Chapter 6 Episodic Flashcards
Bartlett
Remembered stories always shorter, more coherent, tended to fit more with participant’s own viewpoint than original story
Participants actively striving to capture essence of material
Schemas
Supernatural aspects omitted
Puzzling features distorted
Gauld corrected for method mistakes
Sulin and dooling
Stories about Hitler introduced elements they hadn’t read
Long interval distorted retelling
Carmichael
Ambiguous stimuli presented with labels
Drawings influenced by label
Label effect disappeared under recognition condition
Glaze
Meaningful 3-letter syllables easier to remember than non
Deese
Lists of words highly associated with each other easier to recall than lists with few interword associations
Jenkins and russell
When a number of associated words were included in a mixed list they tended to be recalled as a cluster
Paivio
The extent to which a word evoked image were powerful predictor of how well it would be remembered
Dual-coding hypothesis
Highly imageable words are easy to learn because they can be encoded both visually and verbally
Predictability
Cloze technique:
People are presented with a passage from which every 5th word deleted
Redundancy is good predictor of readability and memorability
Craik
Levels of processing hypothesis
Why does meaning facilitate long-term learning
The way material is processed determines its durability in LTM
Visual chars of a printed word would be processed first, then spoken sound, then meaning
Levels:
1. Shallow visual processing (case)
2. Phonology (rhyme)
3. Semantic (deepest) - does the word field fit into this sentence?
Depth of processing = better memory
Yes responses better recalled than no on word recall list
For positive items, word to be recalled was integrated more closely with encoding question. The horse lived in a field sentence reminds of target. Not available to non-semantic question
Deeper processing takes longer, but slower processing doesn’t lead to enhanced recognition
Hyde
More elaborate processing leads to better memory
Criticism of levels
Time doesn’t work as measure of processing
Many features of stimulus processed at same time
Deeper processing doesn’t always lead to better performance - students focus on wrong type of knowledge when they study
Called transfer-appropriate processing - conditions should match:
Ppl good at recalling words they made a meaning-based judgment for - not visual or phono judgments
Incidental learning: not warned would have to recall, so no learning strategies employed
Rhyming is shallow condition
Morris
Deeper processing led to better performance under standard recog conditions
Shallower rhyme-based encoding task led to better performance
Only makes sense to talk about efficiency of learning method in context of way in which memory is subsequently tested
Why is deeper better?
Craik suggests maintenance rehearsal incolved continuing to process item at same level, ie. Phone number
In contrast to elaborative rehearsal, linking material being rehearsed to other material in memory
Glenberg: remember numbers over delay. During delay, read out words. Then numbers and recall words. 9x increase in number of reps led to 1.5% increase in recall
Slight increase in familiarity enough to boost recog, but not to evoke original words
Emphasizes semantic code, richer than sound or appearance
Tulving suggests people bind separate words into chunks and recall the chunks
As people learn the list, they produce words in same clusters trial after trial - ‘subjective organization’ - into meaningful chunks
Based on relation or semantic category
Linking into story best
Advantage to repetition?
Depends what’s being studied
When unfamiliar chunks, repeating boosts representation in phono LTM
When familiar, no need to learn
