PSY 452 LTM processes

encoding

• acquiring info and getting into LTM

retrieval

• pulling info out of LTM, into the active contents of mind

Repeated exposure

Nickerson and Adams (1979)

• penny exposure

• showing that although exposure is daily it still didn’t show we encoded it always

Conclusions about repeated exposure

• repeated exposure, even at very high levels, does not ensure information will be well retained

Modal model rehearsal

• “rehearsal” maintains

• “rehearsal” increases likelihood of transfer to LTM

Simple repetition

Craik and Watkins (1973) procedure

• seeing letter followed by dashes, need to focus on the words that start with their targeted letter and must repeat until new word with targeted letter

Simple repetition

Craik and Watkins (1973) results

• repetition was bad all across the board, repetition didn’t help much, although they didn’t do a control group

• Repetition doesn’t reliably improve memory

Simple repetition

Glenberg et al. (1977)

• 60 trials, given a number and then a “filler” word to repeat for 2 to 18 seconds; 3 to 27 repetitions

• no difference based on amount of repetition

Elaboration rehearsal

• think of meaning, form links and connections

• considers the quality of processing/rehearsal

• better

Maintenance rehearsal

• simple repetition of information

• focus on the quantity of processing/ rehearsal

Orienting questions:

visual analysis

• YACHT → uppercase letters

Orienting questions:

phonetic analysis

• YACHT → rhymes with hot

Orienting questions:

semantic analysis

• YACHT → type of boat

Research on type of processing

Craik and Tulving (1975) method

• several types of tasks/ questions

• is the word in capital letter? Processes appearance

• does the word rhyme with? Processes sound

• is the word in the category? Processes meaning

• final recognition test

Research on type of processing

Craik and Tulving (1975) results

• category performed best

• processing meaning was best

Research on forming connections

Craik and tulving (1975) results

• simple sentence vs, complex variation

• simple repetition was consistent, not changing

• however, category for forming connections was best compared to visual and phonetic

retrieval failure

• inability to retrieve although information was encoded

Cue dependency of memory

• memory is cue dependent

• retrieval cues

cue dependent

• retrieval success is highly dependent on the cues or triggers that are used to probe

retrieval cues

• any element of the retrieval situation that trigger information stored in memory (words given in a test question, the surrounding context, and so on)

Cue dependency of memory

Tulving and pearlstone (1966)

• list of words drawn from categories

• free recall or cued recall

• cued recall was better

Cue dependency of memory

Waganaar (1986)

• recorded events in diary

• cued recall one year later: one cue from event vs.

• cued recall one year later: three cue from event

• 3 cues was better

Cue dependency of memory

Mantyla (1986)

• list of 600 nouns; came up with three associations for each noun

• surprise recall test

• using one’s own associates vs. someone else’s associations

Encoding/ retrieval interactions

Fisher and Craik (1977) method and results

• learners got one of three types of orienting questions

• got different retrieval cues

• rhyme cue best with rhyme condition, category cue with category condition, and sentence cue best with sentence condition

Implications of encoding / retrieval interactions

• interaction between encoding and retrieval

• memory is best when the cues correspond to the way the information was encoded

• memory is best when the cues reinstate the thinking when the information was encoded

encoding specificity principle

• memory recall is much more effective when the conditions and context at the time of retrieval match the conditions and context present when the memory was originally encoded

Context-dependent retrieval

Godden and Baddely (1975)

• studying underwater produced best results on the test when it was taken underwater as well

• studying on land produced best results on the test when it was taken on land as well

State-dependent retrieval

Goodwin et al. (1969)

• studying either sober or taking two drinks

• took the test sober and also after two drinks

• those who took drinks did better on the test after taking two drinks whereas those who were sober did better on the test while sober than when taking 2 drinks

State-dependent retrieval

Kelemen and Creeley (2003)

• placebo drink vs. caffeine conditions for study

• taking test with placebo drink and caffeine for both conditions

• those who studied with placebo did better with the placebo test and those who studied with caffeine did better on the test with the caffeine drink

State-dependent retrieval

Miles and Hardman (1998)

• rest vs. aerobic exercise

• test with rest and aerobic exercise in both conditions

• those who studied with rest did better when testing with rest and those who studied with aerobic exercise did better with aerobic exercise

Mood-dependent retrieval

Eich and Metcalfe (1989)

• sad vs. happy

• test with sad and happy for both conditions

• those who studied while sad tested better while also sad, those who studied while happy tested better while also being happy

unique cues

• need unique cues that discriminate what you’re after from other things you’re not after

• cues that matched up with earlier thinking were most effective