7 - LTM, encoding, retrieval and consolidation Flashcards
what is maintenance rehearsal
just rehearsing stuff with no intention to consider its meaning or making relevant connections
what is elaborative rehearsal
rehearsing something while connecting it to other relevant or meaningful information
explain Craik and Lockhart’s levels of processing theory
memory depends on the depth of processing
- shallow vs deep
what is shallow processing
involves little attention to meaning, think maintenance rehearsal
what is deep processing
involves close attention and elaborative rehearsal focussing on meaning and relationships with other information
explain Crak and Tulving’s study on levels of processing
presented participants w words
- asked them three types of questions
1. physical features of the words
2. questions about rhyming of the words
3. fill in the blank questions (shown ‘car’ asked if it fits in a fill in the blank) - goes from shallow to deep processing
- best recall for deepest processing
explain Boweer and Winzenz study on visual imagery and deep processing
asked if generating images in the head that connect to words enhances memory
- used paired association learning - list of word pairs is presented
- then present the first word and see if they can recall the second
- better recall (2x)! if they form an image of the two words interacting
what is the self-reference effect
- memory improves when we relate words to ourselvs
- words relate to a large storehouse of knowledge (self knowledge) hence deeper processing
what is the generation effect
generating material yourself enhances learning
explain how the memory system uses organization to access information
- people tend to group relate terms together when remembering items from a list
- remembering words as members of a category is a retrial cue - helps us remember info stored in memory
how dos presenting information pre-grouped categorically influence recall?
- explain the study
- Bower et al., presented two groups of participants with
1. tree structured lists and asked to recreate the tree! - average of 73 words from the four trees
2. randomized trees - only good for 21
does preventing organization from occurring inhibit recall?
- explain the study
yes, Bransford and Johnson
- text without context that makes it hard to understand in an organized way
- if they gave away the meaning of the text before (allowing for organization by meaning) they remembered 2x more from the passage than the other group
explain Nairne’s evolutionary account of organization and memory
- = memory is shaped to facilitate survival
- had participants imagine they we’re stranded in grassland without survival materials
- presented a list of terms; asked how relevant they would be survival
- this survival task had better memory outcomes than other elaborative encoding procedures
- but also works if we imagine being chased by zombies, lol
what is the retrieval practice effect
karpicke and Roediger
- 3 groups; all began by studying the pairs and being tested over again
- repeat study and test phase
1. same procedure
2. once they recalled a pair, they were no longer studied in the next sessions - but all were presented during the test phase (where all were always presented) until 100% recall
3. same as 2 but also excluded from the test phase - group 1 and 2 recalled 81% while 3 only recalled 30%
- testing effect
what are the tools of effective studying (6)
- elaborate
- organize
- take breaks between studying - shorter sessions with longer betweeen- spacing effect
- avoid illusions of learning - fluency and familiarity
- generate and test
- active note taking
familiarity vs fluency
fluency - reading and rereading makes the reading easier - seems like ur learning
familiarity - rereading increases familiarity which makes it seem like you remember it
explain the cued recall task
- free recall; just gotta recall information
- cued recall; presented with retrieval cues to aid in recall
- usually words or phrases
- Tulving and Pearlstrone, for example
- cued condition had much better recall (40 vs 75%)
explain Mantyla’s study on cued recall and self generation
presented 504 nouns
- asked participants to write down 3 associated words
- 91% recall when they presented these self generated retrieval cues
- didn’t work if they hadn’t made the list themselves
- retrieval cues are way better if created by the person doing the retrieving