Study Guides (261,059)
CA (126,168)
York (10,276)
PSYC (1,205)
PSYC 3265 (12)
Final

PSYC 3265 Study Guide - No Age, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Dishabituation
Premium

by OneClass576691 , Winter 2016
13 Pages
63 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 3265
Professor
Shayna Rosenbaum
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 13 pages of the document.
Lecture 1: False Memory and Memory Distortion
Memory & Gist
- schema: general world knowledge, based on past exp, generic info to guide memory
- useful/adaptive BUT can lead to over-use of stereotypes
- Memory is better for meaningful significant features (gist) than for details
Reconstructive nature of memory
- influenced by knowledge, previous exp, expectation (i.e., schemas)
- Wording effects: way in which a q is worded influences what is remembered due to
retrieval reconstructive processes. Some details may not have been encoded, so at
retrieval fill in details. EX/ item not in film, claimed they saw it 7% of the time when
“a” was used, 18% when “the” was used (pre-supposes there was a broken headlight)
Verbal labels can distort visual memories
- pax given pics w/o verbal labels. Later reproduce figures from memories, based on 1
of 2 labels. When reproduce 1 figure, looked closer to label than original
- Q wording (post-encoding, at retrieval) influences how info is retrieved
Misinformation Effect
- event memory influenced by misleading/wrong post-event info incorporated as part
of original memory
- Explanations =
(1) Memory replacement theory = misleading info replaces (over-write) original
memory, then permanently lost. An unlikely explanation a) see event = yield sign  b)
receive misinfo (stop) OR non-misleading (yield)  c) forced-choice recognition
memory test *both groups higher than chance. Yield OR stop sign  35% accuracy if
they received misleading info. Yield OR no U-turn  *if correct = as likely to say U-turn
sign as stop sign b/c original memory should have been lost. BUT was no accuracy diff
for misleading info. Info still in memory, even if there is interference
(2) Misinfo acceptance = believe info in post-event is T b/c questioner is authority
(3) Blocking theory = original/misleading info co-exist in memory (encode original
and mis-leading info w/in Q) BUT misleading info more recent so obscures original
(4) Source monitoring theory = memory of Q confused w/ memory of scene (occur
w/ similar misleading info). Confuse source of what saw/heard as from same place
Eyewitness Confidence
- false memory experiment shows sometimes confidence high while accuracy low
- eyewitness testimony requires accuracy/confidence; low accuracy can be confident!
- jury likely to accept info as accurate if juror is confident (even if inaccurate)
- for eyewitness confidence to be admissible, has to be highly accurate/confident
Factors that increase confidence (but don’t necessarily lead to accuracy):
(1) post-identification feedback (info about quality of report): if another witness
agrees, original eyewitness feels more confident, doesn’t mean memory more accurate
(2) subsequent info that another witness chose same person  increase confidence
(3) Each time Q is asked, more confident in R (even mis-leading post-event info)
1
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
(4) external motivation to remember (ex/ $ for most accurate): more willing to
answer and more confident, but aren’t always more accurate
* weak correlation b/w confidence and accuracy (moderate in unmotivated pax)
Police Interviews
- close ended q’s (restrains = inaccurate)  open-ended q’s (complete R w/o leading)
- interrupt witness (hard to retrieve subsequent info)  give witness time to finish R
(don’t disrupt [ ] or retrieval cues)
- pre-determined order q’s  relevant follow-up q’s (account of previous answers)
Improving Police Interviews: Cognitive Interview
Retrieval Rule Empirical Basis Goal
Reinstate mental context Encoding Specificity Improve match b/w encoding and
retrieval contexts  better retrieval
Complete reporting
few orders Complex memory
traces
access to many cues  better recall
few POV
Enhanced cognitive interview
(a) Min distraction (b) subject speak slow (c) pause b/w R and q’s (d) appropriate
lang for witness (e) Follow up w/ interpretive comment (f) reduce anxiety (g) Avoid
judgment/personal comments (h) Review description of events/people
18 19
Improving Police Interviews: Cognitive Interview
- cognitive interviews generally produce most accurate info
- However: (a) slightly more false info than standard interview (b) effective right after
crime (LT: memory vulnerable) (c) more valuable for recall of peripheral than central
details (d) unclear how individual guidelines of interview contribute to effects
Eyewitness identification
- eyewitness need to identify a suspect from a line-up (w/ distractors)
- issue: eyewitness may recognize suspect from mug-shot, not crime scene (motivated
to pick the person who most resembles original suspect)
- Conclusions: Don’t let witnesses see suspects; interrogate w/o asking leading q’s
Issues with mug-shots and line-ups
- incorrect eyewitness testimony is leading cause of F convictions
- eyewitnesses assume perpetrator is in line-up = IF not presented, may pick out
another person. IF incorrectly identifies someone, ability to identify later is worse
- recall via sketch artist poor, b/c faces not encoded as feature set, rather holistically
Face recognition: inversion effect
Margaret Thatcher Effect
- harder to recognize a face when upside-down compared to when its up-right
- change 1 feature on a face, may not notice if inverted. When upright, obvious b/c
when 1 feature changes, spatial rep of features/dimensions on face changes
2
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Improving Lineups: similar distractors
- relative judgment principle: if distractors don’t resemble real perpetrator, one
who comes closest may be selected. To solve  Line-up similarity: all distractor
items fit description given by witness and diverse (no indv should stand out) AND add
distinctive features to foils if target has distinctive feature (reduce mis-identification)
Biased Line-up?
- people likely (based on physical similarity, distinctive features) to choose a suspect;
some features/aspects more likely to be identified as suspects, bias to choose them
Improving line-ups: instructions
- Instructions should include statement that perpetrator might not be present F mis-
identification drops 42%. Otherwise, strong compulsion to select someone
Improving line-ups: sequential presentation
- traditional line-up simultaneously; vulnerable to relative judgment principle (select
closest to perpetrator). Sequential line-up forces people to compare photo they see w/
memory (b/c witness doesn’t know whom will be seen next or how many photos will
be seen  focus on indv face)
Unconscious transference
- Eyewitness mistakenly identifies innocent bystander as perpetrator
- (1) Blending theory: at retrieval assume 2 indvs are same (encoding: don’t diff b/w
2) *Reduced if witness knows these are 2 diff ppl (2) Source monitoring theory:
witness remembers person, fails to remember situation they interacted w/ them
Recovery of Lost Memories?
- lawsuits have relied on eyewitness testimony of repressed memories that lay
dormant for years (often relate to abuse), “recovered” by family member or therapist
- Claim: repression follows stress, returned to consciousness w/ removal of stress
- Problem: repressed memories or F memories (based on misinfo)?
Recovered memory vs. False Memory
- are repressed memories accurate? Hard to falsify (1 person’s word against another)
- In some cases, traumatic info is misremembered or simply “made up”
- problems in method used to cue person to retrieve memories = hypnosis (retrieve
accurate/inaccurate info), suggestive q’s (may add misleading info, retrieve F info),
dream interpretations (describe dream, make inaccurate interpretations)
- if repressed memories exist, should show normal forgetting and interference
Can false memories be implanted?
