Human Learning and Memory Flashcards
3 stages of long term memory
encoding
storing
retrival
available
something you could theoretically remember
accessible
something you can successfully retrieve in the moment
Metaphors for Memory
1.) memory as an aviary (Plato)
2.) memory as a library (Broadbent)
3.) memory as a computer
Language influences our perception of the thing itself
Jenkins’ Tetrahedral Model (1979)
1.) subjects: who is participating (age, gender, race)
2.) materials: words, images, sentences, audio (stimuli)
3.) orienting tasks: what you have the participants do with the stimuli (what you tell them to do)
4.) retrieval tasks: recall, recognition, savings, reaction time, transfer
Interaction
The effect of one variable depends on another
Contextualism
results occur within the context of a particular experiment
Ecological Validity
Endel Tulving (1983)
Are results generalizable across different settings
Common ways to study memory
1.) word lists (recall, recognition, savings)
2.) looking at errors
Properties of words that make them good from studying memory
1.) well defined boundaries (word starts and ends)
2.) individual, discrete items (right or wrong)
3.) dated in time and place
4.) discriminated from one another
5.) clearly identified at a fast rate
6.) have meaning
7.) can be presented visually or auditory
8.) can vary within a modality (voice gender, pitch)
9.) can be grouped (conceptual categories, orthographic similarity)
Hermann Ebbinghaus
- 1885
- studied nonsense syllables (trigrams)
- measured savings (quizzed himself on the list and compared his times)
- discovered the forgetting curve
- very precise (lots of data)
- studied on himself
Percent savings formula
(original learning - relearning) / original learning
Criticisms of Ebbinghaus
- only used nonsense syllables (meaning important in memory)
- only tested himself: but results replicate
Findings from Ebbinghaus
1.) forgetting curve
2.) spacing effect
3.) digit span
4.) list length effect
5.) importance of meaning on memory
6.) serial position curve (primacy and recency)
7.) remote association
Remote Association
- strong connections between words in close proximity on a list
- most savings the most similar to the original list
- all words connected buy by various strengths
William James (1890)
- functionalist
- influenced by Ebbinghaus
- defined primary and secondary memory
Primary memory
immediate consciousness
Secondary memory
awareness of a state of mind after it has dropped from consciousness
FC Bartlett (1932)
- against Ebbinghaus
- interested in meaning on memory
- not very precise - not a lot of data
FC Bartlett Cambridge Study Findings
1.) memory does not repeat the past but reconstructs it
2.) every time you retell something it deviates more and more from the original truth
3.) we shorten information
4.) we replace information with things that make more sense to us (canoe - boat, seal - fish) –> schemas
Short- term memory definition
what we have accessible at any given time
Elements of Short Term memory
1.) duration
2.) capacity
3.) retrieval form
4.) coding
Short Term Memory: duration
- how LONG can we hold information in STM?
- tested by Brown-Peterson distractor paradigm
Brown - Peterson Distractor Paradigm CONDITIONS
- given 3-digit number and 3-letter word
- count backwards by 3s from number for X amount of time
- Asked to remember the trigram
Brown - Peterson Distractor Paradigm FINDINGS
- the longer you are distracted (count backwards), the harder it is to remember the trigram
- rapid decay if rehearsal is prevented
Short- Term Memory: Capacity
how MUCH information we can keep in short term memory
- George Miller: we can recall 7 (+/- 2) pieces of information in STM
Chunking
integrating pieces of information to hold more in STM
- syllables vs. letters, words vs. letters, hundreds vs. singular numbers
- using CONTROL PROCESSES
Short- Term Memory: Retrieval Form:
How do people SEARCH short-term memory
Sternberg Task Conditions
Conditions:
- people given a letter on a screen (the target) and have to search a set of letters to see if the “target” appears
STM Search possibilities
1.) parallel: check everything at once (instantaneous) - yes an no would be the same
2.) serial self-terminating: search until you find it (results would be shorter for no, longer for yes)
3.) serial exhaustive search: search every term even if you have found the target already –> THIS IS WHAT WE DO
Serial Exhaustive Search
How people search STM
- time is the same for Yes and No (searching all conditions)
Short - Term Memory: Coding
how do we KEEP information in STM?
- information is auditorially encoded (even if presented visually)
- we mix up words that sound the same (cut / cup) not that look the same (cut / cvt)
Two - Store Model of Memory
1.) Waugh and Norman (1965)
- stimuli –> primary memory –> secondary memory
- in between: rehearsal (brings to primary memory)
- forgetting happens if info not rehearsed enough to move to secondary memory
Modal Model of Memory
- Atkinson and Shiffrin
- Retrieval and Rehearsal are under our control
Environmental input –> sensory stores (audio and visual) –> short term store (control processing) –> long term store
Serial Position Curve
- remember first thing learned (primacy) and last things learned the best (recency)
- quadratic: higher on ends
Primacy Effect
We remember items at the beginning of a list –> thought to be due to extra rehearsal (more of a chance to move into LTM)
Recency Effect
We remember items at the end of a list (list length does not matter)
- because they are dumped from STM
Free Recall
Can recall items in any order you want (not original list order)
Single- Trial
information is only presented once
serial recall
have to remember the list in order
- LESSENS the effects of PRIMACY and RECENCY
Pre recency
Anything before recency effect (flat part)
Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) - Primacy and Recency
Conditions:
1.) varied retention interval (time between encoding and retrieval) - people complete a distraction task before recall
2.) varies presentation rate (speed words given)
Findings:
1.) primacy effect still present - no recency if there is a distraction or delay (not in STM anymore)
2.) slowly: better primacy, same recency —- fast: same for both
Negative Recency
Conditions: 10 lists, 15 words, immediate free recall then SUPRISE recall test
- free recall: the same primacy and recency effects
- final free recall: primacy effect the same, OPPOSITE recency (last words remembered worse)
Proactive Interference
prior learning interferes with your ability to learn new/later information
Retroactive Interference
later learning effects of later learning on prior learning
New Conclusion for the BPDP (Keppel and Underwood)
distraction time does not have an effect for the first trial – only later trials
- it is proactive interference, not decay
- problem with the modal model: you are not rehearsing yet still remember it with more distraction
Problems with the Modal Model
1.) recency effect occurs with a continual distractor task –> you are not dumping from STM but you still get recency
2.) neuropsychological patients: defects in STM but not in LTM –> suggests you don’t need STM for LTM
3.) Rehearsal doesn’t guarantee transfer
4.) long-term recency effects
Working Memory
a temporary memory system in which information is maintained and manipulated for a short period of time (STM + attention)
Baddeley Model (1990) of Working Memory
Visual spatial sketchpad –> central executive –> phonological loop
phonological store
memory space that can hold speech based information for a brief period (1-2 seconds)
articulatory control processing
translates visual information into speech based code
- subvocal rehearsal; prevents decay
- have to decide to move visual information into phonological store
Direct Access
all auditorilly presented information goes straight into phonological store (no choice)
phonological similarity effect
things that sound the same are harder to remember (visual items are turned into speech based code)
irrelevent speech effect
any auditory information (conversation, random speech) goes straight to phonological store and make it harder to remember / concentrate
- not true for tones (classical music)
- true even if visually presented
word length effect
- memory better for short words
- memory better if you are a faster reader (faster internal rehearsal)
- also goes with age: younger = slower speaking, worse memory
articulatory suppression effect
conditions: people recieve info visually or auditorilly and have to present it back
- BUT have to say “lalalal” or “thethethe” to block articulatory control processes
- If info is presented visually: no phonological similarity effect (if auditory suppression)
- if auditorilly presented: still phonological similarity
Repeating a word aloud while encoding visual information …
gets rid of phonological similarity effect
visual spatial sketchpad: visual subsystem
color, shape, size
visual spatial sketchpad: spatial subsystem
layout, movements in space
auditory vs. visual interference effects
Subjects were faster at responding when the form of response differed from the type of task
- if you pointed when doing verbal task (reading)
- if you spoke when doing a visual task (tracing)
unattended picture effect
conditions: heard irrelevant speech or saw irrelevant images when trying to learn word lists (auditory rehearsal vs. visual rehearsal)
- do better when your rehearsal and distractor are not the same (visual rehearsal = irrelevant speech, auditory rehearsal = irrelevant images)
Engle
Working memory capacity differs across different people
- simple tasks: remember a letter
- reading spans + letter , operation spans (math) + letter
Working Memory Capacity
can not be changed – can get better at one thing with practice but can not change overall span
encoding definition
how we get information into long- term memory LTM
types of rehearsal
1.) maintenance: holds information without transforming it 2.) elaborative: transforming information into something more meaningful
Rehearsal vs. manipulation: which is better?
