Episodic Memory Flashcards
Example of shallow processing LOP
Perceptual features - structure of a word or size case or colour
Example of deep processing LOP
Processing based on the semantic features/meaning
Ie How pleasant, associations with other words, synonyms
Describe craik and tulving 1975
LOP
Read list of unrelated words then surprise recognition test of words seen and unseen previously - what did you see on the list prev? Manipulate type of processing:
Shallow - upper or lower case?
Intermediate (phonological) - does it rhyme with __
Deep (semantic) - does it fit into the sentence ___
Results of craik and tulving 1975
Highest % correct for deep processing than intermediate or shallow
Problems of LOP theory
How do you measure depth? - circular argument
Assumes processing sequential but evidence suggests also occur in parallel
Ability to suppress semantic?
Benefit of semantic depends on the nature of the test (Morris bransford and franks)
Describe Morris bransford and franks LOP criticism
Encoding words on a list semantically (association task) or phonological ly (rhyming task)
Recognition test as standard (which are the words you have seen prev) or through rhyming ie ‘cat’ on recog test because rhymes with ‘hat’ on learn list
Results of Morris bransford and franks LOP criticism
Standard test - LOP better if semantic than phonological
But rhyme test - better phonological than semantic
Encoding match recall = best performance ‘transfer appropriate processing’
What concepts may underlie the LOP effect?
Craik and tulving - semantic = elaborate encoding
Elaboration - into relates to the to be known item
Semantic more distinct encoding?(hunt and Elliot)
Describe the elaboration hypothesis
More likely to remember if relate to things we already know -
Explain congruity effect
Congruent info elaborates the encoding of a word -
Semantic requires both understanding of congruent and incongruent sentences
BUT congruent provides more elaboration as ties item to stored knowledge
Describe distinctiveness explanation of LOP (hunt and Elliot 1980)
Memory depends on distinctiveness of encoded into - how well the info stands out in memory
Semantic better memory as increases distinctiveness or words more distinct in terms of meaning than physical features
Distinctiveness and semantic processing (eysenk 1979)
non semantic orienting task for irregular GPC and either pronounce normal or as regular gpc ie comb with silent b or with souding b
unusual pronounciation better than usual and almost as good as semantic processing condition
- applies to BOTH but semantic more likely to be distinctive
Does Elaboration or distinctiveness in semantic processing lead to better recall
Semantic always increases elaboration so more likely
Semantic typically more distinctive but not always so doesn’t always lead to improved - shallow or phonemic can be distinct
Winograd (1981) distinctiveness and elab
Compare distinctiveness and elab by looking at pps memory for pictures of faces -
- Scan face and rate more distinctive feature (elab and distinct)
- Focus on pre told distinctive feature (distinct)
Results Winograd (1981) elab and distinct
No diff in memory performance
- distinctiveness > elab in recall but elab may help to detect the distinctive feature
Describe how organisation of material may influence recall (bousfield)
Pps given set of 20 words with 4 examples each over 5 categories
Either sorted randomly or grouped together by category
Recall higher when organised
Generation effect (glisky and Rabinowitz 1985)
Self generated info > alt info ie seen/heard
Study : read word or generate word from half spelt word
Recognise: recognise word as either full word ‘read’ or ‘generated’ word
Results glisky and Rabinowitz 1985generation effect
Words generated at study > words read at study
Words generated at study and test > words gen at study but read at test
Recognition best if same that study and test - context?
Self reference effect (Rogers, kuiper and kirker 1977)
Personal relevance of info influence recall
List of adjectives:
- Phonological task (rhyme)
- Semantic task (mean the same as…)
- Rating as descriptive of self
Results Rogers kuiper and kirker 1977 self reference effect
Recall more self rated than semantic encoded - allocate more attention
Decay as an explanation of forgetting
Thorndike
Build memory trace - decay with time
Interference theory of forgetting - Jenkins and dallenbach 1924
Pps learn nonsense syllables then sleep or awake
Memory sleep > awake
Less intercede renew of new info when sleep and consolidate memories in the hippocampus
Accessibility and availability of memory theory of forgetting
Availability - info no longer stored
Accessibility - present in memory but can’t be recalled/ retrieved
Cues and retrieval for inaccessible info
Cues provide gateway to accessing further info stored in memory but not previously able to recall
Tulving and pearlstone 1966 retrieval cues
Compare cued and free recall
Given categorical words to study
Test free recall it cued (give categorical names)
Tulving and pearlstone 1966 retrieval cues Findings
Higher recall when cued
Than free
Failure to recall doesn’t mean failure to learn but depends on the cues present at retrieval
Practical applications of episodic research - medical
Make patients ability to recall Mexican instructions more memorable to improve following:
Ley 1988 patients forget 50% what told
High corr between recall and understanding, satisfaction, complying to medication and recovery
- therefore doctors present in ordered manner and explicitly categorise info - doubled patient recall
Practical applications of episodic research - mnemonic techniques
Use mnemonics as retrieval cues - mental imagery to associate
Practical applications of episodic research - self testing
Assesses what you know and enhances retention
Roediger and karpicke- test on material show grateful retention than more study
Levels of processing (craik and Lockhart)
Efficiency of recall dependent on the way the info was processed ie shallow or deep
Example of shallow processing LOP
Perceptual features - structure of a word or size case or colour
Example of deep processing LOP
Processing based on the semantic features/meaning
Ie How pleasant, associations with other words, synonyms
Describe craik and tulving 1975
LOP
Read list of unrelated words then surprise recognition test of words seen and unseen previous - what did you see on the list prev? Manipulate type of processing:
Shallow - upper or lower case?
