Cognitive psych exam 2
Short-term/working memory:
Concept of short-term memory:
William James (1890) coined the idea of primary & secondary memory
Primary memory: immediate contents of consciousness (what is currently in your mind, current thoughts you’re holding onto; online memory in the moment)
Secondary memory: content that is no longer in consciousness & must be brought back in (stored in memory but not in active thoughts; stuff we put in the back of our mind, can potentially retrieve it into current thoughts)
Atkinson & Shiffrin’s (1968) STM & LTM:
Discuss the same concepts as James, but call them STM (primary memory) & LTM (secondary memory) → popularized these terms, v influential paper
Modal model: based on everything we knew about memory at that time
Input → sensory memory (most/all info enters) → STM (when we direct attention towards the info, it enters STM; what you are actively processing… active contents of mind; can be refreshed via rehearsal) →/← LTM (the more rehearsal you engage in, the more likely the info is to enter LTM; if it’s stored, you have potential to retrieve in STM later)
Stuff in this model moves through our mind in a step by step process (from one type of memory to another)
Said STM & LTM are distinct types of memory
Concept of STM: active contents of mind – stuff you’re currently thinking about; NOT defined by time, but by the status of the info, whether it’s currently on your mind or not (STM is defined by the info you’re actively thinking about, NOT how long has passed)
Now an outdated idea bc human cognition is flexible… hence the idea of working memory (both used to describe online memory)
Characteristics of short-term memory:
Duration – short/limited (info goes away as soon as you stop refreshing STM); capacity – small/limited; code/format of info – commonly acoustic (frequently based on sound)
Duration of STM: Peterson & Peterson (1959) – short/limited duration
Participants shown 3 letters sequentially, then delay/retention interval where participants were told to count backwards, then told to recall letters
Varied the retention interval to see how long the memory would last
Results: at a 3s delay, performance was already ~50%; 6s delay = ~40%; 18s delay = almost no memory of words… immediately (with delay), the STM goes away… shows that duration of STM is extremely short
What causes this forgetting? Og thought the memory just fades over time (decay theory)… these authors assumed decay theory was true… but it’s not true
Keppel & Underwood (1962):
Same procedure, shown 3 letters then had 3/9/18s backwards counting delay, then recall letters; but the participants did this 3 consecutive times at the same retention interval (i.e., 3s or 9s or 18s – each subject has the same time condition)
Results: between trials 1/2/3, accuracy decreased as you add more trials, even though participants had the same delay time… why? interference
Their OG prediction: consistent decay across results
Why did we get interference? As they got each new set of letters, performance decreases bc they can’t come up with the current letter for the current trial bc old letters come up (aka interference)
Conclusion: very rapid forgetting in STM that starts immediately (if you switch thoughts to other things); STM has a short duration (seconds, 10s of seconds); forgetting is largely due to interference, focusing on some info means other info will be ‘pushed out’
Why is the info being ‘pushed out’? There’s only so much we can hold in our current thoughts at once… to hold onto new things, we get rid of old info (we need to ‘make room’ for new info)
Capacity of STM:
Miller 1956: wanted to see how many current thoughts we can hold at once
Set of items to remember (but varied number of items in the set to remember; numbers/letters/pictures/words) → immediate recall (no delay; talking about online memory) → at what set size do subjects fail to remember them all (what’s the capacity?) = max of 7+-2 (2 = variability among participants, avg is 7)
Very consistent capacity within an individual (same number for all trial items), but there was some individual variability (hence the +-2)
When letters are shown, not organized in a meaningful way, we can’t remember it all (ex. 17 letters randomly) vs letters shown in words (meaningful way) -3 wds
Chunking: we form the letters into words so there are fewer chunks to remember – makes it easier to recall the info bc it’s in units → so we hold 7+-2 chunks/units
Conclusion: capacity of STM is limited (~ 7 chunks) — this is why info is pushed out, so there’s ‘space’ for new, incoming info given the limited capacity
But we can, in effect, boost STM capacity with chunking (letters → words; random string of digits → chunk into meaningful units)
Code (format) of STM – based on sound:
Ex: in one list, the letters sounded alike; list 2 had all letters sound different (generally better performance when letters sound different)
Conrad 1964: gave people a set of letters to remember (random mix of letters) → immediate recall (looked at what kinds of errors people made)
Errors people made: acoustic confusions (mixed up letter given with one that sounds similar); when people are given letters that sound alike, they often mix up the letters – meaning that when we hold the info online, it’s held in an acoustic form (said you also get acoustic confusions when info is visually presented
Working memory:
Shortcomings of early views of STM: Baddeley & Hitch 1974
STM is too limited & restrictive; not flexible enough (i.e., STM can use different codes; can operate in different ways for different purposes)
Given stimuli, say the words to yourself, this creases STM of sound bc it’s often easy to hold onto info in acoustic ways, but there are other ways
But this isn’t the only way we hold onto info in our thoughts (can hold it visually, like in a mental image)
Can’t account for mukti-tasking data: like when taking notes, mindless doodling actually helps you remember the info
Shortcoming of STM: too focused on the passive holding of info, not enough focus on the manipulation of info (bc we normally hold the info, then analysing it, giving it meaning, and manipulating it)... we manipulate the info!
