LTM: encoding and retrieval EXAM 2

encoding

acquiring info and transferring it to LTM

processes occurring during initial learning/exposure

retrieval

bringing info out of LTM and into STM/WM

pulling info out of storage and into the active contents of mind

what is the difference between maintenance rehearsal and elaborative rehearsal in terms of what procedures are associated with each type? and their effectiveness for creating LT memories?

maintenance rehearsal- involves the simple repetition of information

• low effectiveness for LTM

• repeating phone number over and over, memorizing words and meanings for test and forgetting afterwards

elaborative rehearsal- involves thinking of the meaning of info and linking it to other things

• highly effective for LTM

• creating mental images or associations, linking new info to personal experiences

levels of processing theory

proposes that memory retention depends on the depth of cognitive processing applied to information

depth of processing- processing levels; direct relation between depth and memory

shallow processing- rehearse info based on superficial characteristics

deep processing- rehearse info based on meaningful characteristics

what does levels of processing theory say about the difference between maintenance and elaborative rehearsal?

maintenance rehearsal — shallow processing; simply repeating info does not add meaning

elaborative rehearsal — deep processing; requires making connections, associations, etc

what is the self-reference effect? (rogers et al., 1977)

individuals better encode and recall information by relating it to their ow experiences, memories, or self-concept

what is survival processing? (nairne et al., 2008)

information deemed relevant to survival is remembered better than other information; prioritize critical data

what is a retrieval cue? what does it mean when memory is cue dependent?

elements of the retrieval situation (words given, location, sights, sounds, smells, etc) that help us remember information stored in memory

cue dependent- retrieval success is highly dependent on the cues used

tulving and pearlstone (1966) recall experiment

list of words drawn from categories

• free recall- "recall the words..”

• cued recall- “recall the words. the categories were birds, furniture, etc..”

results imply that participants in the free recall group only recalled a portion of what they could remember

demonstrates importance of CUES for retrieval

mantyla’s (1986) experiment

list of 600 nouns; came up with 3 associates for each noun

• surprise recall using associates as cues (90%)

• surprise recall test using someone else’s associates (55%)

methods and results of Fisher and Craik (1977)

sentence orienting question

• rhyme cue

• category cue

• sentence cue

retrieval success depends on the cues present

interaction between encoding and retrieval

memory is best when the retrieval cues correspond to the way that the info was encoded

encoding specificity

memory retrieval is most effective when information available at retrieval matches the information present during encoding

context-dependent, state-dependent, etc.

Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) “diving” experiment

scuba diver study; demonstrated that memory recall is heavily influenced by environmental context

divers learned list of words on dry land or underwater and recalled them in the same or different environments; recall was better when the environment matched; so context-dependent

Grant et al., 1988 studying experiment

demonstrated that context dependent memory significantly improves cognitive performance when studying and testing environments match; students that studied in quiet or noisy environments performed better on tests taken in same environment

state-dependent retrieval — goodwin et al., 1969 experiment

alcohol induces state-dependent learning in humans, where info learned while intoxicated is better recalled while intoxicated than when sober

memory retrieval was better when the internal state matched between learning and recall

mood dependent retrieval — eich and metcalfe’s 1989 experiment

mood-dependent memory is more robust for internally generated events (thoughts, associations) than for external evens (reading events)

when mood at retrieval matched the encoding mood, memory was better

used music to induce happy or sad moods

cue overload — wickens et al., 1976 experiment

cues become less effective when there is too much info associated with them

participants learned 3 sets of fruits