rehearsal is not an effective way to get information into LTM - need attention and meaning
Level of processing effect
more meaningful processing is better remembered
1.) visual (looks, capitals)
2.) phonemic (sound)
3.) semantic (meaning)
Does intent to encode matter?
NO - deep processing matters not intent to encode
Are deep tasks remembered better because they take longer?
NO - not just remembered because more rehearsal time - actual manipulation that matters
Generation Effect
the best way to learn something is to generate it yourself - even if you fail to come up with it, trying it what matters
Picture Superiority Effect
We remember images better than words (even if you have to write down the word of what you saw)
Dual Coding Theory
When we see an image, we give it a word (two types of encoding) – we don’t do that with just words
Concreteness effect
we remember concrete things better than abstract (bread vs. freedom)
distinctiveness effect
we remember things that stick out better
Spacing effect (distributed practice)
if you study in small chunks over a long period of time you will remember it better
enactment effect
if you act something out, you have a better memory of it later
drawing effect
if you draw or write a word, better memory
Transfer Appropriate processing
normal recognition test: better memory for deep processing
If you are given a rhyme (phonemic) and then asked about rhyme on the test, that is better remembered than deep (semantic) condition
Crossover interaction
opposite pattern of results (often with transfer appropriate processing)
Encoding specificity principle
recollection depends on method of encoding
- round - cabbage is usually a weak cue –> unless you study it this way
Environment and Retrieval
Godden and Baddely:
- learned underwater is better remembered underwater (same with land)
- test rooms: not true
- if you integrate material with the room (imagine a piece of information in the room) then being in the same place helps
State and retrieval effects
if you encode in an unusual state (intoxicated) you do better if you can retrieve in that same unusual state (also intoxicated)
Mood and retrieval effects
better if you are in the same mood for encoding and retrieval
Forgetting in STM
mostly caused by PROACTIVE INTERFERENCE
- proactive interference builds up quickly `
Similarity effect
similar things interfere more (dissimilar things are better remembered)
Release from Proactive Interference: is it from retrieval or encoding?
RETRIVAL EFFECT:
- study of similar items with slight differences –> you remembered them better if the difference was pointed out, but if didn’t matter if it was pointed out before or after you encoded (must be a retrieval phenomena)
2 Theories of Forgetting in LTM
1.) decay: if you do not rehearse you forget - thorndike WRONG
2.) interference theory: McGeoch
- forgetting is not always connected to time: reminiscence
- CORRECT
Reminiscence
when you can not recall something originally but can recall it later
Hypermnesia
you remember things better at a later date then currently (reminiscence outweighs forgetting)
Differential Forgetting Rates
what you do inbetween two tests / two recall episodes matters (due to interference) –> less interference better (i.e. sleeping vs. awake)
- REtroactive interference
Unlearning theory
interference happens because previous responses are unlearned or suppressed - NOT TRUE
Response Competition
interference happens because two responses are competing with one another (both are available and one gets in the way)
Retroactive interference and time
1.) retroactive interference decreases
2.) proactive interference increases
