lecture 7 – psyco 350, b1 fall, 2011

Psyco 350 Lec #7 – Slide 1

Lecture 7 – Psyco 350, B1Fall, 2011

N. R. Brown


Outline

• Memory Basics

• Factors that influence Storage:– Rehearsal – Organization– Generation – Levels of Processing

• Encoding & Retrieval – context effects– Independent Contexts– Interactive Contexts


(Episodic) Memory Basic: Implications

• The stronger the link between a cued concept and an ER, the greater probability that the ER will be recalled.

[non-elaborative rehearsal]


Cue word: Cozumel w/ strong link

Event20342

Cozumel Diving

WM

SM

EP

“Cozumel”



• The more ER-to-concept links there are, the greater the probability that a given cue will serve as an effective retrieval cue. [elaboration, depth or processing]


Cue words: “Cozumel” “diving”

Event20342

Cozumel Diving

WM

SM

EP

“hurricane”

hurricane



• Context (internal & external) is encoded as part of the ER, and thus contextual features can serve as retrieval cues.

• Increasing the similarity between encoding contexts and retrieval contexts increases the probability of retrieval. [context effects, TAP]

Psyco 350 Lec #7– Slide 8

Contextual Cue

Event20342

Cozumel Diving

WM

SM

EP

taste of t. scrimp

tequila scrimp



• Probability of recall decreases, as # of ERs linked to a cued concept increases. [interference]


Cue word: “diving” interference

Event20342

Cozumel Diving

WM

SM

EP

“diving”

Grand Banks

Event5632


Memory Processes

• Encoding:– process of storing information in memory

• Storage:– the retention (& loss) of information over time

• Retrieval:– recovery of previously stored information


Encoding Processes: Rehearsal

• Rehearsal: a set of techniques/strategies for encoding information into long-term memory

• Two kinds of rehearsal:

– Maintenance: keeps information "alive" in WM; rote recycling; little effect on LTM

– Elaboration: "promotes" information to LTM; think about and connect


Maintenance Rehearsal:Craik and Watkins (1973)

Task: • Monitor auditory list for words beginning w/ target

letter (e.g., G)• required to recall “last” target word at end of list (list

could end at any time).

• Session final recall – recall as many words as possible.

Manipulation:# of words between appearance of target word (assumed equal to amount of rehearsal).


Craik and Watkins (1973)• Word list

• Goat• Daughter• Oil• Rifle• Garden• Grain• Table• Football• Anchor• Giraffe• Brush

• Subject maintains• Goat• Goat• Goat• Goat (i=4)• Garden (i=1) • Grain• Grain• Grain• Grain (i=4)• Giraffe• Giraffe (i=2)


Craik & Watkins (1973)

Results:• recall unaffected by #

of rehearsals.Interpretation:

rote (maintenance) rehearsal fails to transfer info to LTM.

Question:• What about Rundus

(1971)? • Maintenance +

(elaboration, relational coding, etc)


Rundus (1971) again

• Analysis:– # rehearsals for each

word (position)

– % recall for each word (position)

• Results:– “For a given amount of

rehearsal, items from the initial serial positions are no better recalled than items from the middle of the list” – Rundus, 1971, p. 66


Elaborative Encoding: Bradshaw & Anderson(1982)

Tasks:

Recall “target” fact

Design:

Encoding Context X Delaytarget only immediate (no delay)

target + 2 irrelevant facts 1 week

target + 2 relevant facts

Psyco 350 Lec #7– Slide 18

Elaborative Encoding: Bradshaw & Anderson(1982)

Target only:

Newton became emotionally unstable and insecure as child.

Target+2 irrelevant facts:

Locke was unhappy as a student at Westminster.plus

Locke felt fruits were unwholesome for children.

Locke had a long history of back problems.

Target+2 relevant facts

Mozart made a long journey form Munich to Paris.plus

Mozart wanted to leave Munich to avoid a romantic entanglement.

Mozart was intrigued by musical developments in Paris.


Bradshaw & Anderson(1982): Results

• Encoding relevant facts improved recall.• Encoding irrelevant facts hampered recall.• Effect was magnified by delay.Interpretation:• relevant elaboration increases # of retrieval path• relevant facts fosters generation of appropriate cues• irrelevant facts cause interference


Spacing Effects

• Issue:– Rehearsal improves memory.

– Does the temporal distribution of rehearsals matter?

• Research Strategy– holding # of presentations constant, manipulate

the lag (delay) between presentations.


Madigan (1969): Spacing Effect• Method:

– words studied twice at 6 different lags.

• Results:– recall w/ lag

• Other findings:– spacing affects

recognition (Glenberg, 1979)

– obtained w/ textbook materials


Accounting for the Spacing Effect• Deficient Processing

– habituate to recently presented material (less “interesting”)

– short lags overestimation of learning --> decreases (or redistributed) rehearsals.

