9-LTM-Encoding&Retrieval

Question 1

What is encoding?

Answer 1

Entering material into memory

Question 2

A theory of encoding into LTM was given in the modal model. What is it?

Answer 2

Information is maintained by rehearsal in STM until transferred to LTM; phonological (phonetic) codes are for STM and semantic codes for LTM (largely a structural account - memory as stores)

Question 3

What are the problems with the modal model?

Answer 3

Memory is affected by how material is processed at study; in fact, rehearsal does NOT produce good long term memory; there are multiple ways to encode material in STM and LTM (obvious for material other than words)

Question 4

According to researchers who promoted the levels of processing (LOP) revolution, when studying words, what 3 aspects can participants attend to?

Answer 4

Letters & orthography (spelling), phonology (pronunciation), & meaning (semantic)

Question 5

What did Craik & Lockhart (1972) find about recall of studied words?;
According to them, how does the Levels of Processing theory work?

Answer 5

Recall is better after semantic processing than rehearsal;

On a continuum of depth (orthographic, phonological & semantic); the deeper you process, the more you’ll remember

Question 6

Craik & Lockhart suggested if you give participants an orthographic task they won’t process the meaning of the word, & this superficial process won’t lead to good memory. Were they right?

Answer 6

No, as it’s clear when processing orthography, usually identify the word as well; (e.g. stroop effect shows that this is not true); later versions of theory modified a strict “levels” idea

Question 7

Craik (1977) gave participants intentional learning instructions vs. one of three study tasks. They were either asked: is it in upper or lower case? (letters – superficial); does it rhyme? (phonology – e.g. frog with dog); or is it a living thing? (semantic task). What occurred?;
Why do you think intentional learning produced the same accuracy as semantic study?

Answer 7

Better recognition with the meaning task followed by phonology & worse with the letters task;
Participants were university students, who are more likely to develop & use semantic strategies in their learning anyway

Question 8

Hyde & Jenkins (1973) wanted to know if it matters whether there is an intention to learn, over and above specific study tasks. What did they do?;
What was found?

Answer 8

Implemented a 2x2 design: study task x instruction about later test; rate pleasantness (semantic) vs. letter checking task (superficial); half were told there’d be a test, half were not;
Intention had no effect on either groups; accuracy was pretty much identical in the semantic task between incidental & intentional (both better than letters task)

Question 9

Jacoby, Craik & Begg (1979) manipulated how much deep thought would be required in semantic processing, by asking participants to imagine an object & evaluate size differences at study (e.g. horse-goat vs. cat-elephant). What was found?

Answer 9

Small size differences led to better memory for words in an unexpected test (e.g. horse-goat); evidence for LOP: deeper semantic analysis with small size differences (valid in many situations)

Question 10

How does semantic processing work?

Answer 10

Most important for retrieval (like cataloguing books in library to facilitate access); when thinking about the meaning we make connections/links in memory (provide retrieval cues and paths)

Question 11

Craik & Tulving (1975), implemented a study task, where they asked “does CHICKEN fit in the sentence? A: The girl cooked the _______ or B: The great bird swooped down and carried off the struggling ______. Which condition was word recall (for chicken) better?

Answer 11

The elaborate condition (B); more connections with event memories & concepts

Question 12

What is Elaborative Processing associated with?;

What else does semantic processing promote?

Answer 12

Organisation - imposing your own order on items enhances memory; method of loci, other mnemonics; promotes connections
Chunking (based on meaning or structure of items); & understanding

Question 13

Bransford & Johnson (1972) had participants learn a story either with or without interpretation (Was about doing washing). When was recall better in this task?;
What does this suggest?

Answer 13

When interpretation was provided at outset;

Understanding promotes connections; interpretation unifies – there are fewer elements to remember

Question 14

What’s a problem with LOP, raised by Baddeley (1978)?

Answer 14

It’s circular; How do you know what’s deep processing? (that which promotes good memory; no independent way of measuring)

Question 15

How did Parkin (1979) attempt to provide an independent assessment of processing depth?