- Asked pax how T or whether these plausible memories/events actually occurred to
them. Over 3 sessions = 1st: T events, 2nd: T events, some F, 3rd: higher F events
False Memory in the Lab
3
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Lecture 1: False Memory and Memory Distortion Memory & Gist - schema: general world knowledge, based on past exp, generic info to guide memory - useful/adaptive BUT can lead to over-use of stereotypes - Memory is better for meaningful significant features (gist) than for details Reconstructive nature of memory - influenced by knowledge, previous exp, expectation (i.e., schemas) - Wording effects: way in which a q is worded influences what is remembered due to retrieval reconstructive processes. Some details may not have been encoded, so at retrieval fill in details. EX/ item not in film, claimed they saw it 7% of the time when “a” was used, 18% when “the” was used (pre-supposes there was a broken headlight) Verbal labels can distort visual memories - pax given pics w/o verbal labels. Later reproduce figures from memories, based on 1 of 2 labels. When reproduce 1 figure, looked closer to label than original - Q wording (post-encoding, at retrieval) influences how info is retrieved Misinformation Effect - event memory influenced by misleading/wrong post-event info incorporated as part of original memory - Explanations = (1) Memory replacement theory = misleading info replaces (over-write) original memory, then permanently lost. An unlikely explanation a) see event = yield sign  b) receive misinfo (stop) OR non-misleading (yield)  c) forced-choice recognition memory test *both groups higher than chance. Yield OR stop sign  35% accuracy if they received misleading info. Yield OR no U-turn  *if correct = as likely to say U-turn sign as stop sign b/c original memory should have been lost. BUT was no accuracy diff for misleading info. Info still in memory, even if there is interference (2) Misinfo acceptance = believe info in post-event is T b/c questioner is authority (3) Blocking theory = original/misleading info co-exist in memory (encode original and mis-leading info w/in Q) BUT misleading info more recent so obscures original (4) Source monitoring theory = memory of Q confused w/ memory of scene (occur w/ similar misleading info). Confuse source of what saw/heard as from same place Eyewitness Confidence - false memory experiment shows sometimes confidence high while accuracy low - eyewitness testimony requires accuracy/confidence; low accuracy can be confident! - jury likely to accept info as accurate if juror is confident (even if inaccurate) - for eyewitness confidence to be admissible, has to be highly accurate/confident Factors that increase confidence (but don’t necessarily lead to accuracy): (1) post-identification feedback (info about quality of report): if another witness agrees, original eyewitness feels more confident, doesn’t mean memory more accurate (2) subsequent info that another witness chose same person  increase confidence (3) Each time Q is asked, more confident in R (even mis-leading post-event info) 1 (4) external motivation to remember (ex/ $ for most accurate): more willing to answer and more confident, but aren’t always more accurate * weak correlation b/w confidence and accuracy (moderate in unmotivated pax) Police Interviews - close ended q’s (restrains = inaccurate)  open-ended q’s (complete R w/o leading) - interrupt witness (hard to retrieve subsequent info)  give witness time to finish R (don’t disrupt [ ] or retrieval cues) - pre-determined order q’s  relevant follow-up q’s (account of previous answers) Improving Police Interviews: Cognitive Interview Retrieval Rule Empirical Basis Goal Reinstate mental context Encoding Specificity Improve match b/w encoding and Complete reporting retrieval contexts  better retrieval few orders Complex memory access to many cues  better recall few POV traces Enhanced cognitive interview (a) Min distraction (b) subject speak slow (c) pause b/w R and q’s (d) appropriate lang for witness (e) Follow up w/ interpretive comment (f) reduce anxiety (g) Avoid judgment/personal comments (h) Review description of events/people 18 19 Improving Police Interviews: Cognitive Interview - cognitive interviews generally produce most accurate info - However: (a) slightly more false info than standard interview (b) effective right after crime (LT: memory vulnerable) (c) more valuable for recall of peripheral than central details (d) unclear how individual guidelines of interview contribute to effects Eyewitness identification - eyewitness need to identify a suspect from a line-up (w/ distractors) - issue: eyewitness may recognize suspect from mug-shot, not crime scene (motivated to pick the person who most resembles original suspect) - Conclusions: Don’t let witnesses see suspects; interrogate w/o