Psyc7006 - Fluidity of memory - wk1 Flashcards Preview

Psychology - Honours year > Psyc7006 - Fluidity of memory - wk1 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Psyc7006 - Fluidity of memory - wk1 Deck (29):

Describe the 'schema' model of memory (Barlett)

(not very important)

Schemata derived from past impressions (often not conscious) shape/modify the impressions produced by incoming sensory impulses in such a way that the final sensations of position or of locality rise into consciousness charged with a relation to something that has gone before.

i.e., present action is neither entirely new or old, but manufactured out of the living and postural 'schemata' of the moment and their interrelations.


What is "schema"?

(not very important)

An active organisation of past reactions or of past experience, which must always be supposed to be operating in any well-adapting organic response

When there is Order or regulation of behavior , a particular response is possible only because it is related to other similar responses which have been serially organised, yet which operate as a unitary mass,


What does it mean to say "memory is constructed"?


The reconstruction of memory is subject to CONTEXT (top-down processing)

It is neither reduplicative or reproductive (rote learned) - it is constructed in the moment, a fresh on the basis of immediately preceding events/needs (i.e., context).

Freely building together events, incidents and experiences - features include: condensation, elaboration, invention.


What is the "Forgot-it-all-along effect?


Forgetting that one had remembered something earlier/in the past - recollecting an event in manner X may cause one to forget having previously recollected in manner Y.


What is Tulvings concept of encoding specificity and how might it be related to the forget-it-all-along-effect?


The closer the match between encoding and retreval conditions, the more likely it is that the event will be successfully retrieved.

THUS memories of episodes of recollection share content with memories of the remembered event itself


What has 'originally' been thought to be the difference between remembering and knowing? (hint: not necessarily true!) (dual system model)

i.e., Previous theories said X

(not overly important)

THEORY 1: Gardiner 1988...."'Remember' and 'Know' are two different memory systems."

1. Remembering = actual call to mind memory, episodic memory, consciously controlled reflection. High level of processing
2. Knowing = semantic (sensory) memory, efficient process, low level of processing

Therefore!: remember is higher in deeper LOP due to enhanced conceptual processing and/or episodic memory. but knowing the same for deeper and shallower items because semantic system activation and/or perceptual encoding is similar for both.


With reference to top-down and bottom-up processing describe how people hear messages in backwards rock music?

People are primed and thus hear messages due to active construction (i.e., context/ top-down processing.) But this still has to map/match somewhat with the physical properties of the backwards song (bottom-down/data-driven processing)


How can homographs (e.g., palm has two meanings, palm tree and palm hand) be used to create a lab analogue of the forgot-it-all-along effect?

List of homographs practised e.g palm-tree
Test: recall some items with same (palm-tree) context as on the list practiced and some with different (palm-hand) context
test 2: Recall items again but all in the context of the original list e.g., palm-tree"did you recall this item on test 1?" (follow up: why did you say yes/no?)

RESULTS: Items judged on test 2 as being recalled in test 1 same context: 80%, diff context: 50%


What is the knew-it-all-along effect?

Occurs when individuals report having known previously what they only just came to know.


What is bottom-up processing?

Data-driven - processing based on incoming data, the starting point for perception e.g., what information is actually present.


What is top-down processing?

Conceptual processing (processes of attribution), based on previous knowledge (can be aware or unaware use of knowledge). CONTEXT.

Needs (motivations), beliefs, comparisons/priming in current situation


How do both top-down and bottom-up processing apply to hearing messages in rock music? How do we know?

Although people are good at identifying physical characteristics of backwards rock music (e.g., gender of singer), they are unable/unlikely to detect phrases or words in backwards rock music unless they have been primed to hear it (i.e., told what to listen for). This suggests the the hearing of 'messages' in backwards rock music is due to an attribution process (top-down processing) whereby the context/knowledge (being told what to listen for) leads one to register a 'message'. However, bottom-down processing is also important as the backwards music's properties has to match somewhat with the apparent 'message'.


Who is widely considered the 'father' of reconstrutive memory and when and what was his most influential paper in this regard?

Bartlett "War of the Ghosts", 1932


How can the forgot-it-all-along effect be studied in an experimental setting? (also what paper, authors and year, did this). What doesn't experiment 1 show?

(Arnold and Lindsay 2002) The FIA effect can be studied using homographs which are words that are spelled the same and whose meaning can be determined only through context (e.g., palm -> palm - hand, palm - tree).

All participants study a list of homographs presented in 1 of 2 contexts (e.g., they all study palm - tree). Then they are presented with a list of the homographs in either the SAME or DIFFERENT context and asked to recall which words were on the study list. Here, recall is more accurate when the homographs are presented in the same context, supporting Tulving's (1984) notion of encoding specificity whereby recall is more accurate when items were studied in the same context they are recalled (reconstructive memory, top-down processes).

Then all participants are presented with homographs in the same context as the study list and asked to A. recall if they were on the study list and B. recall if they recalled this on the first test.

Remembering of prior recall was more accurate when the context was the same in both test 1 and test 2 (as the study list), and less accurate when the context was different in test 1 compared to the study list and test 2.
This suggests that memories of prior recall are subject to the same processes as memories of an original event. That is, they are also a reconstructive process that is influences by context - i.e., tulving's encoding specificity principle also applies to recall of test 1 during test 2, if the context is different recall is less accurate.

