Psych 240 Exam 2 NEW - Polk

How Thinking Involves Working Memory

Difference between thinking and working memory is the integration of material - we bring out things that are useful in long term memory into working memory to figure out a problem (executive processes and storage buffer = working memory)

Working memory is central to any cognitive task - correlates with behavior

Raven's Progressive Matrices

IQ test - people use it because it's a good predictor of academic performance, but how I solve the problem will involve learning experiences I have stored in my long-term memory

Mental Arithmetic

Every equation is not stored in long-term memory, but there are things I've learned that are stored that I can use to figure out the solution

I also have to keep some things in short term memory to figure out the rest of the problem (836+429 - addition would be executive process/rule that you bring to working memory, but remembering the individual addition parts/what you carry over are part of the storage buffer)

Individual differences: Measure of Working Memory Span

Ex. Read series of sentences and recall final word of each sentence in order - span would be the number of final words you can remember, but if you do something thinking about it and have time to analyze the grammar and semantics you may be able to remember more

Where you start not remembering is the extent of your working memory span

Individual Differences: Raven's (In Regards to Age and Working Memory)

Scores decline with age, people with larger working span do better - may mean that working memory declines with age so that is why score declines

For old and young, people with the same working memory score - Raven's score is the same

People with high working memory spans have better comprehension of text

Interference: Random Number Generation

Working Memory Task - ex. we have to come up with a sequence of numbers which are random (not repeating the pattern at which we come up with the numbers) - working memory is involved because we have to keep track of what numbers we have said to make sure that it stays random with no pattern

Interference: Syllogistic Reasoning

Transitional property - presented with the statement that A=B and B=C therefore A=C but it interferes with reasoning and we have to work out whether it's true

Use working memory task to take up working memory capacity and see if it interferes with reasoning tasks

Interference: Reading Comprehension

In order to make sense of sentences as a whole, we have to store our interpretations and if there is a mismatch, we go back and re-compute

Remembering the words and combining them to comprehend what it means ("There is a sewer near our home who makes terrific suits.")

Evidence for WM/LTM Distinction: Dissociations

Double dissociation - quest of early psychology, between working memory systems (short term) and long term memory, look at evidence from biology and behavioral evidence (experimental)

Evidence for WM/LTM Distinction: Anterograde Amnesia (LTM disorder) vs. Working Memory Disorder

LTM disorder is inability to remember events occurring after a brain injury

Patient H.M. - not all memory lost, working memory unaffected but devastated long term memory (short term memory maintained)

VS.

Patient K.F. - lost working memory but maintained long term - pounced on this double dissociation and tells us that there are two different systems going on here

Serial Position Curve

First task - listen to list of words and write down in any order (free recall) - measured memory for each individual item starting with the first and going to last - majority got the second word, few in the middle, and most at the end

Function is relatively U shaped - superior recall at beginning and end, dip in performance in the middle

Second task - listen to words, count backwards from 100, then write words in any order - Result: maintained primacy effect for first couple words but dropped superiority for last words because counting used up the working/short-term memory and interfered with the recency effect

Third task - slow down the presentation of each word, and have better recall of items because individuals have time to digest each item and put context to them and store in long term memory

Primacy Effect

Long term memory

Recency Effect

Working memory

Double Dissociation Logic

Lesion in one area that affects one system vs. another system - dissociation shows that there are actually two systems involved because in one patient one is not affected and another shows another area is affected

Separate tasks use separate parts of the mind and lesion helps us figure out if there is interference, lose the ability to one of the tasks and the other task seems to run fine

Double dissociation is much better evidence than single dissociation because it could just be a difficulty to perform rather than inability

Baddeley's 3-part Model

Working Memory Model - central executive coordinates some operations, then stores into visuospatial code or phonological code (central programming)

Visuospatial Sketch-Pad

Temporarily storing visual spatial information

Central Executive

In charge of deciding what to do next - least well specified component in model, overseeing operation of the company and monitoring/delegating - making sure things are happening

