Episodic Memory Flashcards Preview

PY2CN > Episodic Memory > Flashcards

Flashcards in Episodic Memory Deck (54):
1

Example of shallow processing LOP

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

2

Example of deep processing LOP

Processing based on the semantic features/meaning

Ie How pleasant, associations with other words, synonyms

3

Describe craik and tulving 1975

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 ___

4

Results of craik and tulving 1975

Highest % correct for deep processing than intermediate or shallow

5

Problems of LOP theory

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)

6

Describe Morris bransford and franks LOP criticism

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

7

Results of Morris bransford and franks LOP criticism

Standard test - LOP better if semantic than phonological

But rhyme test - better phonological than semantic

Encoding match recall = best performance 'transfer appropriate processing'

8

What concepts may underlie the LOP effect?

Craik and tulving - semantic = elaborate encoding

Elaboration - into relates to the to be known item

Semantic more distinct encoding?(hunt and Elliot)

9

Describe the elaboration hypothesis

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

10

Explain congruity effect

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

11

Describe distinctiveness explanation of LOP (hunt and Elliot 1980)

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

12

Distinctiveness and semantic processing (eysenk 1979)

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

13

Does Elaboration or distinctiveness in semantic processing lead to better recall

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

14

Winograd (1981) distinctiveness and elab

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)

15

Results Winograd (1981) elab and distinct

No diff in memory performance

- distinctiveness > elab in recall but elab may help to detect the distinctive feature

16

Describe how organisation of material may influence recall (bousfield)

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

17

Generation effect (glisky and Rabinowitz 1985)

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

18

Results glisky and Rabinowitz 1985generation effect

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?

19

Self reference effect (Rogers, kuiper and kirker 1977)

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

20

Results Rogers kuiper and kirker 1977 self reference effect

Recall more self rated than semantic encoded - allocate more attention

21

Decay as an explanation of forgetting

Thorndike
Build memory trace - decay with time

22

Interference theory of forgetting - Jenkins and dallenbach 1924

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

Accessibility and availability of memory theory of forgetting

Availability - info no longer stored

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

24

Cues and retrieval for inaccessible info

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

25

Tulving and pearlstone 1966 retrieval cues

Compare cued and free recall

Given categorical words to study

Test free recall it cued (give categorical names)

26

Tulving and pearlstone 1966 retrieval cues Findings

Higher recall when cued
Than free

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

27

Practical applications of episodic research - medical

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

Practical applications of episodic research - mnemonic techniques

Use mnemonics as retrieval cues - mental imagery to associate

29

Practical applications of episodic research - self testing

Assesses what you know and enhances retention

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

30

Levels of processing (craik and Lockhart)

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

31

Example of shallow processing LOP

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

32

Example of deep processing LOP

Processing based on the semantic features/meaning

Ie How pleasant, associations with other words, synonyms

33

Describe craik and tulving 1975

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

Results of craik and tulving 1975

Highest % correct for deep processing than intermediate or shallow

35

What concepts may underlie the LOP effect?

Craik and tulving - semantic = elaborate encoding

Elaboration - into relates to the to be known item

distinct encoding(hunt and Elliot)

36

Describe the elaboration hypothesis

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

Explain congruity effect

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

Describe distinctiveness explanation of LOP (hunt and Elliot)

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

Describe bransford et al Distinctiveness

Gave sentences either distinctive of non distinctive

40

Levels of processing (craik and Lockhart)

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

41

what type of task did craik and tulving 1975 use

orienting task

42

define an orienting task

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

43

how is LOP different from WM

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

describe Kapur 1994 LOP neuronal results

semanti cna dnon semantic orienting task during PET
semantic activate left PFC while non semantic activate more posterior areas

45

circularity limitation of LOP

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

parallel processing limitation of LOP

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

describe morris bransford and franks 1977 lop prob

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

results morris bransford and franks 1988 lop prob

standrd better performance following semantic processing
rhyme better performance following phonological processing

49

describe tranfer appropriate processing theory (morris et al)

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

two assumption of LOP

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

craik and tulving 1975 elaboration hypothesis

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

52

bransford et al 1979 distinctiveness/elab

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

what is consolidation

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

hockey et al 1972 against consolidation/jenkins and dellenbach 1924

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)