WM: more flexible view of STM that is more flexible and thinks of WM as our mental workspace to hold & analyze info
WM model: Baddeley & Hitch 1974:
Proposed a model with different subcomponents that can function separately
Phonological loop: holding & manipulating sound-based info, verbal & auditory info – separate capacity from sketchpad
Visuospatial sketchpad: visual & spatial info, separate capacity from pho
Central executive: control mechanism/unit which coordinates activity & directs attention
→ provides greater flexibility & can account for multitasking data
WM model – STM as our mental workspace:
Conceptualized STM not just as a place for passively holding info, but also as a place for processing/analyzing/manipulating info
Conversation ex: you hold onto the info throughout a sentence then piece it all together at the end, you analyze the deeper meaning & put it together to analyze & understand it
Mental math: ex 16x4 – you have to hold all the numbers in your mental workspace & do the mental math itself
STM operates as our ‘mental workspace’; thus the new term, WM
WM model – measurement of capacity:
Simple span tasks (Miller 1956): only measure the passive holding of info (which was appropriate for the old idea of STM) → 7+-2 in simple span tasks → simple span tasks = only holding info; STM
Complex span tasks: require the holding & processing of info (as needed when examining the more modern idea of WM) → complex span tasks = holding & processing info; WM
Developed to determine capacity of WM
Ex: reading span task – told to read & comprehend sentences (the analysis/processing piece), told to hold onto the last word in each sentence (the holding piece)
→ what is the total number of sentences people can read & comprehend while simultaneously holding the last word of each sentence? 2-3 max!
So reading & comprehending sentences is eating up some of our capacity
Ex: operation span task – given simple math problems, told to judge if the answer given is the correct answer or not; simultaneously (in between math problems) told to hold onto 1 word in between and remember all words given → mental math uses some of our capacity so we hold onto fewer words… 2-3 words again!
So… holding & processing info at the same time takes more cognitive resources, so we can hold fewer things in WM
In conclusion, STM & WM both pertain to the active contents of mind or online memory, the stuff you’re currently thinking about; STM & WM are both dealing with memory having a small capacity
WM has greater flexibility with regard to the code, the way that info is held & operated on (visual, auditory info)
Whereas STM focuses on the holding of info, WM emphasizes both the holding & manipulation of info
Given the latter difference, capacity is measured differently (with simple vs complex span tasks)
Components of the WM model: Baddeley’s model
Phonological loop: subcomponent that we hold verbal & auditory in, in a phonological form
Used to take in info & hold onto it, manipulate it, in a phonological form (in short term store)
auditory/speech input (direct access) enters phonological short term store (can be held w/o any translation bc it’s most easily processed, but only held for seconds at best) → then can leave as auditory/speech output
Subvocal rehearsal: your ‘inner voice’ – can rehearse info & refresh it; this is like you talking to yourself (ex - after something was spoken to you, you speak it to yourself to remember something)
Buuut Baddeley suggested that non-auditory input can enter here – said info can be presented visually, then we say it to ourself (aka we translated it into the sound format), then the info enters phono loop
2 functions of inner voice: subvocal rehearsal - rehearse & refresh info, and to translate info into sound form so it can enter phonological loop
→ predictions of a phonological loop…
That similarly sounding info will be confused (bc info is stored as sound units (acoustic confusions)) – called the phonological similarity effect
That even if info is presented visually, it will be translated into sound, and if the sounds are similar, you can get acoustic confusions – you get a phonological similarity effect, even with visual info (bc of how it’s processed visually then rehearsed auditorily – visual info is translated into sound)... predicts that similar sounding info can be confused, even if shown visually
Predicts NO confusion of similar sounding info if shown visually and you prevent subvocal rehearsal (using inner voice) – how to do it? Present letters visually while (ex) say a word to yourself the whole time, while being presented visual info (bc the letters can’t get into phonological loop, they enter visuospatial sketch
Predicts differences based on word length: if given words that vary in length, predicts you can hold onto more short words & fewer longer words; bc longer words take longer to say (in your inner voice, where you take longer to say the long words, other words get lost bc you have greater capacity with short words (spoken faster, refreshed faster, therefore held onto better) compared to long words → word length effect (longer words = smaller capacity; shorter words = larger capacity)
In different languages, you speak in different rates - speaking faster or slower → speaking languages faster = can hold more words in phono, speaking languages slower = hold fewer words in phono (the capacity max is the amount of info you say to yourself in ~3sec)
Visuospatial sketchpad:
Subcomponent of short term memory responsible for holding & analyzing info in a visual form (visual image)
Visual & spatial info!
Ex - Shepard & Metzler 1971: you are given 2 shapes simultaneously and told to judge if they’re the same/different object (task where info can’t be easily translated into language) – you look at one & rotate it in your head - forming mental image & manipulating it in your head to see if it matches
Does it behave like a phonological loop? If you're holding info in a visuospatial form, do you get confusions based on visuospatial similarities? Yep! You get confusions based on appearance (visual confusions, not based on sound)
Although vs sketchpad is described in a visual form, research says it behaves similarly to ph loop
Central executive:
It’s the control that coordinates the systems/subsystems
Controls retrieval & use of into from LTM
Focusing, switching, dividing attention
Long-term memory: 10/6
Distinction between STM & LTM:
Modal model (Atkinson & Shiffrin): input → sensory memory → STM (active contents of mind) → LTM (shelved info, no longer active in current thoughts) (<-- retrieval)
Conceptually thinking about STM & LTM in different ways
Differences in operation of STM & LTM – serial position effect studies:
Present info in serial order for people to memorize in a list format; given numerous lists and you try to account for memory for items in the first position (how well do you remember the first item in the list? 2nd? So on)
Primacy effect: do better to recall the first item/s on the list
Recency effect: do better to recall the last item/s on the list
Serial position curve: shows memory performance in relation to serial position – you remember words more if they’re at the beginning & end of the lists, fewest in the middle of the curve (the effect is called the serial position effect)
Why? Separate STM & LTM forms of memory!