Not doing perception/storage - deciding what to do/what to pay attention to, planning, coordinating operation of brain as a whole

Phonological loop evidence

Stores sound based information - multiple components in phonological buffer

Stores short-term auditory speech and events before they're analyzed for meaning/integrated (image-based) - can also be recruited from non-auditory inputs (when things sound the same/are phonologically confusing, it'll be hard to remember/store in working memory because of acoustic similarity) - confusions for sounding alike, not meaning or looking alike

Loop because it's like a cassette tape - store 2 seconds worth of information and rehearse/rewind/relisten

Verbal Store

Assumed to hold speech-based information represented in traces that fade away over a period of about two seconds

Acoustic Similarity Effect

even if visually presented, phonological confusion when the letters sound similar - recode that information into a phonological word and confusion occurs if words sound alike but not for similar meaning or looking - working memory tasks are difficult only when acoustics are similar

Irrelevant Speech effect

If a subject is trying to remember sequence of visually presented numbers, then performance will be disrupted by the presence of simultaneous irrelevant spoken material - disruption effect is just as great if the irrelevant material comprises nonsense as if it contains real words and even other digits cause little additional problem over and above that of any spoken items

Articulatory loops

Second component of phonological loop

Articulatory Suppression

Mundane task, interference task - repeatedly saying "the" when viewing a list of words - accuracy of non-confusable items goes down, memory works but rehearsal isn't there (you can't say anything else while saying "the the the the" - when people were given short term memory tasks saying "the" - non-confusable became confusable

Acoustic confusion effect goes away (prevents rehearsal, prevents acoustic confusability effect after visual representation) - notion that non-auditory inputs are recoded into articular code which allows representation in phonological code and that code is susceptible to phonological confusion and we prevent that confusion if we prevent sub vocal rehearsal

- If subjects are prevented from rehearsing the material to be remembered, by the requirement to utter some irrelevant sound such as the word THE, then performance is impaired (over articulatory suppression does also lead to irrelevant speech - suppression also obliterates the word length effect, provided it occurs during both input and written recall)

Subvocal Rehearsal

maintains traces of speech-based information; a process that can also be used to enter information into the store, for example by articulating the names of the objects to be remembered either overtly or subvocally

Buffer

Time Effects: Word Length and Speed of Speech

Memory span for short words is better than for long words - effect disappears with articulatory suppression - subjects can generally remember about as many words they say in 2 seconds (talking faster than others, remember more in short term memory task because they can get more items rehearsed in a given amount of time - speaking slowly, you don't get as many words in to rehearse in a fixed amount of time)

Short words are better for short term memory than longer words - can get more in for rehearsal

Chinese>English>Welsh

Phonological Storage Capacity: Chunks

We have certain chunks stored in our long-term memory that we remember better than random ones (FB ICI AFD RJF K vs. FBI CIA FDR JFK)

Phonological Loop PET Evidence: Rehearsal process activates left hemisphere (Broca's area) and not right frontal

Where is the loop stored in the brain? For most right-handed people, spoken language is in left hemisphere (Broca's and Wernicke's area)

How does that relate to loop? Articulatory loop is basically talking to yourself, sub vocal rehearsal process - you're saying items to yourself, you expect that this engages with language areas

Compared two different conditions: 1) phonological working condition (2 back task) - for each letter you see, you say whether it's the same as the letter 2 back in the sequence - requires a lot of working memory, constantly storing and rehearsing vs. 2) Search task - just for every letter, tell me is it an 'M'? Don't have to remember previous sequence, just recognition - significantly less working memory involved - subtract - 2 back demands phonological rehearsal, PET activation in two tasks, subtraction should show which brain areas are involved Broca's area and parietal - lot of activity in 2 back task but not search

Visuospatial Sketchpad

Component in working memory devoted to storing visual and imagery and spatial processing, different systems for temporary storage of language sounds and for visual representations

Information enters buffer by seeing something/closing eyes and imagining or from memory, activate representation in visuospatial buffer - scan, rotate, zoom, etc.

