Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PY2CN > Episodic Memory > Flashcards

Episodic Memory Flashcards

1
Q

Example of shallow processing LOP

A

Perceptual features - structure of a word or size case or colour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Example of deep processing LOP

A

Processing based on the semantic features/meaning

Ie How pleasant, associations with other words, synonyms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Describe craik and tulving 1975

A

LOP
Read list of unrelated words then surprise recognition test of words seen and unseen previously - what did you see on the list prev? Manipulate type of processing:
Shallow - upper or lower case?
Intermediate (phonological) - does it rhyme with __
Deep (semantic) - does it fit into the sentence ___

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Results of craik and tulving 1975

A

Highest % correct for deep processing than intermediate or shallow

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Problems of LOP theory

A

How do you measure depth? - circular argument

Assumes processing sequential but evidence suggests also occur in parallel

Ability to suppress semantic?

Benefit of semantic depends on the nature of the test (Morris bransford and franks)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Describe Morris bransford and franks LOP criticism

A

Encoding words on a list semantically (association task) or phonological ly (rhyming task)

Recognition test as standard (which are the words you have seen prev) or through rhyming ie ‘cat’ on recog test because rhymes with ‘hat’ on learn list

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Results of Morris bransford and franks LOP criticism

A

Standard test - LOP better if semantic than phonological

But rhyme test - better phonological than semantic

Encoding match recall = best performance ‘transfer appropriate processing’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What concepts may underlie the LOP effect?

A

Craik and tulving - semantic = elaborate encoding

Elaboration - into relates to the to be known item

Semantic more distinct encoding?(hunt and Elliot)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Describe the elaboration hypothesis

A

More likely to remember if relate to things we already know -

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Explain congruity effect

A

Congruent info elaborates the encoding of a word -

Semantic requires both understanding of congruent and incongruent sentences

BUT congruent provides more elaboration as ties item to stored knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Describe distinctiveness explanation of LOP (hunt and Elliot 1980)

A

Memory depends on distinctiveness of encoded into - how well the info stands out in memory

Semantic better memory as increases distinctiveness or words more distinct in terms of meaning than physical features

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Distinctiveness and semantic processing (eysenk 1979)

A

non semantic orienting task for irregular GPC and either pronounce normal or as regular gpc ie comb with silent b or with souding b
unusual pronounciation better than usual and almost as good as semantic processing condition
- applies to BOTH but semantic more likely to be distinctive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Does Elaboration or distinctiveness in semantic processing lead to better recall

A

Semantic always increases elaboration so more likely

Semantic typically more distinctive but not always so doesn’t always lead to improved - shallow or phonemic can be distinct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Winograd (1981) distinctiveness and elab

A

Compare distinctiveness and elab by looking at pps memory for pictures of faces -

  1. Scan face and rate more distinctive feature (elab and distinct)
  2. Focus on pre told distinctive feature (distinct)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Results Winograd (1981) elab and distinct

A

No diff in memory performance

  • distinctiveness > elab in recall but elab may help to detect the distinctive feature
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Describe how organisation of material may influence recall (bousfield)

A

Pps given set of 20 words with 4 examples each over 5 categories

Either sorted randomly or grouped together by category

Recall higher when organised

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Generation effect (glisky and Rabinowitz 1985)

A

Self generated info > alt info ie seen/heard

Study : read word or generate word from half spelt word

Recognise: recognise word as either full word ‘read’ or ‘generated’ word

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Results glisky and Rabinowitz 1985generation effect

A

Words generated at study > words read at study

Words generated at study and test > words gen at study but read at test

Recognition best if same that study and test - context?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Self reference effect (Rogers, kuiper and kirker 1977)

A

Personal relevance of info influence recall

List of adjectives:

  1. Phonological task (rhyme)
  2. Semantic task (mean the same as…)
  3. Rating as descriptive of self
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Results Rogers kuiper and kirker 1977 self reference effect

A

Recall more self rated than semantic encoded - allocate more attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Decay as an explanation of forgetting

A

Thorndike

Build memory trace - decay with time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Interference theory of forgetting - Jenkins and dallenbach 1924

A

Pps learn nonsense syllables then sleep or awake

Memory sleep > awake

Less intercede renew of new info when sleep and consolidate memories in the hippocampus

23
Q

Accessibility and availability of memory theory of forgetting

A

Availability - info no longer stored

Accessibility - present in memory but can’t be recalled/ retrieved

24
Q

Cues and retrieval for inaccessible info

A

Cues provide gateway to accessing further info stored in memory but not previously able to recall

25
Q

Tulving and pearlstone 1966 retrieval cues

A

Compare cued and free recall

Given categorical words to study

Test free recall it cued (give categorical names)

26
Q

Tulving and pearlstone 1966 retrieval cues Findings

A

Higher recall when cued
Than free

Failure to recall doesn’t mean failure to learn but depends on the cues present at retrieval

27
Q

Practical applications of episodic research - medical

A

Make patients ability to recall Mexican instructions more memorable to improve following:

Ley 1988 patients forget 50% what told

High corr between recall and understanding, satisfaction, complying to medication and recovery

  • therefore doctors present in ordered manner and explicitly categorise info - doubled patient recall
28
Q

Practical applications of episodic research - mnemonic techniques

A

Use mnemonics as retrieval cues - mental imagery to associate

29
Q

Practical applications of episodic research - self testing

A

Assesses what you know and enhances retention

Roediger and karpicke- test on material show grateful retention than more study

30
Q

Levels of processing (craik and Lockhart)

A

Efficiency of recall dependent on the way the info was processed ie shallow or deep

31
Q

Example of shallow processing LOP

A

Perceptual features - structure of a word or size case or colour

32
Q

Example of deep processing LOP

A

Processing based on the semantic features/meaning

Ie How pleasant, associations with other words, synonyms

33
Q

Describe craik and tulving 1975

A

LOP

Read list of unrelated words then surprise recognition test of words seen and unseen previous - what did you see on the list prev? Manipulate type of processing:

Shallow - upper or lower case?

Intermediate (phonological) - does it rhyme with __

Deep (semantic) - does it fit into the sentence ___

34
Q

Results of craik and tulving 1975

A

Highest % correct for deep processing than intermediate or shallow

35
Q

What concepts may underlie the LOP effect?

A

Craik and tulving - semantic = elaborate encoding

Elaboration - into relates to the to be known item

distinct encoding(hunt and Elliot)

36
Q

Describe the elaboration hypothesis

A

More likely to remember if relate to things we already know -

Craik and tulving: semantic ask if word congruent in a sentence - congruity effect

37
Q

Explain congruity effect

A

Congruent info elaborates the encoding of a word -

Semantic requires both understanding of congruent and incongruent sentences

BUT congruent provides more elaboration as ties item to stored knowledge

38
Q

Describe distinctiveness explanation of LOP (hunt and Elliot)

A

Memory depends on distinctiveness of encoded into - how well the info stands out in memory

Semantic better memory as increases distinctiveness or words more distinct in terms of meaning than physical features

39
Q

Describe bransford et al Distinctiveness

A

Gave sentences either distinctive of non distinctive

40
Q

Levels of processing (craik and Lockhart)

A

Efficiency of recall dependent on the way the info was processed ie shallow or deep

41
Q

what type of task did craik and tulving 1975 use

A

orienting task

42
Q

define an orienting task

A

a task that directs attention to a word depending on different attributes
ie semantic/phonological/structural

43
Q

how is LOP different from WM

A

WM is an extension of memory within the STM that proposes must actively process the information with intent in order to recall/manipulate the information
LOP represents retention in both the STM and LTM based on intentional/unintentional processing based on the way the information is processed

44
Q

describe Kapur 1994 LOP neuronal results

A

semanti cna dnon semantic orienting task during PET

semantic activate left PFC while non semantic activate more posterior areas

45
Q

circularity limitation of LOP

A

how are you able to know what LOP is being used during the retention interval?
how are you able to measure the ‘depth’ of the information processed?
circular in that it fails to explain

46
Q

parallel processing limitation of LOP

A

LOP assumes sequential processing where semantic>phonological>structural BUT thought that diff types of processing may occur in parallel
(Morris bansford and franks 1977; transfer appropriate processing)

47
Q

describe morris bransford and franks 1977 lop prob

A

2 types of encoding: semantic ie association or phonological ie rhyme
two types of recognition test:
standard - recog old words
rhyme - recog words that rhyme with old

48
Q

results morris bransford and franks 1988 lop prob

A

standrd better performance following semantic processing

rhyme better performance following phonological processing

49
Q

describe tranfer appropriate processing theory (morris et al)

A

recall is determined by match/mismatch between the type of processing at encoding and the type of recall used
different processing leads to different information stored about stimuli

50
Q

two assumption of LOP

A

1- memory trace is a biproduct of perception and comprehension of stimuli information - therefore intent to retain info is not necessary
2- retention is directly related to the processing of stimuli meaning

51
Q

craik and tulving 1975 elaboration hypothesis

A

people in semantic asked if word congruent or incongruent in complex or simple sentencing frames
congruent memory > incongruent
complex> simple

52
Q

bransford et al 1979 distinctiveness/elab

A

exposed pps to minimally elab but distinctive sentences
ie a mosquio is like a doctor as both draw blood
and multiplicatively elab but non distinctive sententce
ie a mosquito is like a racoon because they both have a head
recall for dirstinctive but lower elab better - more unusual

53
Q

what is consolidation

A

fixation of information onto long term memory
rapid and long lasting increase in the probability that pose synaptic neurons in the hippocampus fire following activation from neurotransmitters of the presynapse

54
Q

hockey et al 1972 against consolidation/jenkins and dellenbach 1924

A

j+d - did not control for the time of day between participants asleep or awake
found time of day more important than sleep (but sleep does improve also)

PY2CN (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions