Memory and state dependence Flashcards
1
Q
forgetting curve
ebbinghaus
A
- First experimental investigations of mem
- Desired to study formation of original associations
- Nonsense syllables (CVC)
- Sequence of them would not have pre-existing associations –> serial learning task
- Used himself as a ppt
- Method of savings
- Curve: forgetting initially rapid, levels off
2
Q
excitatory conditioning
forgetting in rats
A
- Conditioned suppression of licking procedure (Hendersen, 1985)
- Irrespective of US intensity, hardly any forgetting after 60 days
- Mem traces can last as long as 60 days
3
Q
inhibitory conditioning
forgetting in rats
A
- Fear conditioning procedures with shock US
- Diff calculation of suppression level
- In a more complex learning situation, some forgetting seen within 35 days
4
Q
forgetting can be reduced by a reminder
A
- Avoidance learning procedure (CS –> shock)
- Relatively high latencies show forgetting tested 3 days later (Gordon et al., 1979)
- Mem performance improved by a reminder (apparatus & CS exposure) 24hr or 10min prior to test
5
Q
reminder duration
krechevsky maze
A
- Rapid learning seen by decrease in num of errors
- Forgetting when tested 25 days later
- Reminder of 0, 10, 30, 90, or 300s
- Extra-maze cues e.g. context
- Mem performance restored by a reminder of 90s prior to test
6
Q
theories of forgetting
A
- trace decay
- interference
7
Q
trace decay theory of forgetting
A
- Info storage is reflected by physical changes in brain & in absence of rehearsal, these mem traces become weaker with passage of time
- Describes well the forgetting curve
- It is simple
- Assumes that forgetting is equal to mem erasure
- If a trace “disappears” (or weakens) then mem isn’t there
- Fails to explain the effect of reminders
8
Q
interference theory of forgetting
McGeoch (1932)
A
- human mem is fundamentally associative
- recall guided by cues or stimuli to which items in memory are associated
- because a given ind may have had various experiences, multiple items may become associated with the same cue
- other responses may have been learned before/after the target response (proactive & retroactive interference)
- this interference should be a function of similarity
9
Q
theoretical implications of experimental observations
A
- Mems can last a lot longer than you might think if trace decay were cause of forgetting
- The fact that reminders can jog mems suggests that mems can be forgotten without necessarily having decayed
- Temporary retrieval problems point to importance of interference as a cause of forgetting
- Associative learning can explain how reminders work
10
Q
principles of association
proust anecdote
A
- during learning: stim A + stim B –> thought of B
- after learning: stim A –> thought of B
11
Q
cross-over design
godden & baddeley (1975)
A
- learned: context 1,2,1,2
- memory tested: context 1,2,2,1
12
Q
encoding specificity
tulving & thomson (1973)
A
- Encoding in context provides mem triggers
- Category names for word lists
- Effective cues enable the retrieval of items that would not be retrieved under non-cued recall conditions
13
Q
varities of reminder
environmental context
A
- dry vs wet
- music
- odours
14
Q
cassaday et al. (2002)
A
- when conditioned with lavender, mozart, dim lights, coversational & reassuring instruction
- high retention
- 20% score less than 50% on this task - good
- in comparison to standard test comparison
15
Q
theoretical implications of experimental obsesrvations
A
- Mems can last a lot longer than you might think if trace decay were cause of forgetting
- The fact that reminders can jog mems suggests that mems can be forgotten without necessarily having decayed
- Temporary retrieval problems point to the importance of interference as a cause of forgetting
- Associative learning can explain how reminders work
