Memory 1 Long term (storage/retrieval/forgotten) Flashcards
(41 cards)
LEVELS OF PROCESSING THEORY (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Howard, 1995; Conway, 2002)
retention of items depends on level of depth of processing
shallow (e.g., physical properties of words) vs deep (e.g., meaning of words) processing
deeper levels of presentation: more permanent memory traces
maintenance vs elaborative rehearsal
Maintenance and Elaborative rehearsal
who when what?
Craik & Lockhart (1972) distinguished between maintenance and elaborative rehearsal.
MAINTENANCE rehearsal usually takes place at the level of phonemic analysis (simply repeating the material over and over) and does not typically result in durable memories, though it may be useful for short-term storage of items such as telephone numbers.
ELABORATIVE rehearsal consists of forming semantic associations with the material, which increases the number of retrieval routes.
Craik and Tulving’s experiment (1975):
looked at effects of elaboration of processing
CRAIK AND TULVING - 1975
Experimental recognition memory task: 3 conditions (randomised):
SHALLOW processing: upper/lower case
- is the word in capital letters?
(BOOK)
DEEP processing: meaning/semantics
- does this word fit in this sentence?
(‘I saw a…..in the pond’ -duck)
MIDDLE processing: rhyme
- does the following word rhyme with mat? (hat)
I
CRAIK AND TULVING - 1975
continued - recognition task - shallow deep middle
words in conditions above were mixed which words which were not (control words)
participants are asked: do you recognise having seen this word in the task? yes or no?
task assumes incidental learning (participant is not told in advance that a memory test is going to be given)
Hypothesis: what would you predict?
CRAIK AND TULVING - 1975 what were they looking at (short answer)
looked at effects of elaboration of processing
deep, shallow middle
CRAIK AND… (who helped and when?)
TULVING 1975
TULVING AND….(who helped and when?)
CRAIK 1975
RESULTS OF THE Craik and Tulving experiment.
Results:
(sentence) (rhyme) (case type)
deep > middle > shallow
processing processing processing
> means higher recognition than
Problems with levels of processing
how accurately can we define/measure depth of processing? can we provide measures that are independent of memory performance. If not, the definition of depth of processing involves circular reasoning
Nelson & McEvoy: phonemic processing can be as effective as semantic processing (a phonemic cue, such as “IME”, for a memory list word “DIME”, can be just as effective as the semantic cue “an American coin”). Hunt & Elliot (1980): words with a distinctive orthography (e.g., “phlegm”) can be better recalled than words with a regular orthography.
further Problems with levels of processing
when semantic processing has become automatic with extensive practice, it no longer results in better recall. Fiske & Schneider (1984): extensive practice in a word categorisation task produced poor word recognition
Processing is not necessarily sequential -from letter to meaning- but parallel
BUT emphasis on memory processes: theory is concerned with way in which information is coded (processed) rather than with the structure of memory
ENCODING-SPECIFICITY PRINCIPLE (Tulving, 1983)
trace (memory representation) contains not only information about the item but also information about the context (environment, mood, etc) in which the item is studied
CUE-dependent-forgetting includes:
CONTEXT-dependent forgetting (external context cues)
STATE-dependent forgetting (internal context cues)
One reason why recognition is generally believed to be superior to recall:
the recognition situation provides some of the context in which the original learning took place
Context-dependent forgetting (external context effects)
who what when
Godden & Baddeley (1975, 1980)
showed participants a series of words wither on land or under water
they were then asked to either recall (from sheer memory no cues) or recognise (from a sheet - cues) in the two different environments
recall was greater for words seen in water when the subject was in water., and the same for land learned to land recalled.
and recognition saw no change in the levels of recall (i.e. land learned words could be recognised on land AS WELL AS on water (and the same with water learned.
Godden and Baddeley deduced that EXTERNAL CONTEXT plays a part in memory recall but not so much recognition as with recognition the “cue” is already present in th,e list of words. L
State-dependent forgetting (internal context effects)
person’s internal state can provide a context for learning: if the internal state that was present during learning can be reproduced during testing, superior retrieval may result.
Kenealy (1997) used music to induce sad or happy mood states during learning and retrieval and found superior performance when the learning and retrieval mood states were the same.
Kenealy (1997)
used music to induce sad or happy mood states during learning and retrieval and found superior performance when the learning and retrieval mood states were the same.
used music to induce sad or happy mood states during learning and retrieval and found superior performance when the learning and retrieval mood states were the same.
Kenealy (1997)
State-dependent forgetting (internal context effects)
Eich and Metcalfe’s (1989)
“mood” experiment
participants studied whilst in an experimentally SAD and HAPPY mood
they then took tests whilst in both moods
the results showed that people who studied whilst sad did better in tests, on their studies, whilst sad than whilst happy
and those who studied while Happy did better in their tests on the material while Happy than while Sad
Think of mr metcalfe dressed as a member of the third (r)EICH . in nazi uniform doing a test whilst very happy and then while sad
his face shifting back and forth and he is at the end of the 80 when he build prey a manger.
“mood” experiment
participants studied whilst in a experimentally SAD and HAPPY mood
Who and When
EICH and METCALFE 1989
Think of mr metcalfe dressed as a member of the third (r)EICH . in nazi uniform doing a test whilst very happy and then while sad
his face shifting back and forth and he is at the end of the 80 when he build prey a manger.
GRANT et al (1998)
Copied Eich and Metcalfes experiment from 1989 but with noise conditions (quiet and noisy)
result; matching your learning environment to the test environment can facilitate memory recall in the test.
best environment - quiet- what a surprise.
OTHER FACTORS THAT AID ENCODING, STUDYING AND RETRIEVING INFORMATION
IMAGERY: create an image that associates two things
ASSOCIATE: relate new information to what you already know
Creating connections, cues for remembering
SELF-RELAVENCE effect: relate information to yourself
ORGANIZING to-be-remembered information e.g. into separate folders with different subjects so that information can be accessed easily
ELABORATE (reflect on the information) and GENERATE (ask yourself questions about what you are learning) -Generation effect. This will facilitate encoding and retrieving information.
Highlighting is not enough!
Organize information -Helps reduce load on memory
TAKE BREAKS: distributed vs massed practice effect
OTHER FACTORS THAT AID ENCODING, STUDYING AND RETRIEVING INFORMATION
KEY WORDS….
IMAGERY
CONSOLIDATE
ELABORATE - ask your self questions about the information
TAKE BREAKS
ORGANISING
GENERATE
ASSOCIATE.
SELF RELEVANCE
FACTORS IN ENCODING
ICE TOGAS
IMAGERY
CONSOLIDATION
ELABORATE
TAKE BREAKS
ORGANISE
GENERATE
ASSOCIATE
SELF RELAVENCE
FACTOR IN ENCODING;
ORGANIZING …….
…. to-be-remembered information e.g. into separate folders with different subjects so that information can be accessed easily
ELABORATE
AND GENERATE
(reflect on the information) and GENERATE (ask yourself questions about what you are learning) -Generation effect. This will facilitate encoding and retrieving information.
