1

Experiment No: 1

Name of the Experiment: Short-Term Memory (STM)

Aim/Problem: This experiment aims to study the capacity of the short-term memory
of participants for numerical units when recalled serially and backwards.

Introduction:

Short-term memory (STM), often referred to as working memory, is a cognitive system

that plays a pivotal role in our daily lives. It serves as a temporary storage facility for
information that we are currently processing or attending to. This dynamic system
enables us to hold and manipulate information in the immediate present, facilitating
tasks such as language comprehension, problem-solving, and decision-making.

One of the defining characteristics of STM is its limited capacity. Early research, such
as Miller's (1956) classic study, suggested that humans can typically hold around 7
items (plus or minus 2) in STM at a time. However, subsequent research has shown that
this capacity can be influenced by various factors, including chunking and rehearsal
strategies. Chunking involves grouping information into meaningful units, effectively
increasing the amount of information that can be held in STM. Rehearsal, the mental
repetition of information, helps to maintain information in STM and facilitates its
transfer to long-term memory.

In addition to its limited capacity, STM is also characterized by its short duration.
Information in STM decays rapidly if not actively rehearsed or transferred to long-term
memory. This temporal constraint highlights the importance of active maintenance in
STM. By constantly rehearsing information, we can prevent it from fading away and
ensure its availability for further processing.

The multi-component model of STM, proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974),

provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the structure and functions of
this cognitive system. This model posits that STM consists of three primary
components: the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the central
executive. The phonological loop is responsible for temporarily storing and
manipulating auditory information, such as spoken words or sounds. The visuospatial
sketchpad, on the other hand, is tasked with holding and manipulating visual and spatial
 2

information, such as images or mental maps. The central executive acts as a supervisory
system, coordinating the activities of the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad
and allocating attention to relevant information.

STM plays a crucial role in a wide range of cognitive functions. It is essential for
language comprehension, as it allows us to hold and process incoming linguistic
information. Problem-solving tasks often require the ability to temporarily store and
manipulate relevant information in STM. Decision-making also relies on STM, as we
must weigh different options and consider their potential consequences. Furthermore,
STM is involved in encoding and retrieving information from long-term memory,
facilitating learning and memory consolidation.

STM is a dynamic and essential cognitive system that enables us to temporarily hold
and manipulate information. Its limited capacity and short duration underscore the
importance of active maintenance and rehearsal strategies. The multi-component model
of STM provides a valuable framework for understanding the structure and functions
of this system. By comprehending the intricacies of STM, we can gain insights into the
cognitive processes that underpin our daily lives and develop strategies to enhance our
memory and cognitive abilities.

Hypothesis:

H0: There will be no significant difference in participants recall of digits when they are
recalled in serial order and as well as in reversed order.

H1: There will be significant difference in participants recall of digits when they are
recalled in serial order compared to when they are recalled in reverse order.

Literature Review:

Memory Models:

• Hebb's Model- Proposed by Donald Hebb in 1949.

Key concept: "Neurons that fire together, wire together"

Emphasizes the importance of repeated activation in forming strong neural connections.

It laid the groundwork for understanding synaptic plasticity and learning. Hebb's model
(1949) revolutionized our understanding of neural plasticity and learning mechanisms.
 3

• Waugh and Norman Model

Developed by Nancy Waugh and Donald Norman in 1965 Distinguishes between

primary (short-term) and secondary (long-term) memory and introduces the concept of
rehearsal in maintaining information in primary memory. It explained how information
transfers from primary to secondary memory. The Waugh and Norman model (1965)
provided a framework for understanding the interaction between short-term and long-
term memory processes.

• Atkinson-Shiffrin Model

Proposed by Richard Atkinson and Richard Shiffrin in 1968 Also known as the Multi-
Store Model, it described memory as a flow of information through three stores:

i) Sensory register

ii) Short-term store

iii) Long-term store

The model emphasized the role of rehearsal in transferring information between stores.
The Atkinson-Shiffrin model (1968) has been highly influential in shaping our
understanding of memory processes and structure.

• Short-Term Memory

Short-term memory (STM) refers to the reproduction, recognition, or recall of a limited

amount of material after a period of about 10 to 30 seconds. It serves as a mental
"workspace" where information is stored for a few seconds to minutes before either
being forgotten or transferred to long-term memory. The capacity and duration of STM
are limited, making it vulnerable to interference and decay.

• Peterson and Peterson Experiment on Short-Term Memory

Conducted by Lloyd and Margaret Peterson in 1959.

● Purpose: To study the duration of short-term memory without rehearsal.

● Method:

- Participants were given a trigram (e.g., XYZ) to remember.

 4

- They were then asked to count backward by threes from a given number.