Key assumption - they're different systems (phonological and visuospatial) - evidence?

Brooks Letter-Scanning Task or Sentence Task Coupled with Pointing Responses or Vocal Responses

Gave people two tasks - visuospatial and phonological - activate different systems, two types of response - vocally or manually (pointing) - interference paradigm

Talking out loud would interfere with phonological whereas pointing to locations may interfere with visuospatial memory - Imagine block letter H and now scan around the outside of the letter mentally, every corner make a judgment (is the corner a top or bottom or middle) all within working memory (not perception) - requiring visuospatial working memory

Phonological working memory task - gave people sentences - not seeing it, you have to remember it in memory and scan making judgment about each word (is it a noun or not?) - not seeing the words

Then manipulated responses - do you say yes or no or do you have to point to answer on piece of paper - if you have to talk and give response vocally it will interfere with phonological more than visuospatial and pointing would affect visuospatial more than phonological

Behavioral Double Dissociation

If you make a vocal response, it interferes with phonological response, and visuospatial affected by pointing - tells you those tasks depend on different underlying systems

Visuospatial sketchpad biological evidence

Remember locations of dots across a delay to recognize if a circle is outside of the dots/surrounding - have to remember dot locations, switched order and it doesn't require working memory of dots because you can see it

Logic is that if you compare processes in memory condition versus simple control - it is different in visuospatial sketch-pad

PET evidence of Visuospatial Sketchpad

Right hemisphere, biological double dissociation - opposite patterns from the two tasks and directly see that it depends on different parts of the brain (prefrontal right lobe and occipital right lobe)

PET double dissociation between phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad

Big point is that consistent with Braddley's model, it depends on different parts of the brain

Frontal lobe syndrome

Why should we believe there's a system that does what central executive does? Patients that have damage to frontal lobe, they believe as if they do not have executive control - prefrontal cortex important in executive control, lesions affect control, very easily distracted (pathological), significant problems with organization and planning

Frontal Lobe Syndrome: Distractability

Get distracted very easily

Frontal Lobe Syndrome: Perseveration

Comes from persevere - stick with something - you're persevering a behavior even if it's no longer appropriate - keep doing things one way even when told not to, can't switch method easily

Explicit Memory vs. Implicit Memory

Explicit = conscious memory/recollection, declarative knowledge through recall or recognition

Implicit = unconscious, procedural like motor skills, something you practice and get better at and don't have to think about - priming (pre-exposure makes it faster to process again)

Amnesia: Psychogenic vs. Organic

Psychogenic amnesia = idea of forgetting things because of psychological trauma (has genesis in psychology - experience trauma and as a coping mechanism, your brain forgets that information) - rare, question whether it's real

Vs.

Organic amnesia = organic basis in the brain as a result of actual damage to structure of the brain and significant memory problems

Amnesia: Anterograde vs. Retrograde

Two sets of symptoms of organic amnesia, only impairs explicit (not implicit)

Anterograde - after brain damage (hard time remembering things that happen after damage/learning new information - don't remember new memories

Retrograde - before brain damage - remember things before the damage - counter intuitively, organic amnesiacs remember remote memories (what's impaired is stuff right before the trauma) - still remember who they are/childhood/being raised, but just period before damage - temporally graded (more severe for stuff more recent, less for remote)

Patient H.M.

Mot famous neurological patient in history - short term memories are lost once distracted - Undergone bilateral medial temporal-lobe resection for the relief of intractable epilepsy; he was left with a dense global amnesia

Paradox: because of him, we have learned a great deal about human memory, but due to unique nature of surgery - sample size will likely not increase

H.M. and Dissociation between remote and anterograde memory

Still has access to some memories within 11 year period of retrograde amnesia - relatively recent memories and not subject to interference from new memories

Dense anterograde amnesia for nearly all episodic information since operation - can't say what happened 5 minutes ago or where he lives/with whom, what day/month/year/season, age

H.M. and Dissociation between WM and LTM

Decay of short term memory normal, rehearses item and contains within WM

Long term severely impaired for all material in all modalities - inability to learn stories/associations/patters/vocabulary/names/locations