Explanation for primacy:
Given the same task but told to rehearse the list out loud
You see the normal serial position curve, but when they rehearse items at the beginning of the list more than items at the end, they have better recall for words at the beginning of the list (items at the beginning get more rehearsal, spoken the most, best recall)
Supports modal model – bc the items in the front of the list/ primacy items get more rehearsal, so they’re more likely to get into LTM due to greater amount of rehearsal
Serial position effects due to LTM activity
Explanation for recency:
Same task as for primacy, but you see the words at the end of the list get the fewest rehearsals; but when the last word leaves, people are given a memory test, so you see that the word that’s most likely to be remembered is the last word (aka recency)
Why? Still in STM but you don’t see that it leaves your thoughts bc it’s still hanging out in STM, requiring no retrieval for the last word/s… recency effects due to activity of STM
If the memory test comes right after the list, the last items may still be active in STM; can simple be ‘dumped’ out; so recency is due to the activity of STM
Aka two store effect (2 kinds of memory stores – LTM & STM)
2 different forms of memory that behave/work differently… so it should be possible to keep recency and get rid of primary (& vice versa)
What happens if the memory test is delayed? If people do something else (like math ~30sec), you see that most recent items aren’t in WM anymore…
Same task as before but added post-list activity for 30 sec
You see that the 30sec delay eliminates the recency effect, but the primacy effect remains (Glanzer & Cunitz)
Suggests that recency & primacy are using different mechanisms bc they behave differently
Called an experimental dissociation between primacy & recency effects – where you can use an experimental manipulation to get rid of 1 effect but not the other → research shows recency/primacy work differently, operate separately!
Recency is sensitive to post-list distractor activity, but primacy isn’t
You see acoustic confusions for STM, recency (mix up things that sound alike (frog → log))
Mix up meaning for LTM, primacy effects (frog → toad bc sound isn’t important, meaning is)
***You also see the types of errors people make and this shows another experimental dissociation where STM/recency effect gives you acoustic confusions & LTM/primacy effect gives you meaning based confusions
Conceptually different & behave differently
There is other compelling evidence that STM & LTM dissociate & operate differently, and that they’re even served by different brain systems
Neuropsychology of STM vs LTM:
Patient HM:
Had severe epilepsy → had bilateral hippocampus removed which slowed seizures; normal IQ, could remember everything that happened prior to the surgery, but not hold onto new info for more than a few minutes
Intact STM/WM, intact online memory for conversations
Intact LTM from before the operation, severe deficits in committing new info to LTM (pattern observed in pts with damage to hippocampus)
Milner concluded that hippocampus deals with committing info into LTM, this is HM’s issue
Clive wearing:
‘Worst case of amnesia ever known’ – has 7-30sec memory, sometimes memory of only 1 sentence (poor but intact STM) → ability to have a conversation, understand questions & answer
Plays piano too – so he knows the sequence of notes w/o forgetting where he is; has enough online memory to remember piano
Intact LTM from long ago (knew he has a daughter, remembers wife), severe deficits in committing new info to LTM (forgets new events that happen)
Viral encephalitis (causes swelling & extra fluids (CSF?), damages tissues)→ severe damage to hippocampus - severe tissue loss in hippocampus
Same pattern as HM, but more severe form
Taken to play golf for the first time → did this frequently and got good at it, even though he never thought he had played before (skill is learned & retained, memory of doing task before is not retained)
Jimmie G.’s condition: in Oliver Sack’s book
Korsakoff’s syndrome (can result from vitamin B deficiency which commonly accompanies chronic alcoholism → leads to severe tissue damage in hippo)
Intact STM and has intact LTM from long ago… severe deficits in committing new info to LTM (from after the damage)
Some info prior to Korsakoff’s syndrome is lost too (onset in 1960s, lost some info from 1950s & 60s… but mostly from after onset)
Doesn’t know current year or age; didn’t understand that even when looking at himself, he is older, lost decades of his life
→ all 3 are examples of damage to hippocampus = issues with LTM new memory
Patient K.F:
Damage to parietal lobe that does not include the hippocampus
STM capacity of just 2 (with simple span task); reduced recency effect
Largely functioning LTM
Population dissociation:
When populations differ on one measure, but don’t differ on another measure (or differ in the opposite way)
HM, Clive, Jimmie: patients & controls differ on measures of LTM, no difference on measures of STM
KF: differences with STM, no difference with LTM
Interpretation of population dissociations:
Commonly interpreted as evidence for separate brain systems
Hippocampal damage → issues committing info to LTM, suggests that hippocampus is important for LTM
One damaged system is responsible for the deficient form of memory
Second, intact system is responsible for the normally functioning form of memory (not the hippocampus, where STM is fine but LTM is poor)
STM vs LTM: summary
STM & LTM are conceptually different
Can operate separately & differently (experimental dissociations like the serial position effect)
Appears to be served by different brain systems (known via population dissoc.)
