PSYC 221 Exam #2: Ch. 6 & 7

LTM: explicit/declarative

memories a person is consciously aware of

• includes:

  • episodic memories

  • semantic memories

Episodic memory

memory for personal events

Semantic memory

memory for facts/general knowledge

LTM: implicit/non-declarative

memories a person isn’t consciously aware of, but affects behaviour

• includes:

  • procedural memory

  • priming

  • conditioning

Procedural (skill) memory

memory for actions & how to do things

• performance is done without conscious awareness of how to do it

• overthinking = disruption of performance

  • e.g. riding bike, typing, etc.

Patient H.M case

• hippocampus removed ⇒ unable to form explicit LTMs

  • could laugh at jokes told multiple times

• takeaway = people who can’t form new LTMs can still learn new skills

H.M case: mirror drawing task

• every time H.M. mirror drew, he improved

  • connects to “savings”

Donald Hebb

• aka father of neuropsychology & neural networks

  • wrote “the organization of behaviour”

  • “neurons that fire together, wire together”

Donald Hebb (1961) study

• participants given a string of 9 digits

  • task ⇒ write down the order once the string disappeared

• results ⇒ each time the string was repeated, performance improved

  • participants didn’t know strings were repeated, they thought it was a new string each time

• conclusion = performance improves due to priming

Priming

when a priming stimulus changes a response to a test stimulus

Repetition priming

when the test stimulus is similar/identical to the priming stimulus

• used in Hebb’s study

• brain memorizes repeating patterns without consciously knowing it

Graf et al. (1985) study

compared inpatients, alcoholics, & amnesia patients on explicit & implicit tasks

Graf et al. (1985) study: explicit task

• participants rated how much they liked 10 words

  • task ⇒ surprise memory test

• results ⇒ amnesia patients performance was worse than the inpatients & alcoholics

  • reason = can’t remember things & can’t learn new material

Graf et al. (1985) study: implicit task

• participants were given the first 3 letters of a word

  • task ⇒ fill in the last 2 letters

  • e.g. CRO could be filled in with SS or WN

  • some of the words were from the explicit task

• results ⇒ all 3 groups performed well when presented with earlier words (priming effect)

Perfect & Askew (1994) study

• participants read magazine articles & told to ignore ads on the pages

• then, participants had to rate 50 ads (25 = old, 25 = new)

  • task ⇒ say which ads they recognized

• results ⇒ participants only recognized 11% of old ads

  • rated old ads higher in appeal, eye-catchingness, etc.

• conclusion = familiarity due to prior exposure results in higher rating

Propaganda effect

when a person is more likely to rate a statement they heard/saw before as true even if the statement is false

• happens without conscious awareness (implicit memory)

Classical conditioning

pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus

• e.g. experiencing an emotion from something but not knowing the cause

Operant conditioning

behaviour being reinforced using reward or punishment

• e.g. superstitions

Rehearsal

techniques for encoding information into the LTM

Rehearsal: maintenance

keeps information active in the WM using repetition/recycling

Rehearsal: elaboration

promotes information to the LTM using meaning/making connections

Hellyer (1962) study

• used the Peterson & Peterson paradigm

  • allowed participants to repeat the 3 numbers to themselves (1, 2, 4, 8x)

• results ⇒ repetition increased the likelihood information entering the LTM

Rundus (1971) study

• participants learned a list of words out loud & rehearsal was recorded

  • number of rehearsals was correlated with the serial position curve

• results ⇒ rehearsal frequency & LTM recall had a linear relationship

  • i.e. 1 rehearsal = poor performance, 10 rehearsals = good performance

• conclusion = primacy relies on frequency

Craik & Lockhart (1972)

proposed the idea that memory depends on how information is encoded (depth of processing)

Levels of processing

• emphasis = process

• introduced incidental learning

Levels of processing: shallow

• little attention to meaning

• focus = physical features

• result = poor memory

Levels of processing: deep

• close attention to meaning

• focus = semantic meaning

• result = better memory

Craik & Tulving (1975) study

• participants were given a word

• 3 conditions:

  • shallow = judge the font

  • middle = judge if the word rhymes

  • deep = judge if the word fits into a sentence

• results ⇒ linear increase of memory & best in deep condition

• conclusion = deeper processing leads to better memory

Macleod (1976) study

is memory driven by processing depth or processing time?