H.M. and Dissociation between implicit and explicit memory

Explicit memory describes traditional tests of recognition and recall

Implicit memory describes a range of memory abilities that do not require the explicit conscious recollection of previous experiences

Dissociation between this "knowing how" ability and explicit that he had performed the task previously - became apparent when HM was taken into the room where he was tested every day; wouldn't know what computer was but still had idea on how to complete tests

Preserved implicit memory and impaired explicit

H.M. and Dissociation between verbal and nonverbal memory

NONE

H.M. and Dissociation between semantic and episodic memory

NONE

Hippocampus

Most common area of brain damage in amnesia - medial temporal lobes damaged (where hippo is located)

Spared Implicit Memory: Mirror reading

When doing the task, you get better at it/faster - implicit memory skill when you're reading - automatic recognition (but you had to learn how to do it), get some advantage if you explicitly also remember it

Study tested two types of amnesiacs (Korsokoff and severe anterograde amnesia) - implicit memory is reserved, gave mirror reading tasks - some new and some repeated (if you remember seeing it before, you should be faster if you remembered them/explicit memory) - skill is implicit, repeated is explicit

Results - Amnesic patients have same ability to use implicit skill, but explicit not so much - control had advantage - amnesic not as fast and don't benefit from having word repeated

Spared Implicit Memory: Tower of Hanoi

Three disks, move them from one peg to another - you can only move one at a time, and can't put larger disk on top of smaller - took controls 48 moves, next day they get better and better - same with amnesiacs

Interesting because they don't remember ever having done the tasks - have to have rules explained to them again but they still get better

It's the skill - not just motor/perceptual, but also cognitive skills like solving puzzles

Priming: Word Fragment Completion

You have to fill in dashes with other letters to complete a word (tru--) - using this task, we compare explicit and implicit memory - present people with list of words that they study and try to remember and give them this task (some new words and some from the list)

Generally people are faster when they recognize from the list - amnesiacs show normal priming but poor recognition (complete more old than new) - they don't remember seeing the old words though, the effect still shows up (implicit memory phenomenon) - just having previously experiencing the words makes it faster even if you don't actually remember them

PET Studies of Normals

Study list of words, get word fragments, but get two different versions of the task: 1) explicit task requires consciously remembering words 2) implicit task - 1) complete word with one word from list where you have to actually remember what you saw 2) implicit doesn't matter what word, just fill in the blank - doesn't require explicit memory of the list

Given tasks while brain was scanned to figure out what parts of brain was activated - explicit required hippocampus, implicit used posterior visual area activity - decrease activation in visual cortex for fragments that are old (repetition suppression effect - it's easier to complete fragments because you're primed with list, brain doesn't have to work as hard), very different patterns

Behavioral Double Dissociations: Modality of presentation - implicit test and results, explicit test and results

List of words and ask recognition (some in modes of vocal and some flashed on the screen) - explicit recognition - do you remember consciously those words being presented - doesn't matter if you saw or heard it, manipulation doesn't affect explicit memory

- Does affect implicit though - instead read the words as fast as you can, you will be faster to read words that you saw compared with words that you heard because you already saw them once (because you already saw them so you say it faster) - previously you heard it so you don't have same advantage - do get a difference between the visual and vocal presentation

- Presentation modality - one say (single) dissociation favoring explicit memory

Behavioral Double Dissociation: Depth of processing - implicit test and results, explicit test and results

The deeper you process something, the better you remember it in long-term memory - manipulate by task you give people while they are studying - give list of words and ask to encode physical appearance of letters, don't have to think about semantics, just what it looks like (superficial level of processing) - intermediate is sound of word, semantic is deepest level - affects explicit memory but not implicit

- Give a list of words, some words rate how pleasant the word is (think about semantic), some tell what it rhymes with (not as deep of process) - explicitly you remember finger better than power but if you give implicit task like fragment completion, just as good with both of them because there's no priming affect depending on type of processing you did before