Explicit vs implicit memory:
Patient HM, revisited:
Has intact new learning & LTM for a motor skill (drawing/copying a star while looking at a mirror (backwards mirror tracing task)… motor skill learning is LTM, he gets better at the task but doesn’t remember doing it before)
Occurs despite a lack of LTM for the practice sessions… where HM couldn’t commit the mental memory of doing the task (no memory of practicing the task), but he has normal LTM for committing new skills (he could learn the new skill)
Suggests that the hippocampus must not be important for learning and retaining new skills; hippo = memory for info & events, not skills
Played piano before surgery, and afterwards could learn new songs (could anticipate new set of notes, even though he thought he was playing it for the first time)
Also spontaneous productions: indicating some trace of memory
After surgery he developed a friendship with someone (one of his researchers) he couldn’t name or recognize; one time a caretaker said to him ‘your friend is here’ and he said her name! He didn’t know why he said the name, it just spontaneously ‘popped into his head’ to know the last name (couldn’t describe her, remember why he knew the name, but he knew the name)
Similar pattern in other hippocampal patients
Clive wearing learning skill of golf w/o conscious awareness of doing it before his amnesia
Can learn the skill but no conscious awareness of doing the task
Priming:
If you give people an incomplete word (ex: D___) and ask the first word that comes to mind (ex: dog); if you present the word dig to a person & give them the task of D___, you’ll be more likely to say dig instead of dog → priming for dig, so it’s more likely to be produced in a word priming fragment completion task
The only way we can recall is if a past event has been recalled – if something has been remembered from LTM
Priming is a reflection of memory: it has been held on, retained, and is affecting how you interpret new info; priming shows LTM for the prior experience
Graf et al.: priming for Korsakoff’s syndrome patients with amnesia – selective damage to the hippocampus who exhibit deficits in LTM vs healthy controls
Gave them a 10-item word list, where they rated the likeability of the words → given either free recall test or fragment completion test (given fragments that could be completed by words shown earlier)
Results: poor memory when consciously, deliberately trying to use memory, but normal memory when not consciously, trying to deliberately use LTM → population dissociation
Explicit memory vs implicit memory:
Explicit (conscious) memory: episodic (personal events – deficits in Korsakoff's syndrome) & semantic (facts, knowledge)
Implicit (unconscious memory): priming (spontaneous productions), procedural memory (skill learning), conditioning… no deficits here in Korsakoff’s patients
B research on implicit memory:
Direct tests of memory:
Directly refer to a past event; typically instructed to use memory (aware that they are using memory, therefore used to examine explicit memory)
Ex: free recall, cued recall, recognition
Indirect tests of memory:
Do not refer to past events; no mention of memory; simply ask to perform current task); memory may be without awareness
Therefore used to examine implicit memory
Ex: perceptual identification of features, can use priming; fragment completion (fill in the blank/rest of the word), uses priming; homophone spelling (bear vs bare) – uses priming
Research with direct vs indirect tests:
Phase 1 – learning: present items that will be tested later, commonly include a learning manipulation (e.g., type of processing)
→ delay with distraction
Phase 2 – testing: complete a test in which instructed to use memory –or– complete some task without any instructions to refer back to the earlier list
Ex – Jacoby & Dallas method:
Phase 1 – learning: presented a list of words; manipulated type of processing – whether subjects processed the appearance, sound, or meaning of the items
→ delay with distraction
Phase 2 – testing: half of the subjects were given a recognition test; half of subjects were given a perceptual identification test (identify words that were presented for 35ms – some previously shown, some now)
Results: all participants did decent on recognition test (physical had worst – acoustic – semantic processing with best results); all participants struggled equally on perceptual identification test → experimental dissociation
Ex – Graf & Mandler:
Phase 1 – acquisition: presented a list of words, manipulated type of processing
→ delay with distraction
Phase 2 – testing: all participants given fragments; half instructed to complete with previously seen words, half with the first word that comes to mind
Results: type of processing effect on direct test, no type of processing effect on indirect test
Converging evidence in the forms of…
Population dissociations
Experimental dissociations
Developmental dissociations
Drug-induced dissociations
Long-term memory processes: 10/13
Exposure & repetition – encoding:
Encoding vs retrieval:
Encoding: acquiring info & getting it into LTM; processes occurring during initial learning/exposure
Retrieval: pulling info out of LTM & into active contents of the mind (WM)
Effect of simple exposure:
To what extent are things remembered long-term when we are simply exposed to them? Just exposed to them, no other cognitive process (ex: head on a penny)
Penny example (1979): simple repeated exposure doesn’t lead to good LTM – only 42% chose the correct one; half had Lincoln facing the wrong way; when drawing a penny, 90% left out the word liberty
What hand does the statue of liberty hold the torch in? Right hand!
Repeated exposure, even at very high levels (like with money), does not ensure that info will be well retained
Passively ‘soaking in’ info through simple exposure is not an effective encoding activity for producing good LTM
Repetition (in the form of repeating info to yourself or re-reading info):
Atkinson & Shiffrin model: where you get info into LTM, ‘rehearsal’ maintains info in STM, ‘rehearsal’ increases likelihood of transfer to LTM
Effect of simple repetition:
Craik & Watkins (1973):
Procedure: gave people with word lists that started with a letter & blanks (ex: G - - - -) – tells subjects what the target words are, if the word starts with target letter, then they should repeat the word again in their mind until the new target letter word shows up
Ex: dogX growY loveX gateY bikeX grainY… then write down the last word they recite it/write it down → grow has the most repetitions, gate has fewer, then grain has no repetitions (but they varied the amount of intervening words between targets (0-12 wds) so they varied the amount of rehearsal of the targets; saw 2-30+ repetitions/word, then 10min delay, and a final free recall test (which they didn’t og know about)
Results: had similar percent recalled with almost any amount of repetition; no meaningful benefit with more repetition
Glenberg et al (1977):
Procedure: gave people a number then a ‘filler’ word the participants were told to say/repeat (2-18sec, 3-27 repetitions x60 trials), then told to recall the number → trying to see how well they remember the number with the interfering word → then told surprise! Remember as many of the filler words as you can (with differing amounts of repetition)
Found there’s no difference based on amount of repetition (after 2-3 times), only a small effect on repetition (compared to none)
→ don’t use repetition as a study tool… doesn’t work well
Elaboration – encoding:
Craik & Watkins (1973): introduced terms…
Maintenance rehearsal: simple repetition of info to maintain it in current thoughts; focus is on the quantity of processing/rehearsal (engaging in more, a higher quantity, of simple repetition)
Elaborative rehearsal:v think of meaning, form meaningful links & connections; considers the quality of processing/rehearsal
Saying quality > quantity is important; deep, meaningful processing!