• (bilingual) participants had to decide if a word was french/english & living/non-living

• RT results ⇒ took .92 to 1.42 seconds to make a decision

• accuracy results ⇒ surprise memory test ranged from 37-48%

• conclusion = depth is more important than time

Levels of processing: criticisms

• it is unknown if information is being deeply encoded unless memory performance improves (circularity)

• can create opposite of predicted results (context effects)

Jenkins & Russel (1952), & Bousfield (1953) study

• participants had to learn a list of words

  • task ⇒ free recall

• results ⇒ participants clustered related items together when recalling

Kintsch & Muschke (1969) study

• participants were given 1 of 2 lists

• list #1 results ⇒ acoustic errors at the end

  • due to WM

  • consistent with serial position curve

  • WM = encoded in acoustics

• list #2 results ⇒ semantic errors at the beginning

  • due to LTM

  • consistent with LTM association with primacy

  • LTM = encoded in semantics

Nelson & Rothbart (1972) study

• participants were given paired associates to learn

  • e.g. 27-dough

• then, participants waited in a 4-week retention interval

• 3 conditions when relearning:

  • same pair

  • different pair

  • same digit but new word is phonologically related to the first word

• results ⇒ different condition = 25-30%, same condition = 70%, phonological condition = 50%

• conclusion = phonological information isn’t the main format of the LTM

Kolers (1975) study

• participants read a paragraph flipped upside down

  • timed how long it took

• then, participants waited a retention interval

• results ⇒ participants were faster at reading if it was something semantically related

• conclusion = LTM has the ability to store visual information

Forgetting

• loss of information = interference & retrieval failure, not decay

• RI & PI play a role

RI: Jenkins & Dallenbach (1924) study

• argued sleeping right after learning should help memory ⇒ you don’t experience/take in new information

• participants learned nonsense syllables

• 2 conditions:

  • sleep right away

  • stay awake for 1-8 hours

• results ⇒ sleep eliminated interference

RI: Yaroush, Sullivan, & Ekstran (1971) study

• argued decrease of performance might be due to dreaming

• assumption = deprivation of REM sleep will improve performance

• results ⇒ participants deprived of REM sleep had better performance

PI: Underwood (1948, 1957, 1964) study

• argued Ebbinghaus’ earlier list made it harder to learn a newer list

• results ⇒ recall accuracy decreased asymptotically after completing pervious lists

  • tip of the tongue phenomenon = main cause of inability to produce information

LTM retrieval

• people have 10 billion memories

  • if it looking through memories took 1 second per memory, it would take 58 days to find 1 memory

• LTM = content addressable for quick retrieval

Endel Tulving

• semantic/episodic memory

• subjective organization

• encoding specificity

Encoding specificity principle (ESP)

matching where information is encoded & where information is retrieved increases memory (Tulving & Thomson (1973))

ESP: Godden & Baddeley (1975) study

• participants were given a list of words to learn

• 4 conditions for studying & testing:

  • land-land

  • land-water

  • water-water

  • water-land

• results ⇒ memory was best when studying & testing was in the same environment

State-dependent learning (SDL)

matching mood during encoding & mood during retrieval increases memory

SDL: Eich & Metcalfe (1989) study

• participants listened to sad or happy music

  • task ⇒ rate their mood

• then, participants were given a list of words to learn & waited a retention interval

• 4 conditions:

  • sad group with sad music

  • happy group with happy music

  • sad group with happy music

  • happy group with sad music

Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP)

matching type of processing during encoding & retrieval

TAP: Morris et al. (1977) study

• 2 conditions:

  • prepare for rhyme-based test (phonological)

  • prepare for meaning-based test (semantic)

• assumption = semantics is better for learning over acoustics

• results ⇒ rhyme-based group did better than the meaning-based group

Branson & Johnson (1973) study

• results ⇒ pictures/titles improve understanding & recall of a passage only if it’s provided before reading

Izawa (1970), & Karpicke & Roediger (2008) study

• SSSSST (5 study, 1 test) vs. STSTST (3 study, 3 test)

• 3 conditions:

  • studied & tested all words/sessions

  • studied only words missed in previous tests & tested on all words

  • studied all words & tested only on words missed in previous tests

• results ⇒ repeated test = greater LTM retention

• conclusion = retrieval is important

Factors for better memory

• levels of processing

• distributed practice

• generation effect

• organizing to-be-remembered information

• retrieval practice

Factors for encoding

• visual imagery

• self-reference effect

• relating words to survival value

• study groups