Taxonomy of Long-Term Memory

What we have seen is that within long-term memory, there are different systems (explicit vs implicit rely on different systems in brain biologically and behaviorally) (long-term memory vs. working memory) - even within explicit there are different systems - all relying on more specific different systems/parts of brain

Explicit Memory: Semantic vs. Episodic

Episodic memory is personal episodes in own life tied to specific time and place vs. semantic that is knowledge base - everything you know about world, not really tied to specific time and place, just stored

Categorization

Key to semantic, way it is organized - why isn't there a separate piece of knowledge for each type of bird? We clump knowledge into groups/categories because the natural hypothesis is that it reflects the structure of the world (birds have similarities, they're not copletely unrelated) - we treat similar things in similar ways, how do we judge is something is a member of a category? - Allows us to make inferences about things we've never seen before like a new type of dog (still know i's a dog because we have a foundation/knowledge)

Categorization: Use by Pigeons

Wasserman's experiment - showed pigeons pictures and trained them to peck in one of four holes labeled as different objects, if pigeon pecked in right hole after seeing pictures of objects labeled then it got food - but then he showed then pictures of things that fell under object's category (they had not seen it before) and they were still accurate - evidence that it's not just trained to recognize one object, but learned categories too/generalization

Similarity vs. Conceptual knowledge (milk vs. mashed-up food experiment)

How do kids conceptualize - categories? Maybe they have conceptual features - understand more about essential underlying conceptual features and categorize based on those

Ex. told kids picture of flamingo, feeds its kids mashedpup food and bat and it feeds its kids milk (bat and black bird look more similar perceptually so assumed kids would categorize them together and say it feeds its young milk vs. underlying conceptual features that flamingo and black bird are both birds so it'll feed it mashed-up food) - found kids are conceptual (essentialism - kids and adults can categorize not just on superficial perceptual features, but deeper more conceptual features)

Classical view

There are certain properties/features that are defining for a category

Defining properties

Necessary and sufficient for something to be in a category

Problem with Classical View

probably don't organize categories in rule-based defining features

- ex. Game - basketball and chess are both games but it's hard to come up with similar features including these as games and exclude others as not a game

Modern Probabilistic View

Categories are probabilistic - they are characteristics but not defining/set in stone

Characteristic Properties

Ex. Birds - they fly but there are birds that don't - just characteristics, not a check off list - more so compare number of similarities

Similarity

some members have more characteristic properties than others - it's not all or none, can be fuzzy/grey area

Typicality evidence

Some members of a category are typical (good examples) and some atypical

Typicality Evidence: Ratings

order from most to least considered for fruit: apple, olive, banana, fig, pineapple - apple first and olive last

Typicality Evidence: Sentence Verification

Say whether a sentence is true or false as soon as possible (robin is a bird - great typical example of a bird so response is fast, chicken is a bird - little slower because it's not great example)

Typicality Evidence: Hedges

to illustrate that something is not a great member of a category - ex. Whale is TECHNICALLY a mammal - underlying belief that it is part of the category but it's not typical (vs. cow is technically mammal - it is good example so don't use the hedge (technically))

Categorization on the basis of Similarity

Question becomes similarity to what? What is the nature of the representation that we are judging similarity against to determine category of dog, chair, etc. - two theories: exemplars and prototype

To exemplars

We are judging similarity against specific examples of members of the category, store in memory not abstract dog but just bunch of examples of dogs

To prototype

We do have abstract prototype dog representation - instead of storing every example, we extract out a platonic/general dog stored in memory and we judge similarity to the prototype - average/typical

Geometric approach

Imagine if we could represent concepts we have stored in memory in geometric space where similar concepts are nearby and dissimilar are far away - if you judge similarity, you measure distance in your geometric space when judging new creature

Similarity-rating task

Rate how similar these categories are (apple to plum, plum to lemon, etc.) - use mathematical technique using multi-dimensional scaling that computes best geometric setting (given all numerical judgments) - best fit to similarity judgments

