Week 10 Flashcards
• Encoding
getting material into memory
Retrieval
getting it out again
Encoding-retrieval
interactions
Encoding and Retrieval
Studying words in an experiment
• Identify a word through the visual word identification system
• Perform the study task and encode the word into memory
• Associated with contextual information
• At test
• Use cues provided by the experimenter - “focus on the study list”
• and self-generated cues - e.g., think of the words I rated as
pleasant in the study task
• Try to retrieve words from the memory of the study task
• Retrieval processes may be different for recall and recognition
Encoding
• So encoding is entering material into memory
• A theory of encoding into LTM was given in the modal
model
• Information maintained by rehearsal in STM until transferred to
LTM
• Largely a structural account - memory as stores
• Problems:
• Memory is affected by how material is processed at study
• In fact, rehearsal does NOT produce good long term memory!
• Also, there are multiple ways to encode material in STM and LTM
The Levels of Processing (LOP)
• In studying words, Ps can attend to three aspects
• letters & orthography (spelling)
• phonology (pronunciation)
• meaning (semantics)
• Recall of studied words is better after semantic processing than rehearsal
(Craik & Lockhart, 1972)
• Rehearsal = say the word aloud or silently, over and over
• Levels of Processing theory, a continuum of depth:
• Orthographic phonological semantic
LOP effect
• Intentional learning instructions vs. one of three study tasks (Craik,
1977)
• Is it in upper or lower case? (letters: orthographic)
• FROG - does it rhyme with DOG? (phonological)
• Is it a living thing? (semantic)
Intention to learn
• Does it matter whether there is an intention to learn, over and above specific study tasks? (Hyde & Jenkins, 1973) • Study task x Instruction about later test Rate pleasantness (semantic) Memory test! No test instruction vs. letter checking task (orthographic) Memory test! No test instruction
Evidence for LOP
- Jacoby, Craik & Begg, 1979
- Imagine object and evaluate size differences at study
- horse-goat vs. cat-elephant
- Small size differences better memory for words (unexpected test).
- LOP: Deeper semantic analysis with small size differences
- LOP is valid in many situations
LOP: Elaboration
• Connections: Provide retrieval cues and paths
• Craik & Tulving 1975, Study task
• Does CHICKEN fit in the sentence?
A: The girl cooked the _______
B: The great bird swooped down and carried off the
struggling ______
• Recall of words (chicken) better for elaborate condition
(B).
• More connections with event memories, concepts.
Deep processing and learning
• There is a large educational literature showing the benefit of
semantic and elaborate processing in student learning
• Elaborative processing associated with:
• Organisation
• Imposing your own order on items enhances memory
• Method of loci, other mnemonics
• Promotes connections
• Chunking (not just a STM thing)
• Semantic processing promotes chunking based on meaning or
structure of items (e.g., skilled vs novice chess players
memory of the location of pieces on a board).
• Understanding… à
Understanding and memory
- Recall was better when interpretation was provided at outset
- Understanding promotes connections
- Interpretation unifies - fewer elements to remember
Independent assessments of depth?
• PROBLEM with LOC; Logical or conceptual: Circularity
(Baddeley, 1978)
• Deep processing is that which promotes good memory
• Direct attempts to measure the critical aspect of deep processing
that promotes memory were not successful
• Is processing time an index of depth? (Craik & Tulving, 1975)
• No. Deep processing does not necessarily take longer.
• Is processing difficulty the critical factor?
• No, difficult but superficial (orthographical) tasks did not
improve memory
• does the word WITCH match CCVCC?
• where C = consonant, V = vowel
Empirical problems with LOP
• Meaning or distinctiveness?
• “Has a trunk” identifies elephant better than
“contains two letter Es”
• Semantic processing enhances distinctiveness of
memories?
• Pit meaning against distinctiveness: Does distinctive
non-semantic processing produce good memory?
• Eysenck & Eysenck 1980:
• Words with atypical spelling-sound
correspondences, e.g., love, glove
• Distinctiveness x Semantic coding condition
• Recognition test
Conditions: Eysenck & Eysenck
Semantic Non-semantic Distinctive Atypical descriptor saggy glove Distinctive pronunciation glove rhymes with stove Non-distinctive Typical descriptor leather glove Correct pronunciation glove rhymes with love
Distinctiveness vs. connections
• Connections and relationships support retrieval
(semantic)
• Provide retrieval cues and paths
• So helps access memories of the study phase
• Distinctiveness helps to discriminate among
retrieved items that are similar or related
• And among the study-list encounter with an item and prior
encounters with that item
• Especially useful for recognition tests
What else helps encoding?
• Rhyme working with semantic cues
• The oral tradition (David Rubin)
• Rhyme and meaning work together to
provide structure, integration, cues
e.g., Baa Baa black sheep, have you any wool
Yes sir, yes sir ……………………………………….?
Emotion and encoding
• When people are asked for their clearest
memories of childhood most reported
emotionally-charged events (Rubin & Kozin)
• accidents, birthdays, etc
• Lab experiment
• Cahill & McGaugh showed Ps a slide show of a
hospital visit with graphic surgery slides embedded
in it.
• One group told the surgery was real, the other that
it was faked (for training).
• “Real” group showed better memory for the
emotional material (not other slides)
What does emotion do?
• Increases arousal: Arousal increases attention…
• Is there an emotion effect beyond the attention effect?
• Induce emotion just after material has been presented
• Nielson et al. - surgery vs. neutral material just after Ps listen to a word list to be
remembered.
• Emotion group showed a memory benefit for words
Emotion is about important events –
threat, opportunity, pain, love,
friendship.
We have evolved to encode
emotional events better because
they are the important events
Flashbulb memories
• People report vivid detailed memories from the time of major and
consequential disturbing events
• World Trade Centre Towers, tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan
• Many studies conducted over the years suggest that people’s confidence
in their “flashbulb” memories is misplaced
• Forgetting is similar to that of other memories but people have much
more confidence in their 9/11 memories (Talarico & Rubin)
• 9/11 memories for distress changed over time and were predicted by
current appraisal of importance of the attack (Levine et al.)
Retrieval cues
• Things that are forgotten are not necessarily lost from
memory
• Decay is not a major cause of forgetting
• Many memories are intact - just not accessible!
• Tip of the tongue effect - I know the word, just
can’t access it!
• Where do the words go…?
• Multiple study and recall attempts with a list of 36 words (Tulving, 1967)
• On each recall attempt, Ps remembered nearly 4 words that they had
not recalled on the previous test
• (But they also forgot 3.9 words from the last test)
Useful retrieval cues
- Suppose contextual information is encoded with an item at study
- If Ps study the picture of the character
- Then dinosaur might be a good retrieval cue for the characters/actors.
- This cue can be provided in the test or generated by the participant
Encoding retrieval interactions
• So, for good memory
• Material should be encoded in a way that improves its
accessibility at test
• Effective retrieval cues should be provided at test
Encoding-retrieval interactions
• Much of the early memory work was done with
word lists in recall and recognition tests
• Later, it was realised that what works depends
upon how the material is going to be used and
how memory is to be probed at test
• The relationship between study and test is vital
• Semantic encoding is useful for conceptually
(semantically) based tests
• Recall, recognition, many university exams.
Encoding-retrieval interactions
• How encoding processes and test factors combine • Stein, 1978 • Ps study words with one capital letter • rocK • Group 1 - does the word fit? • The \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ rolled down the hill • Group 2 - which is the capital letter? TEST A. Choose study words from distractors B. Choose word from Rock, rOck, roCk, rocK Higher accuracy after sentence study Higher accuracy after letter-task study
Stein results
Semantic test does better in semantic study
Case test does better in case study
TAP: Transfer appropriate processing
• Morris, Bransford & Franks, 1977.
• Superiority of semantic study reflects the fact that most memory
tests are semantically based.