Intermediate (phonological) - does it rhyme with __
Deep (semantic) - does it fit into the sentence ___
Results of craik and tulving 1975
Highest % correct for deep processing than intermediate or shallow
What concepts may underlie the LOP effect?
Craik and tulving - semantic = elaborate encoding
Elaboration - into relates to the to be known item
distinct encoding(hunt and Elliot)
Describe the elaboration hypothesis
More likely to remember if relate to things we already know -
Craik and tulving: semantic ask if word congruent in a sentence - congruity effect
Explain congruity effect
Congruent info elaborates the encoding of a word -
Semantic requires both understanding of congruent and incongruent sentences
BUT congruent provides more elaboration as ties item to stored knowledge
Describe distinctiveness explanation of LOP (hunt and Elliot)
Memory depends on distinctiveness of encoded into - how well the info stands out in memory
Semantic better memory as increases distinctiveness or words more distinct in terms of meaning than physical features
Describe bransford et al Distinctiveness
Gave sentences either distinctive of non distinctive
Levels of processing (craik and Lockhart)
Efficiency of recall dependent on the way the info was processed ie shallow or deep
what type of task did craik and tulving 1975 use
orienting task
define an orienting task
a task that directs attention to a word depending on different attributes
ie semantic/phonological/structural
how is LOP different from WM
WM is an extension of memory within the STM that proposes must actively process the information with intent in order to recall/manipulate the information
LOP represents retention in both the STM and LTM based on intentional/unintentional processing based on the way the information is processed
describe Kapur 1994 LOP neuronal results
semanti cna dnon semantic orienting task during PET
semantic activate left PFC while non semantic activate more posterior areas
circularity limitation of LOP
how are you able to know what LOP is being used during the retention interval?
how are you able to measure the ‘depth’ of the information processed?
circular in that it fails to explain
parallel processing limitation of LOP
LOP assumes sequential processing where semantic>phonological>structural BUT thought that diff types of processing may occur in parallel
(Morris bansford and franks 1977; transfer appropriate processing)
describe morris bransford and franks 1977 lop prob
2 types of encoding: semantic ie association or phonological ie rhyme
two types of recognition test:
standard - recog old words
rhyme - recog words that rhyme with old
results morris bransford and franks 1988 lop prob
standrd better performance following semantic processing
rhyme better performance following phonological processing
describe tranfer appropriate processing theory (morris et al)
recall is determined by match/mismatch between the type of processing at encoding and the type of recall used
different processing leads to different information stored about stimuli
two assumption of LOP
1- memory trace is a biproduct of perception and comprehension of stimuli information - therefore intent to retain info is not necessary
2- retention is directly related to the processing of stimuli meaning
craik and tulving 1975 elaboration hypothesis
people in semantic asked if word congruent or incongruent in complex or simple sentencing frames
congruent memory > incongruent
complex> simple
bransford et al 1979 distinctiveness/elab
exposed pps to minimally elab but distinctive sentences
ie a mosquio is like a doctor as both draw blood
and multiplicatively elab but non distinctive sententce
ie a mosquito is like a racoon because they both have a head
recall for dirstinctive but lower elab better - more unusual
what is consolidation
fixation of information onto long term memory
rapid and long lasting increase in the probability that pose synaptic neurons in the hippocampus fire following activation from neurotransmitters of the presynapse
hockey et al 1972 against consolidation/jenkins and dellenbach 1924
j+d - did not control for the time of day between participants asleep or awake
found time of day more important than sleep (but sleep does improve also)