Varying type of processing: way to do elaborative rehearsal
Ex word - yacht: visual analysis (ex: are there uppercase letters? Or is it shown in lowercase letters? *processing appearance); phonetic analysis (rhymes with hot? *processing sound); semantic analysis (type of boat? *processing meaning)
Did this for a list of words where they do all the types of tasks/questions → then given recognition test (didn’t og know)
Results: for the types of orienting questions, 16% correct when visual analysis, 57% correct when doing sound analysis, 78% best correct for semantic/category
Another Craik & Watson experiment: presented participants with sentence frames, asked participants if the target word makes sense in the sentence (semantic processing), but they varied complexity of the sentence frame → with more complex sentences, memory was almost double the performance
Why? More complex sentences give you meaningful context (context related to the word, not random context); at memory test, they may think about the context/other details which cue memory for target word
Connections & associations better cue memory later on!
Big picture – maintenance vs elaborative rehearsal findings:
Amount of simple repetition: worst memory recall
Categorical or semantic rehearsal is the best – thinking deeply about meaning of info and forming meaningful connections between words
So maintenance rehearsal isn’t so good, but elaborative rehearsal is far superior!
Retrieval processes:
Retrieval is pulling info out of LTM & into the active contents of the mind
Retrieval failures:
Shows that you encoded/learned the info, you just couldn’t get it out when needed, called a retrieval failure
Successful memory performance requires effective encoding and effective retrieval
Importance of retrieval cues: triggers or cues guide retrieval
Cue dependency of memory:
Memory is cue dependent: retrieval success is highly dependent on the cues or triggers that are used to probe memory
Retrieval cues: any element of the retrieval situation that triggers info stored in memory (words given in a test question, the surrounding context, etc)
Tulving & Pearlstone (1966): participants given a list of words drawn from categories → some told to do free recall (“recall the words” → 40% correct); some told to do cued recall (“recall the words. the categories were birds, furniture…” → 75% accuracy)
Waganaar (1986): participants recorded events in a diary → all participants did cued recall 1yr later → some got one cue from the event (30% accuracy) and others got 3 cues from the event (72% accuracy)
Mantyla (1986): participants given list of 600 nouns, came up with 3 associated words for each nouns → some given surprise test using the associated words as cues (90% accuracy); others given surprise recall test using someone else’s associated words (55%)
Encoding - retrieval interactions:
Fisher & Craik (1977):
During the presentation of words, learners got 1/3 types of orienting questions: (1) ? about whether the word rhymed with a given word; (2) ? about whether the word belongs to a category; (3) ? about whether the word fits into a sentence
Examples: (1) does it rhyme with jar? car. (2) is it an occupation? doctor. Does it fit in the sentence, “the boy threw the __ over the fence?” ball
On a later memory test, got different retrieval cues: (1) rhyme cues (ex rhymes with jar), (2) category cues (ex type of vehicle), (3) sentence cues (fits into the sentence “the man drove his __ to work”)
Results:
During learning, if initial sentence question matched the cue, there was highest percent correct for every encoding condition
Ex: rhyme x rhyme > rhyme x category & rhyme x sentence
Implications:
Interaction between encoding & retrieval
Memory is best when the cues correspond to the way the info was encoded
Memory is best when the cues reinstate the thinking when the info was encoded
Called the encoding specificity principle!
