Human Cognitive -Read Entirely FIRST!!
xzevo103
ChapterInformationPowerpoint.pdf
Basic Processes in Long-Term Memory:
Encoding and Retrieving Information
Fundamental Issues and Distinctions
❖ Types of LTM LTM
Declarative
Memory
“knowing that”
Procedural
Memory “knowing how”
Semantic
Memory:
Factual
Knowledge
Episodic
Memory:
Personally
Experienced
Events
❖ Descriptive Framework
● Encoding
− Processes involved in the acquisition of material
● Storage
− Formation of a memory representation
● Retrieval
− Processes involved in getting information out of
memory
❖ LTM: Modes of Access and Use
❖ Implicit vs. Explicit Memory Tests
Explicit memory tests: conscious recollection
− Types
◘ Free recall
◘ Cued recall
◘ Recognition
− Performance is measured by accuracy
Implicit memory tests: recollection in the absence of
conscious awareness
− Types
◘ Word stem completion (gar__)
◘ Word fragment completion (ga_ l _ c)
− Implementation
◘ Encode a list of words and
another list remains
unstudied
½ study A and not B
½ study B and not A
◘ Retrieval: attempt to finish
word fragment or word
stem completion from both
lists
Encoding
List A
giraffe
paper
tongue
chapel
List B
clock
bottle
picture
staple
Retrieval
List A
g_r_f f_
p_p_r
_o n_u_
c h_ _ e_
List B
_l o_k
b_ _t l_
p i_ _u r_
_ _a p_e
− Performance is measured by priming
◘ The degree to which prior presentation of an item
increases the likelihood of it being produced later
Example:
~ Studied 10 words
~ Later tested with 20 word fragments (10 studied and 10
not studied)
o Of the 10 studied ones you complete 7 (70%)
o Of the 10 unstudied ones you complete 2 (20%)
Priming is 50%
» Retrospective vs. Prospective Memory Tests
● Retrospective memory (RM) tests
− Remembering information from the past (e.g., explicit
and implicit memory tests)
● Prospective memory (PM) tests
− Remembering to perform an action in the future
◘ The intention to act can be triggered in 2 ways:
Event-based: external event
Time-based: the passage of time
Retrieval of PM and RM
− Event that triggers retrieval differs
◘ Cue in RM—something indicates that it is time to
remember
◘ No cue in PM—retrieval is self-initiated (must
remember to remember)
External memory aids help us “remember to
remember”
Once triggered, retrieval of information is the same as in
retrospective memory
Encoding Processes in Explicit Long-Term Remembering
❖ Attention and Repetition
● Attention
− Information must be actively processed in
consciousness
● Repetition
− Material that is presented more than once is easier to
remember
» The Spacing Effect
Types of repetition
− Massed: repeated presentations that occur closely
together in time
− Distributed: repeated presentations spread out over
time
Spacing effect: spaced is better than massed
● Explanations for the spacing effect
− Deficient-processing view
◘ Locus of effect is at encoding
Massed repetition leads to deficient processing of
the second presentation of the item
Result is only one fully encoded memory
representation of the item
− Encoding Variability view
◘ Locus of effect is at retrieval
Massed repetition leads to little variability in the
encoded memory representations
Results in representations that will be difficult to
locate in a memory search
Bahrick (1979, 1984)
➢ Participants learned Spanish in high school or college 1-50 years earlier
➢ Procedure
✓ Completed various tests to assess Spanish knowledge
♦ Reading comprehension
♦ Vocabulary recall and recognition
♦ Grammar
✓ Completed background questionnaire to account for important individual differences
♦ Level of original language learning
♦ Grades received
♦ Amount of rehearsal since original learning
➢ Results
✓ Even after 25 years or more, people retained a fair
amount of information
♦ Retention depended on initial learning
▪ More training = more retention
Bahrick and Hall (1991)
➢ Assessed retention of material learned in high school algebra
➢ Accounted for:
✓ Grades
✓ Subsequent rehearsal
✓ Scores on Scholastic Aptitude Test
➢ Results
✓ Grades and SAT were related to overall performance, but unrelated to maintenance over time
✓ Only predictor of maintenance over time was the interval of time over which the information was learned
♦ The longer the interval, the longer the retention
Conway, Cohen, and Stanhope (1991)
➢ Assessed retention of material learned in a year-long
cognitive psychology course
➢ Results
✓ Retention of information about general research
methods showed no decline over the retention interval
♦ Course was a methods course so had a great deal of
exposure to methods
♦ Research methods was also covered in other
classes, enjoying the benefit of spaced repetition
● 2 factors in determining the effect of spaced repetitions on
long-term retention
− Study interval (SI)
◘ Time between the repeated study sessions
− Retention interval (RI)
◘ Time between the final study session and the final
test
Initial Study Session
Second (re-study)
session
Final Test
Study Interval
Retention Interval
7 days
35 days
70 days
350 days
1 day
105 days
Cepeda, Vuhl, Rohrer, Wixted (2008)
➢ Investigated the combination of SI and RI that would maximize the amount of info retained over time
➢ 1354 participants!
➢ Tested on 32 obscure
facts via the Internet
➢ 1st and 2nd session
Questionguessif wrong
correct answer given
Repeat cycle until 100%
correct
Study Interval
➢ Results
✓ Spacing repetitions helped to a point, after which recall
declined with increased spacing
✓ Memory declined as retention interval increased
✓ As the retention interval increased, optimal recall
occurred at increasingly longer study intervals
❖ Rehearsal (How an item is thought about internally)
» Maintenance and Elaborative Rehearsal
● Maintenance rehearsal: repeating information with
no embellishment
Immediate
Memory Attention To LTM
Forgetting
Info
Craik and Watkins (1973)
➢ Procedure
✓ Presented lists of words that had different first letters
✓ Task was to keep track of the last word that began
with a specific letter (“P”)
♦ At the end of each list, report that word
✓ Varied the number of intervening items (and hence
the amount of rehearsal) from 2 to 12 items
✓ Final recall of all words that began with “P”
➢ Results
✓ No difference in final recall!
● Elaborative rehearsal
− Relies on two types of processing
◘ Thinking about the meaning of the to-be-remembered
(TBR) information
◘ Forming associations between TBR information and
other information already stored in LTM
IM
Attention
LTM
New Old
Old
Hyde and Jenkins (1969)
➢ Encoding task:
✓ One of three simple judgments were made for each word
♦ Pleasantness
♦ Estimate the number of letters in the word
♦ Indicate if the word contained an e
➢ Memory instructions
✓ Incidental memory instructions: participants are not told about the later memory test
✓ Intentional memory instructions: participants are told about the later memory test
➢ Results
✓ For both incidental and intentional memory instructions, words encoded with the pleasantness judgment were recalled better than the other two judgments
❖ Levels of processing
● Processing of words proceeds from a superficial analysis
of structural features to deep analysis of meaning
Deep processing = good encoding
Good encoding leads to successful retrieval
● Problem
Deep Encoding Good Memory
❖ Self-Reference Effect
Encoding information as it relates to oneself
Rogers, Kuiper, and Kirker (1977)
➢ Encoding conditions
Shallow
Deep
Self-Reference (Does this term describe you?)
Why is self-reference effective?
− Promotes elaboration and organization
R e s u lt s
● Ownership
Cunningham, Turk, Macdonald, and MacRae (2008)
➢ Procedure
✓ Participants assigned a red or blue shopping basket; the other was assigned to the confederate
✓ Shown a series of cards, each containing a grocery item and a blue or red sticker
✓ If the sticker color matched their basket color, they were to imagine they had won the item on the card
✓ Card was then randomly handed to the participant or confederate to place in the appropriate basket
➢ Independent variables
✓ Ownership
♦ Whether the card ended up in the participant’s basket
✓ Activity
♦ Whether the participant or the confederate placed the
card in the appropriate basket
➢ Dependent variables
✓ Number of grocery items correctly recognized
✓ Reaction time to make the recognition decision
➢ Results
✓ Memory
♦ No effect of activity
♦ Effect of owner—items were better remembered if owned by the participant than the confederate
✓ Reaction time
♦ Fast recognition RT for self-owned than confederate owned items
▪ Suggesting memory representation of self-owned items are particularly salient
Activity
Self Other
Owner Self .67 .64 .66
Other .59 .60 .60
.63 .62
❖ Fitness-Relevant Processing
Evolutionary pressures “rewarded” those who were good
at processing and retaining fitness-relevant information
Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada (2007)
➢ Participants were presented with a list of words
➢ Conditions
✓ Pleasant (pleasantness condition)
✓ Usefulness in a move (moving condition)
✓ Usefulness if life was in danger (survival condition)
➢ Dependent variable: number of words correctly recalled
Moving
❖ Organization and Distinctiveness
Organization
− Refers to:
◘ Characteristics of the incoming information
◘ Strategic orientation of encoder
◘ Characteristics of the Incoming Information
Bower, Clark, Lesgold, and Winzenz (1969)
➢ Stimuli
✓ 4 different lists of words
✓ Each list contained words from a different category
➢ Conditions
✓ Organized
♦ Saw words organized into respective taxonomic categories
✓ Unorganized
♦ Saw words into a random arrangement
➢ Memory was tested with multitrial free recall
✓ Learn the list—recall
✓ Learn-recall (i.e., a trial) was repeated 4 times
➢ Results
✓ Organized Condition
♦ Recalled 90% of items by the 2nd trial
♦ Recalled 100% on the last two trials
✓ Unorganized Condition
♦ Recall never exceeded 70%, even on the 4th trial
◘ Strategic Orientation of the Encoder
Tulving (1962)
➢ Interested in the degree to which participants would impose
their own organizational structure on information
➢ Stimuli: lists of unrelated items
➢ Multitrial free recall
➢ Results
✓ On the first two trials, participants grouped items into
idiosyncratic categories (subjective organization)
✓ Participants who did more of this recalled more than
those who did not
❖ Distinctiveness
How well information can be distinguished from other
items being encoded and/or other items stored in LTM
von Restorff (1933)
➢ Stimuli: list of words in which one word was in a different
color (e.g., red)
➢ Results: The word was remembered better when it was in
a different color than the other list items than when it was
in the same color
» Material Appropriate Processing
● Memory is enhanced when encoding processes
complement the nature of the TBR information
Relational Processing:
● Processing items in terms of relationship to other items
(organization)
− Use when TBR information lacks organization
Individual Item Processing:
● Processing items in terms of their individual
characteristics (distinctiveness)
− Use when TBR information is organized
❖ Remembering Action
» Enactment Effect
● Action phrases (“hammer the nail”) are better
remembered if enacted than if read
● The intention to perform the action leads to the same
memorial benefit
Goschke and Kuhl (1993)
➢ Encoding
✓ Participants studied two lists of 5 activities that
accomplished a goal (clearing a messy desk)
✓ After encoding, told they would be performing the
activities on one of the lists
➢ Retrieval
✓ Presented with single words
● Indicate as quickly as possible if the word had been
presented on the earlier lists
➢ Results
✓ RT was faster for words on the to-be-performed list
Actors’ Memories
Noice and Noice (2006)
➢ Interviewed actors about their insights on how they learn
lines
➢ Results
✓ Two phases
♦ Utilized encoding strategies to “memorize” the lines
▪ Elaboration, self-reference, ownership, and
organization
♦ Active experiencing
▪ Lines and intentions of a character are processed
in terms of movement and emotion
Noice and Noice (2001)
➢ Pairs of college participants memorized both parts of a two-
person scene
➢ Conditions
✓ Memorization condition
♦ Worked together to memorize in anticipation of a
memory test
✓ Partial active experiencing
♦ Practiced the lines including emotion
✓ Full active experiencing
♦ Reading and acting out the scene, including emotion
and movement
➢ Memory test
✓ Given the script with lines missing and had to fill in the
missing lines
♦ Dependent variable: accuracy
➢ Results
✓ No significant difference between partial active
experiencing and memorization
✓ Full active experiencing was better than partial active
experiencing and memorization
Full Active
Experiencing
Partial Active
Experiencing Memorization
Recall (%) 31 23 18
❖ Transfer-Appropriate Processing
● Places emphasis on encoding-retrieval interaction
− No encoding task is inherently better than any other
at producing successful retrieval
− Success depends upon the retrieval task
◘ Encoding processes should match processes to
be engaged at retrieval
Morris, Bansford, and Franks (1977)
➢ Encoding task
✓ Semantic (deep)
♦ Does a target word (soup) fit into a given sentence
(The ___ contained celery)
✓ Phonological (shallow)
♦ Does a target word (sit) rhyme with another word (hit)
➢ Retrieval task
✓ Traditional recognition test
✓ Rhyme recognition (recognize words that rhymed with
the target words)
➢ Predictions
✓ Levels of processing
♦ Regardless of retrieval task: deep > shallow
✓ Transfer appropriate processing
♦ Rhyme recognition test
▪ shallow > deep
♦ Traditional recognition test
▪ deep > shallow
➢ Results
84
33
63
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Traditional Rhyme
Deep Encoding
Shallow Encoding
% r
e c o g n it io
n
» Testing effect
● Periodic retrieval of TBR information improves retention
Roediger and Karpicke (2006)
➢ Read a scientific text passage
➢ Procedure
✓ Phase 1
♦ Four 5-minute periods
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4
SSSS Study Study Study Study
STTT Study Test Test Test
✓ Retention Interval
♦ Amount of time between the first phase of the experiment
and the final testing phase
▪ 5 minutes after period 4
▪ One week after period 4
✓ Phase 2: Final recall test
➢ Results
Retrieval Processes in LTM
❖ Availability and Accessibility
Availability
− Is the information in memory?
Accessibility
− Can you get to (retrieve) the information?
Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)
➢ Encoding
✓ Categorized lists that contained two target words from
each of 24 categories (“Type of Spice: garlic, parsley”)
➢ Retrieval: Free recall followed by cued recall
➢ Results
✓ Free recall
♦ Less than half of the items were remembered
✓ Cued recall test with category names (i.e., type of spice)
as retrieval cues
♦ Recalled nearly three-quarters of the words
Habib and Nyber (2007)
➢ Investigated the neural correlates of availability and
accessibility
➢ fMRI scans done during three phases
✓ Phase 1: encode 60 word pairs
✓ Phase 2: cued recall
♦ Words from phase 1 were presented
♦ Task was to recall the word paired with it in phase1
✓ Phase 3: recognition
♦ Intact and recombined word pairs from phase 1 were
presented
♦ Task was to indicate if the pair had been presented in
phase 1
➢ A comparison of these conditions allowed for the
assessment of brain activity when words were:
✓ Recalled and recognized (remembered/accessible)
✓ Not recalled, but recognized (available)
✓ Not recalled or recognized (forgotten)
➢ Results
✓ Activity in both the medial temporal lobe (MTL) and left
inferior frontal cortex (LIFC) at encoding was involved for
words that were remembered
✓ Activity in MTL at encoding distinguished available from
forgotten
✓ Activity in LIFC at encoding distinguished available from
remembered
➢ Conclusion
✓ MLT activity is necessary for encoding information into
memory, but does not ensure retrieval
✓ LIFC is necessary for retrieval
❖ Encoding Specificity Principle
For a given encoding condition, memory is best when the
retrieval condition matches encoding condition
TABLE
CAT
CHAIR
DOG
Thomson and Tulving (1970)
➢ Encoding
✓ Presented weakly related pairs (glue – CHAIR)
➢ Retrival: cued recall; cues were one of two types
✓ Strongly related word (table - )
✓ Weakly related word (glue - )
➢ Results:
✓ Strong cue:
✓ Weak cue:
♦ Even though weak associates, they were part of the
original episode
15%
64%
Retrieval
Condition A Condition B
Encoding Condition A AA AB
Condition B BA BB
● Encoding Specificity Principle
Relevant comparisons as encoding conditions are the same
● Transfer Appropriate Processing
Relevant comparisons as retrieval conditions are the same
>
AA
BB
AB>
BA
BA
AB
>
>
AA
BB
ESP vs. TAP
Both emphasize the overlap between encoding and
retrieval as the key determinant of remembering
− TAP focuses on encoding—encoding processes used
should be appropriate for how memory will be tested
− ESP focuses on retrieval—the best retrieval cues are
those that tap into how something was encoded
Godden and Baddeley (1965)
Retrieval
Under Water On Beach
Encoding Under Water
On Beach
32 22
24 32
Effects of Test Type
● Outshining Hypothesis
− Context is a cue of last resort
▪ If other more effective cues are present, context
dependency effects are not observed
Recognition
Cued Recall
Free Recall
NO
NO YES
YES
YESNO
Practical Implications
● No need to worry about taking a test in a different room
from which you study
− Studies of context-dependency effects typically
involve memory for unrelated items
♦ Not true of your college exams
♦ Context is outshined by retrieval cues on the
exam (e.g., essay prompt) and cues created by
meaningful processing
One context dependency effect you should pay attention to…
Bredahl, Clay, Ferrie, Groves, McDorman, and Dark (1998)
➢ Encoding
✓ Studied a two-page article on psychoimmunology
♦ Presence of background noise
♦ Absence of background noise
➢ Retrieval
✓ Fill in the blank questions followed by multiple choice
questions
♦ Presence of background noise
♦ Absence of background noise
➢ Results
Multiple Choice Retrieval
Silent Noisy
Encoding Silent 89 79 84
Noisy 79 89 84
84 84
Fill-in-the-blank Retrieval
Silent Noisy
Encoding Silent 67 46 56.5
Noisy 54 62 58
60.5 54
» A Critique of Encoding Specificity
● Effect has nothing to do with match between encoding
and retrieval conditions
● Effect is due to cue distinctiveness
− The effectiveness of a cue in singling out a specific