Answer 15

Through associative priming in the Stroop task; prime word was presented “King” then target word “Queen” (in red letters); task was to say “red” for target word as quickly as possible. Group 1 had to make a semantic decision about prime word (living thing?); group 2 made a non-semantic decision (no. syllables)

Question 16

What was found in Parkin’s study?

Answer 16

Colour naming interference for the prime was found only for Group 1 (suggesting semantic processing was interfering with colour naming task); memory for primes was also better in Group 1 than 2; (supports LOP)

Question 17

Parkin’s study showed parallel effects of semantic task in priming and memory, but what wasn’t successful?;
Craik & Tulving (1975) wondered if this was because it takes more time to process. Did they find that processing time was an index of depth?;
Is processing difficulty the critical factor?

Answer 17

Direct attempts to measure the critical aspect of deep processing that promotes memory;
No. Deep processing does not necessarily take longer;
No, difficult superficial tasks didn’t improve memory either (e.g. does the word WITCH match CCVCC?; where C = consonant, V = vowel)

Question 18

Eysenck & Eysenck (1980) suggested that semantic processing enhances the distinctiveness of memories (e.g. “has a trunk” identifies elephant better than “contains two letter Es”. What were they trying to figure out?

Answer 18

How important is distinctiveness, & does distinctive non-semantic processing produce good memory?

Question 19

Eysenck & Eysenck took words with atypical spelling-sound correspondences (e.g., comb, glove) & manipulated distinctiveness x semantic coding conditions, followed by a recognition test. What were the conditions?

Answer 19

For the word glove: Distinctive, semantic (atypical descriptor; e.g. saggy glove); non-distinctive, semantic (typical descriptor; e.g leather glove); distinctive, non-semantic (distinctive pronunciation; e.g. glove - rhyming with stove); non-distinctive, non-semantic (correct pronunciation; e.g. glove – rhyming with love)

Question 20

What was the design of Eysenck & Eysenck’s study?;
What did they expect to find?;
What did they want to know?

Answer 20

Within-Ps design - each participant gets 4 blocks of study trials, one for each condition;
They’d perform better in the semantic condition;
What happens in the non-semantic condition? Does the distinctive condition make it easier to remember? (e.g. pronouncing glove (as in stove)

Question 21

What were the results of Eysenck & Eysenck’s study?;

What does this suggest?

Answer 21

Not much difference between distinctive & non-distinctiveness in semantic condition (not surprising as semantic processing in itself already confers distinctiveness); substantial benefit on memory in distinctive pronunciation condition (supports hypothesis);
Other kinds of processing can confer distinctiveness – not just semantic

Question 22

Connections & relationships support retrieval how?;

What does distinctiveness also help to discriminate?

Answer 22

Provide retrieval cues and paths; so helps access memories of the study phase;
Among retrieved items that are similar or related (encounter with an item and prior encounters with that item); especially useful for recognition tests

Question 23

What else helps encoding?

Answer 23

Rhyme working with semantic cues; the oral tradition (David Rubin); rhyme & meaning work together to provide structure, integration & cues

Question 24

Rubin & Kozin asked people for their clearest memories of childhood. What did most report?;
Does that mean emotional events are better encoded?

Answer 24

Emotionally-charged events (e.g. accidents, romantic experiences, birthdays, etc);
Not necessarily, they may also be discussed more in the family, which would reinforce memories; other factors also

Question 25

In a lab experiment, Cahill & McGaugh showed participants a slide show of a hospital visit with graphic surgery slides embedded in it. One group told the surgery was real, the other that it was faked (for training). What was found?

Answer 25

“Real” group showed better memory for the emotional material (not other slides)

Question 26

Emotion increases arousal, & arousal increases attention. To see if there’s an emotion effect beyond the attention effect, Nielson et al. induced emotion (showing surgery vs. neutral material) just after participants listen to a word list to be remembered. What did the emotion group show?;
What does this suggest?