These difference can also be found with subtler shifts in meaning.

e.g., "he swatted the fly with the palm of his hand" versus "the fortune teller traced the lifeline on the palm of his hand".


What is "knowing" versus "remembering"?

To remember is the conscious recollection of many vivid contextual details, such as "when" and "how" the information was learned.

To know is a feeling (unconscious) of familiarity. It is the sensation that the item has been seen before, but not being able to pin down the reason why.


according to Gled E. Bodner and Stephen D Lindsay - what is the difference between remembering and knowing?

The difference is dependent on context - specifically comparison with how difficulty to remember context-list items feel. Contrast/salience makes items feel either 'remember' 'know' without the content of the memory being any different.

It does not arise from objectively different memory systems (dual-system theory), such as: remembering -> more episodic memory and conceptual processing [high LoP] and Know -> more semantic memory and perceptual processing). As even when factors (such as LoP) are controlled (both medium list) remember/know differences rise due to context.

(OTHER....Originally the research was stimulated by Gruppuso, Lindsay and Kelley, 1997) that when 2 lists are encoded differently (e.g., different LoP) you can better remember which list an item came from (like 'remember'). But if he lists are encoded the same then you know the item came from a list but not which one (like 'know')...the CONTRAST/SALIENCE makes the list-origin more memorable.)


What has 'originally' been thought to be the difference between remembering and knowing? (hint: not necessarily true!) (single system model)

what is the problem with this model?

i.e., Previous theories said X

(less important)

Single process detection model.

one process – based on strength of memory and subjective criteria for knowing vs. remembering on that line.

e.g., Do you recall this: Y? No? no memory ----|-------|------ strong memory (first '|' = know, second '|' = remember, i.e., stricter criterion.)


Criterion model implies that variables might not affect remember versus knowing when the subject shift their decision criteria depending on the experimental conditions.

BUT because it is on one line (a continuum)… why are remembering and knowing experienced as different things if . I.e., if it is ONE PROCESS, why are the experience so different.


Outline experiment 1 Bodner and Lindsay 2003, what is does and doesn't show...

Experiment 1:

1. Shallow-medium condition OR deep-medium condition

2. Recognition test, list items + equal no. of new items

Theory - list-context will not affect recognition of medium lists but will affect 'remember' 'know' judgement. i.e., context contributes to subjective experience

Findings: Medium produced 15% more remember judgements in the shallow-M than in the deep-M
(also, recognition and remember S->M->D - as expected)

PROBLEM: does the effect arise from list context effects OR differential processing when both lists are presented in recall.


What is the 'overall' message of Arnold et al's lecture?

Overall, context is the theme and it is not only the context (priming, comparisons) in how something is remembered that changes the experience of remembering but also the context (priming, attribution) of how they are asked about their experience.

Bodner and Lindsay showed that the context of how something is remembered affects the subjective experience of memory but it does not affect objective memory. Arnold's subsequent study then changed the context of how subjects were asked about their subjective experience of memory, and this change in context of how they are asked seems to also change their subjective experience of remembering.


What does it mean to say that 'context' affects experiences?

Context = Conceptual processing, top-down processing. attributional processes.

I.e., That our subjective experience and perceptions are influenced by expectations, existing beliefs and cognitions, priming, comparisons and motivations.

NOT data-driven bottom-down processes - not based on objective differences in data.


Give the authors and year for FIA paper...

Arnold and Lindsay 2002


Give the authors and year for KIA paper...

Arnold and Lindsay 2007


Give the authors and year for remember/know NO difference in rating when both remember/know scales are used to measure....

Arnold et al. (in prep)


Give the authors and year for remember/know due to CONTEXT of surrounding lists....

Bodner and Lindsay 2003


What was the research question for Bodner and Lindsay 2003?

Does the subjective experience of remember versus know depend on how memorable items are on another list (a context-list) as opposed to the content of the memory itself (data-driven)


Outline experiment 2 Bodner and Lindsay 2003, what is does and doesn't show...

To counter problems in experiment 1...

Experiment 2...
only tested 1-list during the recognition phase, S or D context list has no effect of M...i.e., effect only present if both lists present @ recall - suggesting it was in fact the contextual experience.

Problem - does the list-context manipulation somehow affect recall ability?


Outline experiment 3 Bodner and Lindsay 2003, what is does and doesn't show...

To counter problem in experiment 2...

Experiment 3...
List source judgements. which list did the word come from?
Equivalent list-source judgements for both M conditions - evidence for the same recollection capacity despite different subjective experiences.

Problem: only evidence for list-source info not non-source specifying info


Outline experiment 4 Bodner and Lindsay 2003, what is does and doesn't show...

To counter problem in experiment 3....

Experiment 4...
ask Ps what kind of details were recalled about K v R.....same level of detail recalled for M lists.

Findings: Do NOT support the idea of separate system models OR different encoding or retrieval

DO support idea that R/K judgement emerge from attributional processes rather then serving as a reliable and direct index of stable response categories of memory systems.


what does Arnold et al. (in prep) show?

Arnold's subsequent study showed that even the context of how subjects were asked about their subjective experience of memory changes their subjective experience of remembering or knowing....(or both!)