asking leading q’s Issues with mug-shots and line-ups - incorrect eyewitness testimony is leading cause of F convictions - eyewitnesses assume perpetrator is in line-up = IF not presented, may pick out another person. IF incorrectly identifies someone, ability to identify later is worse - recall via sketch artist poor, b/c faces not encoded as feature set, rather holistically Face recognition: inversion effect Margaret Thatcher Effect - harder to recognize a face when upside-down compared to when its up-right - change 1 feature on a face, may not notice if inverted. When upright, obvious b/c when 1 feature changes, spatial rep of features/dimensions on face changes 2 Improving Lineups: similar distractors - relative judgment principle: if distractors don’t resemble real perpetrator, one who comes closest may be selected. To solve  Line-up similarity: all distractor items fit description given by witness and diverse (no indv should stand out) AND add distinctive features to foils if target has distinctive feature (reduce mis-identification) Biased Line-up? - people likely (based on physical similarity, distinctive features) to choose a suspect; some features/aspects more likely to be identified as suspects, bias to choose them Improving line-ups: instructions - Instructions should include statement that perpetrator might not be present  F mis- identification drops 42%. Otherwise, strong compulsion to select someone Improving line-ups: sequential presentation - traditional line-up simultaneously; vulnerable to relative judgment principle (select closest to perpetrator). Sequential line-up forces people to compare photo they see w/ memory (b/c witness doesn’t know whom will be seen next or how many photos will be seen  focus on indv face) Unconscious transference - Eyewitness mistakenly identifies innocent bystander as perpetrator - (1) Blending theory: at retrieval assume 2 indvs are same (encoding: don’t diff b/w 2) *Reduced if witness knows these are 2 diff ppl (2) Source monitoring theory: witness remembers person, fails to remember situation they interacted w/ them Recovery of Lost Memories? - lawsuits have relied on eyewitness testimony of repressed memories that lay dormant for years (often relate to abuse), “recovered” by family member or therapist - Claim: repression follows stress, returned to consciousness w/ removal of stress - Problem: repressed memories or F memories (based on misinfo)? Recovered memory vs. False Memory - are repressed memories accurate? Hard to falsify (1 person’s word against another) - In some cases, traumatic info is misremembered or simply “made up” - problems in method used to cue person to retrieve memories = hypnosis (retrieve accurate/inaccurate info), suggestive q’s (may add misleading info, retrieve F info), dream interpretations (describe dream, make inaccurate interpretations) - if repressed memories exist, should show normal forgetting and interference Can false memories be implanted? - Asked pax how T or whether these plausible memories/events actually occurred to them. Over 3 sessions = 1 : T events, 2 : T events, some F, 3 : higher F events False Memory in the Lab 3 - Critical lures aren’t presented, semantically similar to studied words. Often falsely recalled (induce F memory) - Recognition memory results = (a) studied items: highly confident/accurate at recog (b) unrelated unstudied items: more confident that they rejected word on list (c) Critical lure: think it appeared on list, highly confident it did - amnesic patients less vulnerable (no explicit memory of the event) Lecture 2: Emotion and Memory AND Neural Basis of Emotional Memory What is emotion? - Specific autonomic, endocrine, cognitive states that couple stim perception to an adaptive behavioural R (cognitive, physiological, hormone, behavioural) - emotions can facilitate or hinder memory, does the same to other cognitive abilities - Physiological = HR, BP, BR, muscle tension, perceived body temp, sensory sensitivity - distinctive motor behaviour = facial expression, tone of voice, posture - self-reported cognition = comment on what they think/feel; improved or hindered - self-reported rankings = can be an indication of how you feel - unconscious behaviour = say/do w/o knowing it b/c of a change in emotional state Theories of Emotion Category-based approach - 4-6 primary universal emotions: fear, anger, disgust, happiness, sadness, surprise - facial expressions for certain emotions universally displayed, infants display facial exps of anger, fear, happiness, sadness  suggests basic emotions innate NOT learnt - tests based on these emotions expanded to complex emotions to capture how emotion displayed/rep Dimensional approach - emotions classified across arousal (high, low) AND valence (pleasant, unpleasant). Ex = Aroused/Unpleasant (fear), Aroused/Pleasant (surprise), not