Answer 26

A memory benefit for the words;

Emotional effect is not just an attentional effect; biochemical effect on memory consolidation caused by emotion

Question 27

It’s well known that people are thought to have vivid detailed memories from the time of major disturbing events (e.g. assassination of Kennedy, Twin towers 911, etc). Brown & Kulik (1977) define these as “flashbulb memories”. But what have many studies suggested about this?

Answer 27

That rememberers’ confidence in their “flashbulb” memories is misplaced

Question 28

When Talarico & Rubin tested memories of 2001 attacks the next day (12 September) & 1, 6, or 32 weeks later, what was found?

Answer 28

Forgetting was similar to that of other memories, but participants had much more confidence in their 2001 memories (so flashbulb memories do not seem to be qualitatively different)

Question 29

The success of memory retrieval varies over occasions (e.g. tip of the tongue effect - I know the word, just can’t access it!) What did Tulving (1967) find in a multiple study & recall attempts with a list of 36 words?

Answer 29

On each recall attempt, participants remembered nearly 4 words that they had not recalled on the previous test, but they also forgot 3.9 words from the last test

Question 30

What can be a useful retrieval cue?

Answer 30

Encoding contextual information with an item at study (e.g. studying the picture of characters on a motor bike in a movie, the motor bike might be a good retrieval cue for the characters/actors)

Question 31

Santa et al. (1974) had participants learn lists of weakly associated word pairs; (e.g., ocean - surf, knife – steak). After each list, they were given the cue (ocean) to recall the target (surf). On a final test, they were given a strong associate to cue recall (e.g., salt for pepper, meat for steak). What was found?

Answer 31

Strong associates were effective cues - recall accuracy increased (provided participants were informed about the nature of the cues)

Question 32

In Santa et al.’s study, the strong cues are unlikely to have been encoded with targets, so what does this suggest?

Answer 32

That cues can increase retrieval even though they have not been linked with the to-be-remembered item in the encoded memory

Question 33

So, for good memory, material should be encoded in a way that improves its accessibility at test; & affective retrieval cues should be provided at test. Is this all we need to know?

Answer 33

No, we need to know about encoding retrieval interactions

Question 34

Much of the early memory work was done with word lists in recall and recognition tests; a few encoding and cuing principles were sufficient for good memory performance. What was later realized?

Answer 34

That what works depends upon how the material is going to be used & how memory is to be probed at test (connection between study tasks & test tasks)

Question 35

The relationship between study & test is vital in terms of what?;
What is semantic encoding useful for?

Answer 35

Which aspects of the material are encoded & what cognitive operations are carried out on the material;
Conceptually (semantically) based tests (recall, recognition & many university exams)

Question 36

Stein (1978) had participants study words with one capital letter (e.g. rocK). Group 1 was asked does the word fit? (the ________ rolled down the hill (meaning based) Group 2 was asked which is the capital letter? (superficial). Then what happened?;

Answer 36

Half the participants had a recognition test (old or new?) other group were given four words & asked to identify the capitalised word from the study list;

Question 37

What were the results of Stein’s study?

Answer 37

Those choosing study words among distractors had higher accuracy after the sentence study; those choosing from the capitalised word list had higher accuracy after the letter task; disordinal interaction (case study – case test; semantic study– semantic test)

Question 38

Morris, Bransford & Franks (1977) suggested that the superiority of semantic study reflects the fact that most memory tests are semantically based. What did they compare?;
At encoding they asked does the word fit in sentence (semantic) vs. does the word rhyme with …..?. What did they find?

Answer 38

A standard recognition test with a phonological test requiring participants to choose words that sounded like study words;
Semantic study is better for recognition but not for phonological test

Question 39

According to TAP (transfer appropriate processing), when is transfer best?

Answer 39

When test processes overlap with processing at study

Question 40

Tulving & Thomson (1973) had a related idea to TAP, what was it?

