Forgetting Flashcards
1
Q
STRESS/WM
A
- worrying (occupied w/negative thoughts) = secondary resource competitor (ie. exam situation)
RAMIREZ & BEILOCK (2011) - whether reducing/eliminating worrying = lower freezing under pressure effect
- 2pp groups; pre/post test of high pressure maths; control = sat quietly 10mins between tests; expressive writing group asked to write feelings after test
- similar performance pre-test; more accurate performance in writing group post
- writing about worries before test = free up WM resources necessary for test
2
Q
MEASURING FORGETTING
A
- learning to memorising = retention interval
- recall test = events/story; free recall of nameable items; cued recall (ie. paired associates); serial recall
- recognition test; discrimination between old/new
EBBINGHAUS (1885) - learned many lists of 13 nonsense syllables to criterion then relearned each after variable intervals
3
Q
FORGETTING
A
- appropriate measurement = simple mathematical function of retention internal
WICKELGREN et al (1975) - data from word-list recognition experiment
4
Q
FORGETTING CAUSES
A
- forgetting orderliness = inevitable decay processes
- info not recalled now may come later
- prompts/cues succeed in eliciting recall; may be due to retrieval failure not loss
- some show no loss over time at all
5
Q
INCREASING FORGETTING
A
BAHRICK et al (1975)
- no forgetting of school-mates over 30y assessed via yearbooks
- flashbulb memories (ie. 9/11)
- forgetting former students via teachers increases w/interval as teachers encounter +students
- forgetting attributable to interference from other similar memories
6
Q
TESTING INTERFERENCE VS DECAY THEORIES
A
- under normal circumstances, retention interval (time in storage) confounded w/number of other experiences accumulated during interval
- control the interval = alter intervening experiences
1. encoding -> (more new learning of similarity) retrieval
VS
2. encoding -> (less new learning of similarity) retrieval - if forgetting is via interference, recall should decrease w/more exposure to similar stuff w/time held constant
7
Q
FORGETTING ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTERFERENCE
A
- “paired associate” learning (1940s/1950s); pp learns 10 arbitrary paintings via stimulus/response; List 1 to criterion; List 2 to criterion; test on either
- later recall of 1 worse when 2 was learned afterwards (retroactive interference)
- later recall of 2 worse when 1 has been learned before (proactive interference)
- implication = retrieval difficulty increases when other similar material has been learned, holding retention interval constant
8
Q
TIME VS INTERVENING EXPERIENCES AS PREDICTORS OF EVENT FORGETTING
A
BADDELEY & HITCH (1977)
- end of rugby season; 2 teams recalled games; clear forgetting (though some games more memorable); each missed some games
- if time controlled, number of games played in interval = significant predictor of forgetting
- ample evidence that retrieval failure ^ via interference from similar material
9
Q
FACTORS INFLUENCING RETRIEVAL
A
- encoding consolidation -> storage -> retrieval
- processing at encoding/acquisition
- consolidation after encoding
- interference from other memory traces at retrieval
- similarity of encoding/retrieval contexts
- memory is associative system NOT container
10
Q
ORGANISATION AT ACQUISITION
A
- deliberate rote rehearsal does increase later recall
- hence primary effect in free recall; first few items gets more rehearsals
- mere rote rehearsal is relatively ineffective learning strategy
MANDLER (1967) - incidental memory experiments show processing meaning/actively organising; material = effective learning strategies
- groups sort into 2-7 categories of own devising; 1 = try to learn new words; no dif in later recall test despite 1 specifically asked to learn
- g3 (control) remembered less than both
- organising material is what produces effective acquisition, not effort to learn by itself
11
Q
DEPTH OF PROCESSING AT ACQUISITION
A
CRAIK & TULVING (1975)
- showed series of unrelated words and gave 1/3 orienting tasks (upper/lower-case; rhymes w/X; sentence fits)
- processing the meaning is better than processing surface form
12
Q
MNEMONICS X ACQUISITION
A
ONE-IS-A-BUN FOR SEQUENCE LEARNING
1. learn rhyme
2. form vivid image representing rhyme item for position X in interaction w/what you want to remember
METHOD OF LOCI (IE. LEARNING SPEECH)
1. memorise route around familiar building/garden so you can walk there w/minds eye
2. learn speech; form striking image at each route point representing idea of the point
13
Q
MNEMONICS
A
- they work binding ideas to pre-established framework which organises them (ie. serial order (method of loci))
- imagery encourages formation of rich nexus of associations between frame hook/concept attached
- effectiveness of learning involves forming associations among representations already existing including: elements of the new fact/context/prior knowledge