- After varying intervals, participants were asked to recall the trigram.

● Results:

- Rapid forgetting occurred within 18 seconds without rehearsal.

- Demonstrated the limited duration of short-term memory.

● Impact:

Provided evidence for the distinction between short-term and long-term memory stores.

The Peterson and Peterson experiment (1959) was crucial in establishing the temporal
limitations of short-term memory and distinguishing it from long-term memory
processes. Research has shown that STM plays a crucial role in various cognitive tasks,
such as learning, problem- solving, and decision-making. Understanding the
mechanisms and factors that influence STM is essential for developing strategies to
improve memory performance and address memory-related cognitive deficits. By
exploring the boundaries and limitations of STM, we can gain insights into the
underlying cognitive processes and develop evidence-based methods to enhance
memory performance.

Research Design:

Conditions Forward Recall Condition Backward Recall

Condition

Numbers of trials 3 (each trial - 10 items) 3 (each trial - 10 items)

This experiment used Repeated measures design (within subject design), where one
participant is exposed to both the conditions. And the items within a trial was
randomized, which involve testing the same participants under different conditions.
They offer advantages like increased power and fewer participants, but can suffer from
order effects and carryover effects.

Operational Definitions of Variables:

 5

Independent Variable (IV): Series of numbers— The series of numbers presented to

participants in a random manner.

Dependent Variable (DV): Recall on each Trial— Correct serial and backwards recall.

Control Variables (CV):

1. Metronome: The numbers were announced on a metronome beat to maintain

constancy and same pace.

2. Order of presentation: Order of presentation of trails were random for all participants
to eliminate serial effect and practice effect.

3. Breaks between each Trial: 1 minute break between each trial was provided to reduce
fatigue.

Subject Details:

Participant No. Name Age Class Gender

1 A.S. 20 TYBSC Female

Name of the experimenter: Izrein Shaikh.

Materials:

- Stationery

- Trial sheets

- Metronome device

- Stopwatch

Procedure:

The participant will be made to feel comfortable and a rapport will be formed. The
participant will begiven instructions. The experiment will be conducted with 6 sets, and
each set will be conducted with a 1-minute break in between. Each set has 10 trials i.e.
series of digits, which the participant will have to recall in the same order as the
experimenter for the first three trials and then in the backwards order for the last three
 6

trials. The experimenter will verify the answers of the participant. The subsequent
results and explanation will be conveyed to the participant.

Instructions:

For Part 1: In this experiment, you will be presented with series of numbers, consisting
of different digits on a beat. There will be 3 sets in total each having 10 trials, with 1
minute break between each set. For each of the three trials, you will have to listen to
the series of numbers carefully and recall it back in same order to me.

For Part 2: In this experiment, you will be presented with series of numbers, consisting
of different digits on a beat. There will be 3 sets in total each having 10 trials, with 1
minute break between each set. For each of the three trials, you will have to listen to
the number series carefully and repeat it back in a backwards order.

Before we begin, let me give you some practice.

Practice series (forwards)—5 7 0 2 9

Practice series (backwards)— 7 2 1 4 8

Precautions:

- The room was well-ventilated, and an optimum room temperature was ensured.

- The participant’s seating was comfortable and proper lighting was also ensured.

- Absence of physical disturbances was ensured for a successful test administration.

- It was ensured all the required materials were available to the participant at the time
of conduction.

- No prior practice of test or exposure to the material used to the participant was
ensured.

- The participant was in conscious and in sound mind while partaking the test.

Observation table: (Individual)

Trail 1
 7

Digits Trials Right/Wrong

3 382 Right

4 5369 Right

5 16387 Right

6 533789 Right

7 9358641 Right

8 23458967 Right

9 842157985 Wrong

10 5487993561 Wrong

11 48756921957 Wrong

12 752393485065 Wrong

Trial 2

Digits Trials Right/Wrong

3 412 Right

4 5283 Right

5 93625 Right

6 768340 Wrong

7 8392819 Right

8 20395786 Wrong

9 371863791 Right

10 8521698423 Right

11 38652917921 Wrong
 8

12 154682376529 Wrong

Trial 3

Digits Trials Right/Wrong

3 680 Right

4 5936 Right

5 29713 Right

6 729516 Wrong

7 0869235 Right

8 62687014 Right

9 360941527 Wrong

10 4761260935 Wrong

11 89124053732 Wrong

12 127039168365 Wrong

Trail 4

Digits Trials Right/Wrong

3 812 Right

4 6340 Right

5 79254 Right

6 372866 Right

7 1632975 Wrong

8 24973189 Wrong
 9

9 452186379 Wrong

10 5312378940 Wrong

11 92567328645 Wrong

12 291792138650 Wrong

Trail 5

Digits Trials Right/Wrong

3 497 Right

4 8261 Right

5 35974 Right

6 962513 Right

7 2687951 Right

8 72468059 Right

9 197523987 Wrong

10 6402487614 Wrong

11 52903420623 Wrong

12 048196351967 Wrong
 10

Trial 6

Digits Trials Right/Wrong

3 573 Right

4 8492 Right

5 72813 Right

6 193840 Right

7 0482175 Wrong

8 28392051 Wrong

9 560398742 Wrong

10 6052789314 Wrong

11 47832059617 Wrong

12 952036871406 Wrong
 11

Observation Table: (Group)