aroused/pleasant (calm), not aroused/not pleasant (disgust) - stim in experiments very arousing … +ve stimuli often less arousing *a confound Arousal (Stress) and Memory - confidence increase remember better when aroused - memory better for only some aspects of memory - highly-arousing  vivid, specific, high-detail/confidence memory reports years later. - less arousing stim have lasting effects … memory enhancement at 1-week follow up - arousal results in narrowing of attn to emotionally arousing/salient events - arousal allows us to pay more attn to arousing info (doesn’t have to be emotional, arousal  hone in on salient info at expense of less salient info that isn’t attn focus) Stress and Memory: Eyewitness Testimony - Effects of anxiety hard to assess in the lab b/c unethical to expose pax to stress - Typical lab = Present film or a staged incident (violent/nonviolent), not actual threat. Verify arousal level, see if correlates w/ memory = (a) Memory for central aspects enhanced by violence BUT (b) peripheral aspects of an incident reduced by violence. 4 - Robbery Victims Frequently don’t remember appearance Details = stores with frequent robberies train staff to notice appearance details, use aids (ex/ height strips) Stress and Memory: Eyewitness Testimony - anxiety/stress = (a) -vely impact eyewitness identification accuracy; sig details lost (b) reduce ability to remember: culprit/crime scene details, criminal actions - Yerkes-Dodson Law = bystanders likely to remember violent crime than victim, b/c optimal arousal. Low arousal  weak perf. Arousal increases  optimal arousal/perf level for memory. Additional increases in arousal = impaired perf (strong anxiety) - Easterbrook Hypothesis = at higher levels of emotional intensity, people restrict attn to narrower detail range. Attn focused = utilize cue. During emotional event, attn on principal/central parts, less irrelevant/peripheral details *attn facilitates memory benefit. people can fill in memories with what they expect to be present in the situation based on schemas/scripts. Boundary extension = fill in details to create more context than what was present. May benefit (make sense) BUT memory for peripheral details isn’t accurate (may cause memory accuracy problems) - Weapon-Focus Effect = presence of a weapon (central aspect) causes eyewitnesses to fail to recall other smaller details (perpetrator’s face). Witnesses less likely to accurately identify target when weapon is involved, attn naturally drawn to weapon at expense of other situation aspects; occurs even when weapon present but not involved in violent action. Unexpected settings improved ability to ID BUT threat didn’t influence ID. Unexpectedness drives weapon-focus effect (when control for threat); expectedness determines if a person can accurately describe perpetrator Valence and Memory - bad stronger than good: when remembering info; doesn’t apply to info about oneself - Polyanna principle = remember +ve events better than –ve, -ve events forgotten faster, emotional intensity of -ve events tempered more than +ve events (less emphasis on them to be able to remember +ve parts of events). Recall same event as happening to them if an achievement; happening to others if –ve. When want to see current self as improved compared w/ past self … bias to recall past selves in -ve light - Motivation interacts with valence = when remembering which features went w/ which option, bias to attribute +ve features to option that people chose and -ve features to option rejected. Bias at retrieval: deceives people about which option they chose  more +ve/less -ve features to option they thought they chose rather than 1 they actually did. Unlike arousal, valence effects due to how info relates to current emotional goals rather than neurochemical changes *belief NOT choice matters = relates more to cognition than physiology. However, focus more on central than peripheral details of -ve memories  better memory for things w/in focus; b/c increased amygdala activity during -ve events. Tunnel memory: increased focus on details in emotional memories  lower boundary extension b/c central details more critical in a -ve event, +ve events less likely to hinge on a single critical detail - Olfactory cues = hippocampus connected to olfactory bulb … cues effective in helping ppl remember life events = likely to elicit memories that ppl rarely think about from 1 decade of life than words/pics; tend to be more emotional than those from other cues. Possibly due to direct connections of olfactory nerves to amygdala 5 Emotion and Autobiographical Memory - Flashbulb memories: vivid recollection of dramatic or emotionally charged events - events unusually surprising and important, relatively resistant to forgetting - remembered in great detail, not just for event itself but also context learnt in - people