Context-dependent retrieval: Godden & Baddeley (1975)
Looked at memory under conditions where there were matches & mismatches of encoding & retrieval context (the physical surroundings of encoding, retrieval)
Half of participants studied a word list underwater → half given memory test underwater (better performance), half tested on land conditions (~25% worse performance than for tested underwater)
So half of total participants have match of learning & test environment, half have mismatch of learning & test environments
Half of participants studied the same word list on dry land → half given memory test underwater (similar performance to the study underwater group x tested on land), half given memory test on land (best performance in the whole study)
→ context dependent retrieval: performance of retrieval depends on context of where you learn the material & are tested on it
But effects of context aren’t always consistent, not a reliable finding…
State dependent retrieval: Goodwin et al (1969) – sober v 2 drinks
With regard to internal physiological state
Half of participants studied sober → half given test while sober (fewer errors (1/2 errors than 2 drinks x 2 drinks; best performance in study), half given test after 2 drinks (double errors than sober x sober)
Best performance in study is sober x sober group
Half of participants had 2 drinks, waited 20min, then studied the test → half given test while sober (most errors of study), half given test after 2 drinks + 20min (tested 2x better than sober x drinks)
Worst performance is 2 drinks x sober (suggests that learning & testing is best under the same mental state)
→ but not every study shows this same pattern
State dependent retrieval: Kelemen & Creeley (2003) – placebo drink v caffeine drink
Half of participants had placebo drink: half had placebo drink before test, half had caffeine drink before test → same condition had better performance
Half of participants had caffeine drink: half had placebo drink before test, half had caffeine drink before test → same condition had better performance
→ shows matching phenomena as affected by caffeine; but not always
State dependent retrieval: Miles & Hardman (1998) – rest v aerobic exercise
Half studied in rest state: half tested after rest (2x better than after exercise), half tested after aerobic exercise
Half studied after aerobic exercise: half tested in rest state, half tested after aerobic exercise (25% better than exercise x rest)
→ still shows matching phenomena as affected by aerobic exercise… but this is not always observed, not consistent, not reliable
Mood dependent retrieval: Eich & Metcalfe (1989) – happy v sad
Made participants study while sad (watching videos): tested while sad (2x performance than sad x happy), tested while happy
Made participants happy (via videos): tested while sad, tested while happy (almost 2x performance than happy x sad)
→ shows matching phenomena as affected by mood… but not always
Caveats:
Context, internal state, and mood have the potential to cue memories that were learned under the same conditions
If there is an association between the info being learned & your context/ internal state/mood, this can potentially help cue memory for retrieval later (this requires that the context/internal state/mood serves as a cue)
But the findings are mixed: most of the time, we don’t attend to these elements (context/internal state/mood) during learning & retrieval, so they don’t become cues as part of the learning & retrieval process
If these elements are being attended to, you see the effects
Only matters if there are dramatic changes in context/internal state/mood; so if there are dramatic differences… try to take the test later
In addition, these kinds of cues have limited practical usefulness because they’re not unique cues that allow for the discrimination that’s typically needed for tests
Context/internal state/mood are less applicable to everyday life because they’re not unique, other elements influence retrieval no matter condition
Something you need to do on an exam is discriminate – choose between answers on a test → you need to discriminate correct answer vs incorrect
Aka the test and all the questions on it serve as cues… not the environment (enviro will not help cue correct answer bc the enviro would be cuing all of the things learned in this context, not just one thing); these cues are not unique, they are tied to a fuck ton of info
You want to probe memory with unique cues to discriminate the answers, not the context cues
Matching thoughts & thought processes:
Why? The thoughts/thought processes are usually unique!
Matching thoughts: Thieman (1984)
During encoding, saw words & phrases (ex: racket - equipment for playing tennis; saw word – phrase)
Later given phrases as cues: given exact same phrase (ex. equipment for playing tennis – same as given in encoding) OR phrase that tapped into the same meaning (ex. a type of sports equipment) OR phrase that pertained to a different meaning of the word (ex. type of noise)
Results: condition 1 had best results, condition 2 had slightly worse results but still good, condition 3 had performance of ~1/3 of cond 1
→ retrieval cues that matched up with earlier thinking (how you learned the info) are most effective
Conclusions about matching thoughts:
What is consistent & reliable is the encoding/retrieval match with regard to the specific thoughts & thought processes
Memory is consistently, reliably better when cues reinstate the thinking that occurred during learning
Such thought based cues are often unique cues that allow for discrimination, so they help on tests (thought-based cues = things you reinstate during testing)
Don’t worry about matching context/internal state/mood, except to the extent you want to avoid dramatic mismatches, but do focus on matching the way you learned the info & how you try to retrieve it
Same examples as cues; studying figures as cues
Study strategies: 10/20
Beliefs about learning & memory: from students, general beliefs
Repeated exposure: large majority of students say repeated exposure is effective for learning & memory techniques; same results with the penny question (can’t select or draw the correct penny from memory → shows that repeated exposure isn’t effective)
Simple repetition: simple/’rote’ repetition (rereading the material, repeating it to yourself) → large majority said it’s effective (wrong!)
Also a study from Notre Dame found that 84% of students there used simple repetition as a study strategy, 54% used it as their top study strategy
→ not effective! Craik & Watson found it’s not effective: found that there’s basically no benefit of none–up to 30 repetitions
Perceptual illusions:
Our beliefs about learning & memory often don’t match up with the research!
Examples of perceptual illusions: Muller-Lyer vertical lines which are identical in length; railroad tracks & line lengths perceived as different; the ‘big’ vs ‘small’ monster → our perceptions aren’t always accurate according to reality, true that we experience illusions when it comes to learning & memory
Good study methods:
Can’t rely on beliefs/intuitions, perceptions, personal anecdotes → should rely on what science says about this (aka science of learning)
Look at actual research which directly compares how people study/learn and which produces best memory
Elaboration:
2 types:
Maintenance rehearsal: maintaining info active in the mind by saying it to yourself over & over again, simple repetition… not effective
Elaborative rehearsal/elaboration: involves thinking more deeply about the meaning of info, and forming meaningful connections & associations… very effective for creating strong, durable memory
Forms of elaboration…
Think about meaning: Craik & Tulving study – making case/rhyme/category judgements , found that category judgements was most effective; making conceptual understanding
Relate (connect) the info to yourself:
Did the same Craik & Tulving study but added 1 more condition – made ‘self’ judgements (does the word describe you?) → then did free recall of the words
Results: when doing self judgement, found more than double performance (compared to meaning condition; 28% vs 13%) → called the self-reference effect
Think of (connect info to) concrete examples:
Balch (2005): participants (with no prior knowledge) learned 16 psych terms
1 condition – they studied/went through concepts twice (word x definition x2); 2nd condition – studied concepts once & given 1 example (word x definition x example) → given MC test
Results: boost in memory performance when given concrete examples of the concept when learning (by ~1 full letter grade)
Connect info with other things you’re learning:
Linking something new to other things you learned ‘along the way’
Encoding specificity principle (the better the match between encoding & retrieval, the better memory is) is connected to context-dependent, state-dependent, mood-dependent retrieval (all connected to ESP)
Learn the concepts as directly related bc they are directly connected → this will help you remember all of them better
Connect info with things you already know/existing knowledge:
An example some people hear:that if you study buzzed, you should take the exam buzzed → then learning about the alcohol study (linking it to existing knowledge) is helpful!