3 Metric Axioms

geometric space where distance is relevant has to satisfy these characteristics

3 Metric Axioms: Minimality

Can't get any closer than the distance from a point to itself (minimal distance in a space) - has a specific implication that self-similarity of any concept has to be the same (apple to apple has to be same from pomegranate to pomegranate) - may violate this axiom

3 Metric Axioms: Symmetry

Doesn't matter which direction you go - distance from A to B has to be same as B to A (if we are judging similarity based on this distance, shouldn't matter which order we compare things - plum to apple is same as apple to plum) - but good evidence that people systematically violate this axiom (tend to judge unfamiliar category to be more similar to familiar category than vice versa)

3 Metric Axioms: Triangle Inequality

Draw a Triangle - two sides and hypotenuse (hypotenuse can't be longer than sum of other two parts - if one concept is similar to a second and second to a third, then first and third have to be similar geometrically - people violate a lot (Jamaica - Cuba, Cuba - China, Jamaica not to China)

Tversky's Feature Comparison (contrast) Model

Look at shared features and distinctive features that increases/decreases similarity

Typicality explanation - characteristic features shared by category (not all of them) - typical will share all features, atypical shares least amount of features (count up number of shared features)

- Similarity between set of features characterizing item I and the set characterizing item J is given by:

- Sim (I,J) - ( n J) - (I - J) - (J - I) - I n J designates set of features common to the two items, I - J designates set of features distint to item I and vice versa

Reasoning-based categorization vs. Similarity-based categorization

Seems plausible that similarity is involved in rapid, automatic decisions whereas reasoning comes into play in slower, more deliberative decisions

Coding experience by category

Reduces demands on mental processes, storage space and reasoning processes - all of which are known to be limited

Frequently used codes are associated with brief descriptions, superordinate category (high): ex. fruit, basic category (intermediate): ex. apple, subordinate category (low): ex. Macintosh Apple

Basic level is usually preferred code

Feature-based measure

Ruled out geometric, doesn't assume axioms need to be satisfied

Similarity (I, J) as a weighted function of features common to I & J - features unique to I - features unique to J

Count up number of features that are shared - higher number then similarity goes up - then subtract for each distinct feature

How violations are accounted for in Contrast model

Minimality: supposed using equation to judge similarity from apple to apple - plug it in and there will be a lot of features shared conceptually (same with any other categories, even those that are unfamiliar) - no unique features between same conceptual categories, but there is difference in how many are shared (why? Because of familiarity)

Symmetry: similarity of a to b should be same b to a, but in this model - b and c don't have to be the same (more weight on features unique to one object than the second object) - depends on which order you put the objects, though - not going to be same similarity judgments if you flip them

Triangle Inequality: Cuba/Jamaica/China example - concepts can be similar but for very different reasons (similar geographically or politics or culture, etc.) so we can see why some are similar and some are very different

Teachable Language Comprehender (TLC - Collins and Quillian semantic network model)

Semantic network (network of categories) with relationship between them, strictly hierarchal (there's a root and branches) - each node corresponds to a category and associated with each category are properties - assumption of this model is "inheritance" - properties are represented at the highest level of the hierarchy where they apply (you inherit those properties from levels before, parent concept)

Hierarchical Network Structure

Cognitive economy - don't have to represent 'has wings' for birds and canaries, and robins, etc. - the children inherit those properties - two kinds of relationships (properties associated with category and hierarchal links "is a")

Feature Storage (Highest Node)

Suppose you want to find out "is a canary a bird" - this model says you start off with canary, go up "is a" link and see that it falls under bird category and animal category - check parents to see if you can inherit certain properties

Feature Storage: Sentence Verification Task

Give people sentences, time how long it takes them to say whether the statement is true or false (measure reaction time) - model predicts that the more links you have to go through, the longer it will take to verify sentence - not just for properties but also "is a" links