• Encoding Variability:– Recall depends in part on study context matching test

context. – Context changes w/ time– the greater the lag, the more different the encoding

contexts, and therefore the more likely that one of them will overlap with the test context.


Subjective Organization

A definition: “organizing & structuring a list of items, but w/out the experimenter-supplied category structure.” -- Ashcraft, p. 218

Subjective-Organization Phenomena:• recall better for lists composes of randomly presented

sets of category members than for random words.• category members clusters during study & recall

(Bousfield, 1953).• Recall of random word lists becomes increasingly

organized w/ practice (Tulving, 1962).


Experimenter-Provided Organization: Bower et at. 1969

• Materials:– 4 hierarchically organized

trees

– 112 words in all

– 4 study-test blocks

• Two groups:– Organized – words in

“correct” position in trees

– Random – words assigned to positions randomly

• Results:recall over blocks

recall: organized >> random


Benefits of Organization

• Encoding Efficiency

– strengthens preexisting superordinate-subordinate links & intra-category linksno need to generate & encode new elaborations

• Retrieval Efficiency

– category label can be used as retrieval cue

– category knowledge can be used to GENERATE items, which can be RECOGNIZED as list members.


Another Study List

Study the up coming 20 item-list.

You will see two types of stims:

1. word-pairs (doctor-nurse)– Read second word (nurse)

2. Generation pairs (empty-F___)– Read 1st word, and use letter to generate &

antonym (Full)


Generation Effect: Slamecka & Graf (1978)

Generate Condition: Hot - C_____ Fast - S____(subjects generate second word given first letter and a rule such as antonym)

Read Condition: Hot - ColdFast - Slow

Result: Recall/recognize better for generated than read words



Defined:

Information you generate is better remembered than information you only hear or read.

Explanation:

Depth of Processing – generation condition requires deeper processing than read condition


Levels of Processing: Craik & Lockhart (1972)

• New processing model for understanding human memory.

• Essence of Levels:– emphasis on processes, not stores

– memory is an outgrowth of perception/processing

– shallow (‘perceptual’) vs. deep (‘meaningful’) processing



• Generation Effect:– Gen > Read

• LoP Effect– Syn (deep) > Rhy

(shallow)


LoP: Craik & Lockhart, 1972

SHALLOW Sensory Analyses

(physical properties)

Pattern Recognition

(stimulus identification)

Elaborative Processing

DEEP (imagery, associations)


LoP: Hyde & Jenkins (1973)

• Tasks:– study – perform orienting task

– test free recall

• Design: Orienting X Learning (+no orienting

control)

very shallow incidental

shallow intentional

deep

• Materials: 24 words; 1 word/3 s


Hyde & Jenkins (1969)

• varied depth of processing: – count e’s– count # of letters– make pleasantness judgment

• varied intention to learn:– just do the above task (incidental)– do the task and learn the list (incid + intent)– learn the list (intentional-only)


Hyde & Jenkins (1969)

67.9 69.2 67.1

41.2 51.7

39.2 43.3

Incidental Intentional Intentional + Task + Task Only

Pleasantness(semantic)

# of Letters(nonsemantic)

“e” Sound(nonsemantic)

•LoP affected

•Intention did not

•semantic process ≈ intentional study


LoP: Craik & Tulving, 1975Encoding Question (trout or kite) Level of AnalysisIs word in uppercase? Structural

Rhyme with “shout”? Phonemic

Does word fit in the Semanticsentence “She ate the _________”?


LoP: Craik and Tulving, 1975

Yes No

ProportionOf WordsCorrectlyRecognized

Case Rhyme Sentence Level of Processing


Craik & Lockhart’s Interperation• Cog system organized hierarchically• input processed @ different levels: sensory semantic

• product of earlier analysis is input to latter analysis• Memory trace “simply [a] record of those analysis”

“deeper more semantic analysis yields records that are more durable.”

===========================================But why?Traces:

– richer, more elaborate – “more stuff”

– semantic encoding more distinctive


Criticisms of Levels

Nelson (1977) :

• circularity = there is no independent measure of depth in the framework

• how can you rank order these “levels”?– Is it green?

– Is it an animal?

– Does it contain an R?

– Is it GORF reversed?

– Does it rhyme with DOG?


Value of Levels

• places emphasis on processes

• introduced a technique—incidental learning with an orienting task—for studying encoding processes

• fits well with transfer appropriate processing view.


Context & Memory

• Context:-- stimuli present “at the same time” as the target

eventn = content + contextni + contextnj…

Context encoded (almost) automatically w/ content

• encoding context can serve as retrieval path

• test context can serve as a retrieval cue

General Principle:

when test context ≈ study context, performance


Two Types of Contexts• Independent – “The information [setting] is stored

together w/ the trace of the stimulus [focal element], but does not fundamentally change the trace.”