memory episode (i.e., distinctive)
◘ When encoding and retrieval conditions match,
highly-distinctive retrieval cues are produced
leading to good memory
❖ Aging and Retrieval
● Age-related deficits are larger to the extent that the
memory test requires self-initiated retrieval
− The degree to which an individual must rely on their
own processing to drive retrieval
◘ Explicit retrospective memory tests
Free recall is high in self-initiation
Recognition is low in self-initiation
Therefore age-related deficits are larger on
recall than recognition
◘ Prospective memory tests
High in self-initiation; must remember to remember
Degree of age-related deficits depends on many factors
One factor is focal processing of the prospective
memory cue—situation forces one to focus on the
cue
◊ Age-related deficits are less with focal than
nonfocal processing
Memory and Consciousness
❖ Remembering and Knowing
● Remember-Know paradigm
− Recognition task
◘ If recognized, asked about subjective experience during retrieval
Remember judgment
Conscious recollection
Affected by same factors that affect explicit memory tasks
Know judgment
Familiarity in the absence of recollection
Unaffected by factors that affect explicit memory
Rajaram (1983)
➢ Encoding
✓ Presented words (cat)
♦ Shallow processing: produce rhyme associate (bat)
♦ Deep processing: produce semantic associate (dog)
➢ Retrieval
✓ Recognition
✓ Remember-know judgment
➢ Results
» Emotion and Memory
Shirot, Delgado, and Phelps (2004)
➢ Encoding: shown negative and neutral photos
➢ Retrieval: fMRI scans during recognition and remember- know judgments
➢ Results
✓ Enhanced remember judgments for negative photos relative to neutral photos
✓ This subjective feeling was not associated with memory accuracy
♦ Negative and neutral photos were recalled at the same rate
♦ Metacognition about occurrence of negative stimuli does not translate into performance
✓ Source of subjective sense of remembering is the amygdala
♦ Function of amygdala boosts confidence
♦ But this confidence far outweighs the boost in objective
detail and quality of the memory
❖ Implicit memory tests
Do not require conscious recollection
Memory is reflected in an indirect way
Everyday examples:
~ Déjà vu
o Mistaken feeling that you’ve been in a situation
before
o Implicit expression of encoding specificity principle
~ Unconscious plagiarism
o Misattributing a thought or idea to oneself
» Dissociations Between Implicit and Explicit Memory Tests
Dissociation: when an encoding variable has a different
effect on different memory tests
Variables that dissociate explicit and implicit memory
tests
− Amnesia
− Encoding techniques
Warrington and Weiskrantz (1970)
➢ Amnesics and non-amnesics
✓ Encoding: list of words
✓ Retrieval
♦ Explicit memory test (recognition)
▪ Non-amnesics > amnesics
♦ Implicit memory test (word fragment)
▪ Non-amnesics = amnesics
Not limited to amnesics…
Jacoby (1983)
➢ Encode words (e.g., cold)
✓ Generate condition (generate opposite of each word)
♦ Hot ? (subjects never saw target word)
✓ Read condition
♦ xxx – cold
➢ Retrieval
✓ Explicit: recognition
✓ Implicit: perceptual identification (brief duration of 30ms
and task was to identify)
➢ Results
Encoding
Generate Read
Retrieval Recognition (explicit) .71 .41
Perceptual ID (implicit) .62 .83
Accounts of explicit-implicit associations
Transfer-Appropriate Processing
− Memory depends on retrieval-encoding match
◘ Implicit tests:
Data-driven in nature
Aided by data-driven encoding
Rely on reading and perceptual operations for successful performance
◘ Explicit tests:
Conceptually driven in nature
Aided by conceptually-driven encoding
Rely on elaboration and organization for successful performance
● Memory Systems View
− Performance on explicit memory tests rely on the
declarative memory (specifically episodic) system
− Performance on implicit memory tests rely on the
procedural memory system
− Because these two types of LTM are mediated by
different neurological underpinnings, these tests are
affected by different variables
