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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

FORGETTING

A
  • appropriate measurement = simple mathematical function of retention internal
    WICKELGREN et al (1975)
  • data from word-list recognition experiment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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