Like linking encoding specificity principle to state-dependent principle to the alcohol study (and prior knowledge of it) is helpful
Elaborative interrogation (why questioning while you study):
The act of asking yourself why when learning, reading, studying
Ex: during winter, the snowshoe hare turns white in color. why? lives in climates where there’s snow, so it can blend in with snow & therefore avoid predators
We’ve previously learned about other species that camouflage themselves to hide from other species…
So the why questioning makes you connect this fact to something you already know (serves as a concrete way to get people link the material to prior info)
If you read a paragraph about the hare, you can paraphrase it and connect new info to existing knowledge
**Concrete method for getting a reader to link new info with prior info
Sample study – Smith et al: used a passage about digestion from a bio TB; 1/2 participants read it twice, 1/2 read it once, got ‘why is this true’ questions every ~150 words (so they would connect new info to prior info)
Why questioning led to a 1 letter grade improvement on a later t/f test
Doesn’t matter if they get the answer right, just matters that they try to answer the question… so we should use elaborative interrogation
Implications for study habits:
Seek a deeper, conceptual understanding
Form connections & associations between new info & old! Come up with examples, personal experiences, other learned info, existing knowledge
You provide yourself with an array of potentially effective (unique) memory cues… provides you with more retrieval routes
Encoding specificity:
Memory is enhanced when there is a match between encoding conditions & retrieval conditions
Better memory when cues correspond to encoding
Can get better memory when there’s a match in context/state/mood
Context-, state-, mood-dependent retrieval:
Findings on the encoding/retrieval match are mixed when it comes to context, internal state, and mood
Effects are dependent on strong attention to context/state/mood at the time of encoding & retrieval; but as students, the focus is (hopefully) on the material
In addition, context/state/mood don’t serve as unique cues that discriminate → these things don’t allow us to distinguish some context from others learned in the same context/state/mood… not something to heavily focus on
Encoding specificity – Saufley et al (1985):
Examined exam scores when students took an exam in the exact same room where the class was held vs a different room (did this for 7 different courses in different majors… big study with 21 total different comparisons)
No difference in exam scores across all comparisons – the match vs mismatch classroom for exams made no difference
… science suggests so it’s possible that matching contexts matters… but in reality, it doesn’t matter, the results say it doesn;t matter
In summary:
Don’t worry about the usual fluctuations in context, state, and mood; won’t be strongly attending to these elements, so mismatches won’t be detrimental
Do try to avoid situations where there’s a large mismatch is a strong focus on context/state/mood (avoid big fluctuations in state, mood where your focus is elsewhere (i..e., focusing on grief, not an exam = you fail exam))
Don’t try to strategically use context, state, and mood to create cues for yourself; those won’t be unique cues! Won’t help you on the exam tbh
Matching thoughts – Fisher & Craik (1977):
Matching thoughts during learning/encoding & the exam
Encoded words in the context of thinking about their sound, category membership, fit in a sentence; got cues based on sound/category/sentence fit
Better to match the cues with how you think about the words (match the cues to thought processes – highly reliable finding)
Thieman 1984 study showed the same results when using the same semantic cues & using the exact phrase or phrase with the same meaning (a match between thoughts) is effective vs mismatch between cues is ineffective
Implications regarding matching thoughts/processes:
You do want to do your best to match encoding & retrieval when it comes to thoughts & thought processes
It is good to use specific thoughts/processes to crease cues for yourself; these typically are unique (helps you better discriminate the info)
Many of the forms of elaboration create unique cues; make use of them when cuing memory! Think about the info in the same way you learned it!
Practice testing:
Carpenter & Delosh 2006 study (slay, Ed):
Items were presented in a list/one after the other → distractor task → either given the word again, told to write down if they saw it before (representation/restudy condition); or told to fill in the blank & write down (test condition, you find the word) → then given distractor task → then given final free recall test
Does retrieval practice have an impact on memory?
People were consistently, reliably better on the final memory test when in the restudy condition
Called the testing effect: advantage for testing vs representing/restudying the material (def: memory advantage for practice testing > restudying)
Implications of the testing effect:
Tests should not be viewed as just a way to assess what students have already learned; tests are themselves a learning tool
Practice testing – what do learners believe? Littrell, Rhodes, DeLosh (2011):
Same procedure as his last study with 1 more element (when doing practice retrieval, had participants judge the likelihood they would remember the word on a scale 0-100 for both conditions)
Results: thought they’d remember the restudy condition better; actually remembered the words better when did the fill in the blank study method
McCabe (2011): described a learning scenario; described restudying vs testing options & asked students to indicate which they thought was more effective… 70% of students thought restudying > practice testing… not what literature says
Dunlosky et al (2013): panel of experts published an article which rated various methods with regard to their utility of student learning (effectiveness + is it an easy method to use) → practice testing (+ spacing) is the most effective!
Rowland (2014): compared both published & unpublished data – found 159 comparisons of tested info vs restudied info, conducted an analysis on this full set of comparisons → on average, subjects were 2.5x more likely to remember tested info > restudied info
Roediger & Karpicke (2006):
Does practice testing apply to only simple materials, or does it work with complex materials as well?