9.3 7.8

5.5 5.1

5.5 5.2

6.5 5.5

6.5 4.3

7.5 5.5

8.5 5

8.3 6.7

8.5 7.5

6.4 4.2

9.5 7.5

5.3 4.5

5.3 3.7

6.25 6.5

6.5 4.8

7.2 5.8

6.5 5.5

9.3 5.5

5.4 4.5

8.5 7.5

6.8 3.5

8.25 6.25

7.5 8.2
 12

Data Analysis: (Individual)

Forward Trail:

No. Of Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Right Wrong Percentage Percentage

Digits Right Wrong

3 3 0 100 0

4 3 0 100 0

5 3 0 100 0

6 1 2 33.3 66.7

7 3 0 100 0

8 2 1 66.7 33.3

9 1 2 33.3 66.7

10 1 2 33.3 66.7

11 0 3 0 100

12 0 3 0 100
 13

Backward trail:

No. Of Trial 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Right Wrong Percentage Percentage

Digits Right Wrong

3 3 0 100 0

4 3 0 100 0

5 3 0 100 0

6 3 0 100 0

7 1 2 33.3 66.7

8 1 2 33.3 66.7

9 0 3 0 100

10 0 3 0 100

11 0 3 0 100

12 0 3 0 100
 14

Individual data graph:

 15

Data Analysis: (Group)

Results and Discussion:

The results of the experiment indicate a significant difference between forward and
backward trials in short-term memory (STM) recall. Participant 1 consistently
demonstrated higher recall rates for forward trials compared to backward trials. This
pattern was reflected in the average recall scores, with a mean of 8.3 for forward trials
and 6.8 for backward trials.

A paired t-test analysis further confirmed this difference, revealing a statistically

significant effect (t(22) = 6.479, p < 0.01). These findings suggest that the observed
difference between forward and backward trials is not due to chance but rather reflects
a genuine effect on STM performance.
 16

The reason why participants recalled forward trials better than backward trials is likely
due to a combination of factors. First, forward recall follows the natural order of
information processing, making it easier to retrieve items in sequence. Second,
participants may have had more time to rehearse and practice the forward items, which
helps to keep them in short-term memory for longer. Finally, both the primacy effect
(remembering the first few items) and the recency effect (remembering the last few
items) may have played a role in the results.

The average recall scores of 8.3 and 6.8 for forward and backward trials, respectively,
fall within the range suggested by Miller's (1956) magic number 7 plus or minus 2. This
finding supports the notion that STM capacity is limited and individuals can typically
retain around 7 items of information.

The experiment showed that people are better at remembering things in the order they
were presented (forward) than in the reverse order (backward). This is likely because
our brains are naturally wired to process information in a sequential way. Also, we tend
to remember the first and last few items in a list better than the middle items, which is
known as the primacy and recency effects. These factors combined explain why people
performed better on the forward trials in this experiment.

Conclusion:

The results of this experiment demonstrate a significant difference between forward

and backward STM recall. This finding is consistent with previous research on STM
and supports the notion that the sequential nature of information processing and
rehearsal strategies play a crucial role in STM performance. The observed recall scores
align with the limitations of STM capacity as suggested by Miller's magic number.
Future research could explore the factors that influence individual differences in STM
performance and the potential strategies for enhancing STM capacity.

Understanding STM can have practical applications in various areas of life. In

education, it can inform teaching strategies and help students learn more effectively. In
healthcare, it can aid in the diagnosis and treatment of cognitive disorders. In
technology, it can guide the design of user-friendly interfaces and the development of
memory aids. And in everyday life, applying STM strategies can improve memory and
cognitive performance.
 17

References:

• Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed

system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The
psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). Academic Press.
• Baddeley, A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American
Psychologist, 56(11), 851-864.
• Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-
term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research, 169, 323-338.
• Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological
theory. Wiley.
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two:
Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review,
63(2), 81-97.
• Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of
individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193-198.
• Squire, L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and
current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 82(3), 171-177.
• Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2012). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
• Waugh, N. C., & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological
Review, 72(2), 89-104
18