are very confident in these types of memories - Explanations of Flashbulb Memories = (1) “Now Print!” = triggered if something important/rare occurs so can be encoded in great detail (survival value) (2) ordinary memories for important events subject to same errors, distortions, forgetting over time … confidence in accuracy of memories arises from emotional rxn to learning surprising news (confident they are accurate, may not be) (3) Novelty  Surprise * FBM  Important/Consequential *FBM * Overt Rehearsal Emotional Feeling State *FBM  Overt Rehearsal  FBM Circuitry of Emotion - amygdala enhances memory via connections to other areas ex., hippocampus … - Limbic System: However, not all structures associated with emotion (e.g., hippocampus  functions enhanced by connections w/ amygdala) - orbitofrontal cortex: emotional memory/processing - VMPFC AND DLPFC: executive aspects of memory and cognitive control - anterior cingulate has a role in some emotions - hypothalamus: hormone controls (stress/arousal), closed/connected to amygdala - thalamus involved in processing emotion (ex/ Pulvinar) Amygdala - closely positioned/strongly connected to olfactory bulb (initial smell percep) AND motor regions (basal ganglia: Parkinson’s = don’t show/recog emotion), sub-cortical - Monkey Lesion: Klüver-Bucy (bilateral anterior temporal removal)  tame, lose fear (blunt emotion), indiscriminate diet, hypersexuality, psychic blindness (approach objects that elicit fear), hyperorality (examine objects orally) - Human Lesion: Urbach-Weithe (amygdala bilateral calcification). Impaired recog of fear expressions, intact face recog. Rate unfamiliar faces: trustworthy/approachable. However, social deficits not as apparent. Aware of social norms, normal facial emotion expressions. Compensate via intact explicit memory of social info/R acquired prior to amygdala damage *may not be able to act, but can tell you how to act appropriately Amygdala: Fear Recognition - Neuroimaging studies = amygdala involved in processing of fearful expressions; bilateral responds to = fearful facial expressions AND to conditioned fear - Is all emotional processing conscious? Is amygdala processing independent of awareness? independent of cortex? cortex (conscious?) and amygdala (unconscious?); cortex/amygdala connected? evidence amygdala responds to fear stim automatically, prior to awareness. activated in R to subliminal fear (wide eye whites, more sensitive to fear) vs. happy eyes (smaller eye whites); more sensitive to fear than happiness 6 - Two pathways = High road (conscious *indirect: interpret): Cortico-amygdala path = slower R (thalamus  sensory/visual cortex  amygdala) VS. Low road (sub- conscious *direct): Thalamo-amygdala path = faster R (thalamus  amygdala) Amygdala: Unconscious Emotion - Prosopagnosia: Emotion w/o awareness = impaired identity, intact SCR to emotion - Capgras Delusion: Aware w/o emotion = intact identity, impaired SCR to emotion Amygdala: Outstanding Issues - specificity of amygdala R = (1) other structures involved in processing of fear, anger, etc. (2) amygdala responds to emotions beyond fear, maybe less extent - amygdala R: rapid and/or automatic? fear processed faster b/c fear identification relies on eyes (other complex emotions scan more than eye regions … ex/ disgust) - amygdala = perceptual/attn role in processing saliency/unpredict rather than fear Amygdala: Implicit Emotional Learning - Fear Conditioning in Rats = amygdala lesions interfere w/ acquisition/exp of conditioned fear to shock  freezing response *evidence of human fear conditioning - amygdala made up of diff nuclei responsible for diff emotion parts. Most involved: LA (link CS w/ input from somatosensory S, UCS, ex/ pain), CE … lesion  no fear R. Amygdala involved in implicit emotional memory Hippocampus: - AD patients underwent emotion induction via film clips. Real-time emotion ratings collected at baseline, post-induction. Declarative memory tested after each induction - AD patients show sustained emotion, even though can’t recall what caused emotion (explicit recall correlated w/ hippocampal V) AND sustained feelings of happy/sad (amygdala V didn’t significantly differ b/w AZ’s patients and controls) - hippocampus and memory, even if there is an emotional aspect, doesn’t help AD memory. HC remember film clips better b/c of emotion Amygdala: Emotional Modulation of Memory - activation of amygdala during encoding  memory for emotional (high-arousing, +ve/–ve valence) pics, not neutral (low-arousal) pics (only hippocampus active) - amygdala = important role along w/ the hippocampus in emotional memory - pax view story w/ emotionally significant middle section, test recall 1-week later - amygdala lesions = intact emotional rxns, no enhanced memory f
More Less
Unlock Document


Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit