supported by the episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2000), which shows reflexivity of this model, as well as holding and coordinating information from the 3 stores.
Overall, the Working Memory model shows that each sub-system has a role that contributes towards short-term memory as a whole, whereas the Multi-Store model showcases it to be a single unitary system. This demonstrates the differences between the two memory models. Despite the differences, there are still similarities and when the two models are used in conjunction with one another, our understanding of the complexity of memory is greatly increased, especially as the fundamental concepts are strongly established throughout both models.




References:
Awh, E., Jonides, J., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (1998). Rehearsal in Spatial Working Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(No. 3), 780-790. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.178.1691&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Baddeley, A. (1992, January 31). Working Memory. Science, 255(New Series), 556-559. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2876819 

Fisk, A. D., & Schneider, W. (1984, April). Memory as a Function of Attention, Level of Processing, and Automatization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(No. 2), 1-17. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=384b3bcf-ed1c-4f99-9095-bac6e6201b75%40sdc-v-sessmgr03

Joiner, W. M., & Smith, M. A. (2008, November). Long-Term Retention Explained by a Model of Short-Term Learning in the Adaptive Control of Reaching. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100(No. 5), 2948-2955. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90706.2008

Jones, D. M., Macken, W. J., & Nicholls, A. P. (2004, June). The Phonological Store of Working Memory: Is It Phonological and Is It a Store? Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 30(No. 3), 656-674. file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/200420The20phonological20store20of20working20memory20Jones....pdf

Jones. S. A. (2021) Memory [Lecture to BSc Applied Psychology Level 4]. Course: Introduction to Biological and Cognitive Psychology (ECAP4002) (uwtsd.ac.uk) 

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-Memory Capacity, Proactive Interference, and Divided Attention: Limits on Long-Term Memory Retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(No. 2), 336-358. 10.10371/0278-7393.26.2.336

Manningachali, A. G., & V. M, D. V. (2019, December 21). Google Effect and Long Term Memory: A Study on the Perception of Youth in Kerala. Library Philosophy and Practice, 3797(Winter), 2-3. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3797/ 

Rundus, D. (1980). Maintenance rehearsal and long-term recency. Memory & Cognition, 8(3), 226-230. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03197610.pdf

























Part B: Outline at least one theory of attention and how we perceive objects around us 

 Attention is the concentration of mental activity that allows individuals to assimilate the extensive information available through the use of memory and the senses (Ward, 2004; as cited by Jones, 2021 a). It is through attention that the idea of perception is formed, in which the process of becoming aware of our surroundings, objects in particular, is showcased. It is through this process that the cognitive system establishes an in-depth representation of our surroundings, in a coordinated manner (APA Dictionary of Psychology). In order to appropriately explain attention and perception a wide variety of theories have been created including; Treisman’s attenuation model as a theory of attention as well as Gibson’s ‘Bottom-up approach’ and Greggory’s ‘Top-down approach’ both theories for perception. It is through these theories that we can evaluate how we perceive objects within our surroundings.
Firstly, Treisman’s attenuation model, influenced by Broadbent’s (1958) Filter Model, follows the principle that attenuated messages are always passed on.  As well as this the theory states that the attenuated messages are processed for meaning when it does exceed a particular threshold that is determined by context, priming as well as subjective importance (Jones, 2021 a). The attenuation model follows the same principles of Broadbent’s bottleneck filter, however, weakens unattended material instead of eliminating it. Information within this model follows the three components, from the study of attention, including; alertness, selectivity and processing capacity (Posner & Boies, 1971).  Through these components, information is pushed into the sensory store in the form of input before being filtered, with the unattended information being weakened and diminished but still passed on to the hierarchy of analysers. The information is then processed to reach the working memory where, unlike Broadbent’s theory, no information is lost with even the unattended messages being understood. 
One piece of support for this theory is that of the ‘Cocktail party phenomenon’ in which the idea of participants hearing their name being spoken by another individual whilst already paying attention to an alternative topic was put forward, under the principle that one can attend to only one voice in a crowd at any given time. This was reinforced when Moray (1959) found that some participants were able to detect their name when it was presented in an unattended auditory channel. The study into the dichotic listening procedure (Cherry, 1953; as cited by Jones 2021 a) showcased how individuals were able to selectively pay attention to the sound being played into one ear, and accurately ignore the alternative sound. However, once asked to recall the sound originally ignored many of the participants were unable to do so (Conway et.al., 2001). This highlights that attention can be selective however, in the case of distractions attention cannot be appropriately used. The idea of attention being a key part of perceiving objects is one further supported by Treisman (1993: as cited by Styles, 1997). It is here that Treisman put forward the idea of object-based selection being due to attention initially setting up a file, to initiate the attention. However, once this attention has been set up the object is able to maintain attention on the location it occupies, allowing for the steps of perception to begin.
The idea of perception, to follow on from maintaining attention for an object, is supported by both Gibson (1966) and Greggory (1970). As humans we perceive through the use of our senses, using visual and auditory skills as well as taste, smell and touch but also through equilibrioception, thermoception and nocioception (Jones, 2021 b). By using the senses as well as following principles of perception, how we perceive our environments can become much clearer. Theories found from Gestalt psychology showcase several Laws of association in relation to perception. These include Law of proximity, Law of similarity, Law of closure, Law of symmetry, Law of continuity and Law of figure-ground segregation. These Laws when looked at in conjunction with one another, assist in describing the organising principles that guide perceptual principles. Within different environments we can gain depth perception using binocular, information from both eyes,  and monocular, information from only one eye, cues in order to appropriately perceive three-dimensional objects. The idea of Feature Integration Theory (Treisman, 1980; as cited by Perceiving Objects) further suggests that there are two stages of perception. The preattentive stage is where several basic features of an object would be detected. It is within the following stage of the focussed attention stage where the features from the first stage are combined together before being compared with the database of different objects in the memory, with the purpose of recognition, allowing for the full perception of the object (Treisman, 1982).
The ‘Bottom-down processing’, put forward by Gibson, is a direct theory that takes sensory information and then assembles and integrates it, very much following the principles of monocular cues. Within this approach, there are the principles of analysing visual information from the bottom basic sensory inputs before working up to the top, where the more in-depth cognitive levels of the brain are. Within this theory, there is also an understanding of perception arising from sensory data that is provided by optical array, where sensory data is seen as rich enough to permit direct perception without the need for a higher level of cognitive processing. This reinforces why this theory follows the principles of the bottom-up approach. A study conducted by Gibson showcased that in environments there are a variety of invariants that are claimed to be important direct cues to depth. Examples of these include texture and linear perspective in which the structure and texture gradients provide a great deal of information about the environment and the objects within it. By acknowledging and using this information about the environment and the object within it, we can then begin to successfully perceive objects, via observing them.
The ‘Top-down processing’, put forward by Greggory, uses models, ideas and expectations to interpret sensory information. This theory follows the principles that perceptions of the world, including objects, are hypotheses that are based on past experiences and any information that we have stored. There is a further understanding of perception involving that of beyond sensory data in order to analyse information at a higher cognitive level of processing. One study to support this theory is that of Greggory himself, in which it was claimed that perception allows for behaviour to be generally appropriate to non-sensed object characteristics, with the example of an open door having the appearance of a rectangle however still being identified as a door. It was from this idea that it was suggested that in order to correctly identify the door we must be using more than just sensory inputs. This showcases that perception is indirect, as it involves going beyond the sensory data in order to analyse information at the top-down cognitive level of processing (Jones, 2021 b). 
In closing, to enable us to appropriately acknowledge and perceive an object, attention and perception both must be used in conjunction with one another. Both Gibson and Greggory have different approaches to perception, however, both theories offer quality explanations that explain a great deal about how we perceive things on the daily. The work of Treisman, originally on attention, which later progressed to perception, reinforces this connection. In order to perceive an object accurately, you must first focus attention on this object as well as having witnessed and processed similar objects, in order to appropriately recognise and perceive them. 



  

References:
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 331-335. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03196169.pdf 

Jones. S. A. (2021 a) Attention [Lecture to BSc Applied Psychology Level 4]. Lecture 3 Attention (uwtsd.ac.uk)

Jones. S. A. (2021 b) Perception [Lecture to BSc Applied Psychology Level 4]. Slide 1 (uwtsd.ac.uk)

Perceiving Objects. (n.d.). UCI Donald Bren School of Information & Computer Science. https://www.ics.uci.edu/~majumder/vispercep/chap4notes.pdf 

perception – APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 13, 2021, from https://dictionary.apa.org/perception

Styles, E. A. (1997). The Psychology of Attention. Psychology Press. 10.1.1.830.8263

THEORIES OF PERCEPTION. (n.d.). PDF4PRO. Retrieved November 9, 2021, from https://mskelly.weebly.com/uploads/3/5/3/4/353469/theories_of_perception.pdf

Treisman, A. (1982). Perceptual Grouping and Attention in Visual Search for Features and for Objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(No. 2), 194-214. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.211.4217&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

Treisman, A., & Patterson, R. (1984). Emergent Features, Attention, and Object Perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(No. 1), 12-31. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=c868df58-d0ce-41c1-a5fc-83eb4719bc9b%40sdc-v-sessmgr03