Answer 40

Retrieval is better if conditions & information at encoding match those at retrieval (encoding specificity); contextual information, purpose of task, aspect of material that is relevant

Question 41

Thomson had participants study each word with an unrelated word or singly, then tested for recognition with the paired study word or singly. How did they perform?

Answer 41

They had better memory for study test-match (single-single & paired-paired)

Question 42

Roediger & Payne (1983): had homographs studied with a category label (PLANT – bark). How did they perform at test?

Answer 42

Memory was poorer if the other category cue (animal) was used (rather than tree)

Question 43

Name two other variations on the encoding specificity theme;

What’s a classic example of this found by Baddeley & Godden?

Answer 43

Environmental context & state-dependent learning (re-instate as many of the study conditions as possible (e.g., mood, drugs, location);
Divers studying above water recalled better above water & those studying under water recalled better under water (study-test match)

Question 44

What views contradict the idea of TAP?;

Answer 44

Traditional ideas (by Tulving) that episodic memory and knowledge (semantic memory) form two memory systems & that explicit (episodic) and implicit (semantic) tests tap different systems

Question 45

To test whether there’s a separate system for episodic compared to semantic memory, participants were given a study list. In the episodic condition, they were given graphemic cued recall or free semantic cued recall. In the semantic condition they completed word fragments or had a general knowledge test. What did Blaxton & colleagues believe was more important?

Answer 45

Can understand memory performance better if you think about the processing involved & the match between processing at study & tests (TAP)

Question 46

What 2 types of processing did Roediger, Blaxton & colleagues focus on?

Answer 46

Perceptual (read; letter decisions; analyse physical features) & Conceptual (semantic decisions; access meaning relationships; generate synonyms/antonyms)

Question 47

Encoding tasks in Blaxton study consisted of conceptual tasks (generating word from word related in meaning; eagle – hawk) & perceptual tasks (reading word with control context; xxxx – hawk). What was predicted?;
What was found?

Answer 47

That the match vs. mismatch between processing at study and test would predict memory;
Perceptual encoding is best for perceptual tests, conceptual encoding best for conceptual tests

Question 48

Blaxton et al. pitted the systems idea against the processing idea, saying what?;
How did she divide/reclassify the episodic vs. semantic test idea?

Answer 48

Tests will group by perceptual vs. conceptual processes, NOT by the memory system tapped by the test;
Graphemic cued recall & word fragments were perceptual (working with letters) & free semantic cued recall or general knowledge test were conceptual (have to think about the meanings)

Question 49

What were the results of Blaxton’s study?;
Both semantic & implicit tests (general knowledge & fragment completion) showed completely different results as a function of the study task, suggesting what?

Answer 49

In conceptual tests – participants perform better when they’ve done conceptual tasks; & in perceptual tests –perform better when they’ve done perceptual tasks;
The TAP analysis is a better explanation with these results than looking at memory systems

Question 50

In Bartlett’s War of the Ghosts study, participants study a Native American folk-tale that had elements out of keeping with traditional Western story conventions (schemas). On testing, participants modified the story in line with the familiar elements of their own culture. What is this a classic demonstration of?;
But on repeated testing over time, what will happen?

Answer 50

Reconstructive effects in retrieval;
Participants will also have opportunities to encode information consistent with their own schemas, so there’s an interplay between encoding and retrieval (an issue in repeated questioning in legal testimony & a consideration in testing for student learning)

Question 51

What factors are important to consider with testing effects in student learning?

Answer 51

Test types (encoding specificity, transfer appropriate processing); are tests just for assessment or to help ongoing learning?; opportunities for encoding provided by tests – indirect & direct test effects

Question 52

What’s the difference between indirect & direct test effects?

Answer 52

Indirect: students study more if they have a test; indications of what areas need further study;
Direct: additional encoding of material encountered or retrieved during tests; effects of tests on ease of retrieval

Question 53

An early study by Spitzer (1939) looked at direct effects of tests on learning & memory, with 6th grade children. They studied 600-word articles on peanuts or bamboo with 25 multi-choice questions. They varied number and timing of tests & no additional study opportunities were given or feedback on tests. What were the results?