TLC/Feature Storage Problems: Reverse Distance

A dog is an animal - people are very fast to verify that - but what about mammal? They are little slower but violates hierarchal level - mammal is intermediate between dog and animal - assuming it's organized like this then we should be faster with mammal - reverse of what we'd expect based on number of links have to be followed according to TLC model (raises problems and led psychologists to work on the model to accommodate)

TLC/Feature Storage Problems: Typicality

Not all members of a category are equal (some are really typical members of a category whereas others are on the border) - saw that verification for those typical in a category is quicker

TLC/Feature Storage Problems: Basic-level effects

Why do we choose particular levels of description (ex. chair vs. furniture) privileged levels are the basic level objects - empirically demonstrated, but what's special? How can you say certain parts of strict hierarchy is special (nothing in the model that distinguishes one node from another) - how do you choose the basic level category, nothing in original TLC model

Revised Model with Spreading Activation

Still have nodes, and connections between them, but they're not hierarchal (can't look at a concept and see it as a parent of a concept - any kind of association from concepts is fair game)

Links vary in strength - labeling each relationship - "is a" still is there but can also be bat can fly/bat is not bird/bat has wings/etc. - some associations are short/stronger vs. longer/weaker association

Explicit information about relationships

Intersection search: Spreading Activation

Activate a node when you think about it - activation spreads to adjacent nodes along all links coming out of a certain node and using spreading activation - mechanism verifies sentences, it looks for intersections

Ex. Canary can sing - activate canary and sing, start spreading activation towards links coming out of it - see where they intersect - there's a path between concepts, the path can determine what the relationship is (since it's short and strong, it'll be a quicker reaction)

New Model Accounts for: Reverse Distance

People are faster to say dog is animal than mammal when in hierarchy that's reverse of what we'd expect - we don't have hierarchy anymore and connections can be shorter/stronger or longer/weaker

Same with typicality but doesn't address basic model

New Model Accounts for: Priming

Phenomenon where previous exposure to a stimulus facilitates processing of that stimulus, faster at recognition (ex. repetition priming) - semantic priming: if i processed something semantically related to something else, it'll make the reaction faster

In-Class Demonstration of Sentence Memory and Data - Remembering Verbatim vs. Gist Information

Illustrate key concepts of episodic memory - write down as many sentences as you can remember in one minute - ratings become more positive as the list goes down (first three sentences you'll feel confident that you didn't hear it but then you start to doubt yourself and think maybe you did hear them but just don't remember accurately)

It actually doesn't matter if it's an old sentence or new - all that mattered is how many ideas from the original ideas were conveyed - lot of ideas mean that they think they heard it, very few ideas they'll be confident they did not hear it

When we remember in episodic memory - it's not superficial wording, we remember key ideas/gist/core meaning of what we experienced

Semantic vs. Syntactic Information

John thanked Mary vs. Mary was thanked by John - convey similar ideas, semantic is similar - but syntax is totally different (active vs. passive voice) - words are different for syntactic reasons - they typically won't remember the syntax, but they'll remember the core ideas/semantic (hard time distinguishing how it was worded)

Sachs (Galileo paragraph) Study

Subjects read a paragraph and were asked about sentences that may or may not have occurred in the paragraph - when gist is different, people noticed, but syntax changes and they don't notice the difference in wording, word order difference also tested - manipulated delay as well (working memory and long term/episodic being tested)

Semantic always do well in recognizing whether it's false (consistent with idea that we remember meaning even after a delay) - however in other conditions where meaning is contained, people don't do well with word order/syntax/identical (not sure/guessing)

Remembering Wording

When you do have to focus on words rather than meanings - you start using different functions - focus on phonetics rather than semantics ('whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous ___') - adopt different strategy because it feels unnatural

Central vs. Peripheral information: Rating Importance

Asked people to rate ideas that were most important from paragraph that they read - difference between ideas that are central and peripheral information (people don't really remember ideas that are more peripheral/less important)

Central vs. Peripheral information: Children Extract Central Information Implicitly

Same thing with kids - they only remember key details and forget minor that don't seem to be important even though they can't rate importance, but they still remember those same important facts over other peripherals