– Baddeley, p. 287– external – environmental, location– internal – physiological, emotional

• Interactive – “An interactive encoding occurs when the context actually changes the way in which the stimulus [focal element] is encoded.” -- Baddeley p. 287

– semantic: strawberry – JAM vs traffic – JAM


Two Types of Contexts

• Independent– external – environmental, location

– internal – physiological, emotional

• Interactive– semantic: strawberry – JAM vs traffic – JAM

Encoding Specificity Principle:

“The probability of recalling an item at test depends on the similarity of its encoding at test and its encoding at study”

-- Anderson, p 206


State-Dependent Memory

General Approach for studying context effects:

materials studied in StateX

materials tested in StateX or StateY

State-dependent memory effect observed when memory is better when study & test states match than when they mismatch.


Context-Dependent Memory:Godden & Baddeley, 1975

Study X Test .

land land

underwater underwater===========================================

Participants: 16 divers

Materials: 40 words

Results:

LL >> LU

UU >> UL


Mood-Congruent Memory

Eich & Metcalfe (1989)

• Induce mood by using music.

• Read or generate during study

Study-Test Design:

Study X Test .

happy happy

sad sad


Mood Congruence: Eich & Metcalf (1989)

Results:• Generation Effect:

– generate >> read

• Mood Congruence:– H/H >> H/S

– S/S >> S/H

• “floor” effect for read condition?


State-Dependent Memory: Alcohol

Goodwin et al (1969)• Manipulation: 10 oz of 80 proof vodka; 24 hr study-test delay• Standard 2 X 2: (I)ntoxicated/I, S(ober)/S, I/S, S/I• Results: (a) S/S < SI; (b) I/I < I/S; (c) S/I < I/I

• Point (C) encoding better when sober.


State-Dependent Memory: Marijuana

Eich et al (1975)• Manipulation: m(arijuana) vs t(obacco); 4 hr study-

test delay.• Standard 2 X 2: m/m, t/t, m/t, t/m• Results: (a) t/t > t/m; (b) m/m >m/t; (c) t/m > m/m• Point (C) encoding better when straight.


State-dependent Memory

State-dependent effect strong for recall than recognition.

• Reason: recall requires more cues, and state provides context cues

Sober@study >> Blasted@study, regardless of test state.

• Reason: attention, comprehension, & elaboration processes more effective when sober.


Interactive Contexts

General idea:

• event traces encode meaning

• meaning emerges from the meanings of the focal element and its semantic context.

retrieval cues that access encoded meaning will be more effective than those that do not

Retrieval Cue:– A hint that can be used to evoke an item that has been learnt

but cannot be spontaneously recalled


Encoding Specificity w/ Interactive ContextsThomson & Tulving (1970)Aim: demonstrate that recall depends on match

between encoded and cued meaning.Materials: 24 word pairs• Design: Input Contexts (2) X Output Cues (3)

Input Contexts:Strong: hot – COLDWeak: wind – COLD

Output Cues: strong, weak, no-cue


Results: Thomson & Craik (1970)

• Recall best when input & output match• Mismatch misdirects search.

Output Cue

Strong Weak No CueStrong Input 83% 4% 30%

Weak Input 33% 73% 30%


LoP & Encoding Specificity

Fisher & Craik (1977)

Aim: Demonstrate LoP and ES in same Exp.

Design:

Encoding Task X Encoding Response X Retrieval Cue

rhyme YES rhyme

category NO category

sentence sentence


Fisher & Craik (1977): Encoding Tasks

Target Word: train or house

Encoding Tasks:

rhyme: Does the word rhyme with brain?

category: Is it a form of transportation?

sentence: John took the ____ to Cleveland?


Fisher & Craik (1977): Results

• LoP Effect:– Category ≥ Sentence >> Rhyme

.22

.58

.51

LoP


Fisher & Craik (1977): Results

• LoP Effect:– Category ≥ Sentence >> Rhyme

• Encoding Specificity :– encoding-retrieval cue matches > mismatches– example: Transfer Appropriate Processing – match re:

processing• Why is cat/rhyme (43%) > rhyme/rhyme (40%)?

.22

.58

.51


Encoding & Retrieval: Main Points

• Memory Trace is combination of the “stimulus” and the context.

• Context broadly defined– environmental, physiological, semantic,

procedural

• Performance depends on:– encoding processes

– similarity between study context & test context

lecture 7 – psyco 350, b1 fall, 2011

Documents

processing psyco

tap psyco

episodic memory basic

cue words

probability of retrieval

rote maintenance rehearsal

effective retrieval

longterm memory