Answer 53

There was a large decline in accuracy when the first test was delayed (this leveled out after about 2 weeks); second tests generally showed better performance than performance of groups given their first test at the same time; but no benefit of a first test was given when forgetting was maximal (at 3 weeks)

Question 54

What did the test benefit from Spitzer’s study require?

Answer 54

That participants could still recognise or recall material at the time of the test (accessing & retrieving it strengthens future retrieval)

Question 55

Roediger & Karpicke (2006) gave participants a list of 40 words to memorise (twenty trials with the list). There were 3 conditions: standard group where study-test was alternated (STST); repeated study (SSST) & repeated test group (STTT). Which group performed better?;
What happened a week later?

Answer 55

The study-test alternation group;
The study-test alternation group still performed the best, closely followed by the repeated test group (study-test group get to restudy the material & pick things up they’d missed before; the repeated test group never get feedback but do well despite this)

Question 56

In a test situation, when is material available in WM or readily made available?;
What illusion does this give?;
But what is in WM may not be established in LTM, so delayed tests may show what?

Answer 56

When a test is given immediately after study; when material is repeatedly studied; or when feedback (correct answer) is available without retrieval effort;
Illusion of knowledge;
Poor accuracy

Question 57

In Karpicke & Roediger and many other studies, when are the benefits of testing most clearly evident?

Answer 57

After a delay

Question 58

Why is repeated testing after just one study trial not ideal for teaching practice?

Answer 58

Because items that were not encoded during study don’t get encoded

Question 59

Thompson et al. (1978) repeated testing of all list words, with re-presentation after each test of items not recalled. What did they produce?;

Answer 59

Better overall performance after learning, and 48 hours later, than repeated study (SSSS) and repeated test (STTT) groups; but % forgotten in 48 hours was least for the repeated test group;

Question 60

So testing consolidates the items that can be recalled initially, & what does further study do?

Answer 60

Picks up the items that were not well encoded initially

Question 61

Feedback on tests is important. When does it work best?

Answer 61

After a retrieval effort and while concepts are activated (memory & concentration is in an appropriate state for retrieval)

Question 62

What are some disadvantages of testing?

Answer 62

Interference from prior tests - as in retrieval induced forgetting; e.g. practice red - tomato, show poorer memory for blood; negative suggestions from tests (learning incorrect answers, effects like misinformation)

Question 63

Roediger & Marsh (2005) had students read passages and did a multi-choice test for half of them, with number of alternatives varied. Later they did a cued-recall test which tested the same points without distractors. What did they find?

Answer 63

There was a large benefit of the prior test & a small suggestion effect (more errors for 6- than 2-choice test)

Question 64

If multi-choice tests allow students to choose a familiar answer without making retrieval efforts, then testing effects may not be observed (Chan et al., 2006). But when are they effective?

Answer 64

When well designed; when plausible distractors are given, students think about why each alternative is correct or incorrect; multi-choice tests foster learning about both correct and incorrect alternatives

Question 65

Most theories focus on the benefit of retrieval effort. Bjork coined the term “desirable difficulties”. What does this suggest?

Answer 65

That retrieval promotes biochemical processes that consolidate memory traces (this doesn’t happen if material is already available in WM); retrieval may also increase access paths & effective cues

Question 66

What’s the concept of Transfer-appropriate processing?

Answer 66

Retrieval practice on one test enhances retrieval on a later (similar) test

Question 67

According to Roediger, 2013 & a US Govt report, what are effective learning tips in most situations?

Answer 67

Distribute practice (often but not for too long); practice retrieval (self-tests & tests by teacher); interleave practice (mix problems & topics); elaborative interrogation (ask why something is true); self-explanation

Question 68

What learning/study tips are not recommended?

Answer 68

Re-reading text as a study method; highlighting text; summarizing text; generating images for text-based learning; devising key-word mnemonics