14
Q
CONSOLIDATION
A
- post TBI (ie. concussion)/ECT; often retrograde memory loss spanning minutes/hours beyond WM duration
-> disruption of process of consolidation of memory trace in hippocampal/medial temporal cortex system
WIXTED (2004) - consolidation of novel traces suffers interference from consolidation of further novel traces
- sleep improves memory for material learned in last hours
- alcohol/barbiturates impair learning (disrupt consolidation); improve memory for material learned just before (retrograde facilitation)
15
Q
CONSOLIDATION X LTM
A
- over longer timescale, recent LTM traces = vulnerable to hippocampal damage than older traces
RIBOT’S LAW (1882) - amnesiac patients w/damage to hippocampus/medial temporal cortex shows gradient of retrograde amnesia over years; older memories preserved/robust
- re-activation of traces = more robust; stored elsewhere in cortex no longer dependent on hippo
16
Q
ASSOCIATIVE INTERFERENCE AT RETRIEVAL
A
- paired associate experiments; vary similarity of stimulus/response terms
- interference maximal when same stimuli used for each list; competition between 2 associative links from same retrieval cue
17
Q
FAN EFFECT
A
LEWIS & ANDERSON (1976)
- retrieval as example of associative interference
- pp learns 0-4 new facts about each celebrity set
- later true/false RT measured for test statements (ie. actual/experimental true/false)
18
Q
MITIGATING ASSOCIATVE INTERFERENCE
A
- fan effect = paradoxical (ie. the more you know you about Napoleon = the harder it is to retrieve one fact)
- example is unrelated; if thematically related = fan effect eliminated (ie. princess christened/broke champagne etc.); thematic relationship enables learner to form associations between separate facts via pre-existing knowledge schemas providing multiple retrieval paths
- when studying, try to create multiple links among facts you are learning; prior knowledge
19
Q
REMEMBERING = RECONSTRUCTION
A
BARTLETT’S “WAR OF THE GHOSTS” (1932)
- story experiment; we interpret iconic/audio via learned schemas/scripts; typical pattern/sequence knowledge:
- episode -> schema -> interpretation -> fragments retrieved -> schema -> reconstruction
- remembering trials = fragmentary associations recovered; reconstruct event/fact while filling gaps
- general knowledge schemas (semantics)
- fragments remembered from other episodic sources
20
Q
FALSE MEMORIES
A
“RECOVERED MEMORIES” CONTROVERSY (1995)
- complete/partial memory loss = frequently reported psychological trauma/CSA consequence; sometimes fully/partially recovered after many years within/alone of therapy; clear memories likely accurate BUT may have statsig errors; authoritative pressure/persuasion = retrieval/elaboration of fake memories
- easy to make (recognition/recall/recollection of what never happened) as:
- source amnesia (info retrieval + inability to remember source) = common
- recall = reconstructive; actual recovered experience fragments mixed w/other info w/lost source (ie. implicit/explicit therapist/interrogator suggestions)
21
Q
EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY STUDIES
A
LOFTUS & PALMER (1974)
- 100pps see car crash film; answer qs (ie. how fast cars crashed into themselves); 1 = “smashed”; 2 = “hit”
- week later asked qs ie. “did you see any broken glass?”; 1 = 16/50; 2 = 7/50; mis-info implied by interrogation after event incorporated to reconstruction
22
Q
REALISTIC/EMOTIONALLY SALIENT MATERIAL FALSE MEMORIES
A
- “trauma sets up new rules for memory”
CROMBAG, WAGENAAR, VAN KOPPEN (1996) - 1992 EL AI Amsterdam crash; 10m; “did you see TV film of when plane hit building; >50% = yes
LOFTUS & PICKRELL (1995) - “lost in mall”; -25% pps “remembered” being lost post probing interviews
23
Q
CONTEXT EFFECTS/ENCODING SPECIFICITY
A
GODDEN & BADDELEY (1975)
- rule = info more easily retrieved if tested in same context as acquired
- environmental context; divers learned word lists either on land/water; moved environment then tested
- more easily/correctly recalled in home environment
24
Q
RETRIEVAL SENSITIVITY
A
EICH, WEINGARTNER, STILLMAN & GILLIN (1975)
- sensitivity of retrieval congruence w/internal context as learning time = state-dependent learning
- similar effects found in induced sad/euphoric moods
- encoding-specificity = causal in depression maintenance aka. negative memories more accessible in depressive state; retrieval reinforces depression
25
Q
SUMMARY
A
encoding -> consolidation -> retrieval
PROCESSING ENCODING/ACQUISITION
- elaboration/organisation
- depth of processing
2-STAGE CONSOLIDATION PROCESS
INTERFERENCE FROM MEMORY TRACES AT RETRIEVAL
- associative interference
- false memories/source amnesia; remembering as reconstruction vulnerable to associative intrusions
ENCODING/RETRIEVAL INTERACTION
- encoding-specificity effect due to contextual cue similarity