• Compared a standard recognition test with:
• a phonological test requiring Ps to choose words that sounded like
study words
• Encoding:
Does word fit in sentence (semantic) vs. Does word rhyme with …..?
• Semantic study better for recognition but not for phonological test
• TAP: Transfer is best when test processes overlap with processing at study.
State dependent learning
• Environmental context, state-dependent learning
• Re-instate as many of the study conditions
as possible (e.g., situation)
• A classic and related example, Baddeley & Godden
Divers studied words
20 feet underwater or by the water’s edge
Recall in water Recall on land Recall in water Recall on land
So: 2 x 2 factorial design: wet-wet, wet-dry, dry-wet, dry-dry
Repeated retrievals - effects on encoding
Memory is a reconstructive process
• Bartlett and the War of the Ghosts
• Ps study a Native American folk-tale (schemas)
• On testing, Ps modified the story in line with the familiar elements of their own
culture
• But on repeated testing over time, Ps will also have opportunities to encode
information consistent with their own schemas
• So there is an interplay between encoding and retrieval
• An issue in repeated questioning in legal testimony
• And a consideration in testing for student learning
Testing effects in student learning
• Are tests just for assessment or to help ongoing learning?
• Opportunities for encoding provided by tests
• INDIRECT test effects:
• Students study more if they have a test
• DIRECT test effects
• Additional encoding of material encountered or
retrieved during tests
• Effects of tests on ease of retrieval
Roediger & Karpicke, 2006
• Review of evidence on direct effects of tests on
learning & memory
• Early study by Spitzer 1939
• All 6th grade children in 91 Iowa schools! (N =
3605)
• Study 600-word articles on peanuts or bamboo
• test = 25 multi-choice questions
• Varied number and timing of tests
• No additional study opportunities given
• no feedback on tests
In the lab - recall of words
• Roediger & Karpicke, 2006
• List of 40 words to memorise
• Twenty trials with the list
Standard group Repeated study Repeated test
(study-test alternation)
STST ….. SSST ………… STTT ………..
Multi-choice tests - bad news?
• If multi-choice tests allow students to
choose a familiar answer without making
retrieval efforts
• Then testing effects may not be observed
(Chan et al., 2006)
• But well designed m-c tests do work
• Little et al., 2012: when plausible
distractors are given, students think about
why each alternative is correct or incorrect
• Multi-choice tests fostered learning about
both correct and incorrect alternatives
How does testing help?
• Most theories focus on the benefit of retrieval effort
• Bjork - “desirable difficulties”
• Bjork suggests that retrieval promotes biochemical
processes that consolidate memory traces
• This doesn’t happen if material is already available
in WM
• Retrieval may also increase access paths, effective
cues
• Transfer-appropriate processing
• Retrieval practice on one test enhances retrieval on a later
(similar) test
Overview - Cognitive psychology’s learning tips
• Review by Roediger, 2013
• Rigorous research evaluation of learning and teaching tips (US Govt report)
Effective or effective in some
situations (*)
Distribute practice - often but not for too long
Distribute practice - often but not for too long
* Interleave practice - mix
problems and topics
* Elaborative interrogation - ask why * Self-explanation something is true
* Self-explanation
Not recommended!
Re-reading text as a study method
Highlighting text as a study method
Summarising text as a study method
Generating images for text-based learning
Devising key-word mnemonics
Erasing memories?
• Upon retrieval a memory may be reconstructed • During this process certain drugs (Beta-adrenergic receptor blockers) may be used to disrupt the process…
Putting it all together
So far I have talked about • Learning • Attention/Working memory • Long-term memory Minimizing surprise, or…. maximizing the sensory evidence for an agent’s existence (a model Learning distractor layout and target placement pairings facilitates: • Attention • Contextual cueing involves long-term memory of its world). A predictive/Bayesian brain
Contextual Cueing
Incidental
- Implicit (recognition test at chance)
- Typically 12 different repeats each b
lock