Subjects read passages in scientific topics
3 conditions: study 4x — study 3x & 1 practice test — study 1x & 3 practice test
Final test (recall of main ideas) immediately & 1wk later
Immediate test results: highest percent correct for condition 3 (3 practice tests), decent scores (just below condition 3) for 3 study & 1 test; worst results for 4x studying
Post 1wk test results: 4x studying forgot half of the material after a week; condition 2 had ~30% forgetting, condition 3 had lowest forgetting after 1wk
Suggests that replacing simple studying/rereading with practice tests is most beneficial for shorter and longer duration testing
Materials where this applies: individual words; word pairs/foreign language learning; text passages; learning info from lectures & getting a test (> listening to lecture 2x); name learning; math tables, learning maps/locations
Real classrooms experiment – Roediger et al (2011):
Middle school classroom; students either completed a lesson by itself, or completed a lesson followed by a MC quiz
Retention measured via chapter test given 2wks later & semester exam given 1-2mo later
Results: more than a letter grade improvement when given practice quiz
How testing helps:
Direct benefit: retrieval boosts learning & retention
Indirect benefit:
Can be informative in telling learners how much the know the info overall, gaps in knowledge; better prepared for exams bc practice testing gives you feedback on how well you know the material
Can motivate additional study, if needed
Can tell learners which concepts they know & don’t know, and in that way can guide future study (what needs more studying?)
Concrete applications of practice testing:
Practice quizzes & tests for class to better remember the material
Chapter questions (like in textbooks) are practice tests… do them
Self-testing: using bolded terms, lists of items, self-highlighted info
Then check answers for what you get right/wrong → redo test to boost retrieval of all of the info
Flashcards, quizzing apps (when used appropriately – do practice testing)
Testing others in study groups
Spacing:
Massed vs spaced study:
Refers to the distribution of study, with the amount of study time held constant
Massed study: study opportunities occur blocked together or consecutively
Spaced study: study opportunities are spaced out over time
1 example – 3 pairs of words studied: massed – house casa 3x, dog perro 3x, car carro 3x vs spaced – house casa, dog perro, car carro – done 3x each… same amt of studying
2 example : studying 60min 1 day vs 15min/day for 4 days
What do learners believe?
Described a learning scenario to college students; described options of massed vs spaced study → most believed that massed studying is better
Goal: learned the style of certain artists – all viewed 6 paintings by each artist; 6 paintings were either massed or spaced → learners believed massed would give best results, but spacing actually gave best results (spacing > massing both immediately and after 4 tests) → called the spacing effect
Spacing – the reality: Dunlosky et al 2013
Recall they rated methods with regard to their utility (effectiveness & ease of use) for student learning
2 methods got the highest rating: practice testing & spacing
Generalizability of effect:
Generalizes to many types of learning materials & skills
Applies to different time courses: between-session & within-session spacing (but is better for between-spacing sessions)
Observed in well-controlled lab studies & real classrooms
Implications for studying:
Don’t cram… cramming is doing much of your studying in a single session rather than spaced out (cramming = no between-session studying… lost opportunity)
Kornell 2009 method: learned synonyms & simulated flashcard task (word: __), pressed a button to ‘flip over’ & see the synonym (basically used quizlet flashcards)
Massed – studied synonyms 8 times in a single session, either 4/3/2/1 day prior to the test (cramming session is 1 day prior) vs spaced – studied synonyms 8 times across 4 days
Results: spacing has 20% better performance than cramming had
Even if you have limited time, use spacing
Ideally, plan ahead to allow for spaced learning sessions
Otherwise, space throughout the day or just between the session
These study tools are to engage with the tools, but not necessarily spend more time studying (don’t do these additionally – do these instead)
Learning styles:
Learning styles view:
Most common form says learning/instruction is best if material is presented/studied in a format that matches the preference of a learner
I.e., for a ‘visual learner,’ visual materials product best learning; for a ‘verbal learner,’ verbal materials produce best learning
Popular view… thousands of non-scientific (+ some research) articles & books; huge industry around this view; many textbooks in education promoting learning styles view; commonly taught to future educators
2 components of learning styles view:
(!) learners have preferences about how to learn or how they like info to be presented… suggests there are individual differences in best ways of learning; AND
Self rating (are you more visual vs neutral vs verbal); questionnaire (I prefer instructions ___ vs images) to identify preferences; task where learners learn info with access to a ‘help button’ to learn more about the concept (can select visual or verbal help… assess their preference)
Learners often express a preference when providing a rating or completing a questionnaire; learners fairly consistently choose 1 type of help > the other; preferences are fairly consistent across time
(2) learning is enhanced is teaching/learning is varied according to that preference
Is there an actual enhancement in learning when there’s a match?
Required evidence for learning styles:
Panel of experts (who went in with differing views) were commissioned to do an extensive lit review on this (Pashler et al. reading, optional); all had a background in education, learning & memory
Agreed on necessary evidence:
Learners divided into groups based on their learning preferences
Learners randomly assigned to receive one of multiple instructional methods (either consistent or inconsistent with their preference)
All learners take the same final test
Key evidence:
According to learning styles view, visual learners would perform better with visual > verbal presentation, then verbal learners perform better with verbal > visual presentation
Hypothetical results:
Same performance for both groups regardless of presentation = no support for learning styles idea
Performance is better for visual presentation, regardless of preference (& vice versa) = not supporting of learning styles
*the lines don’t cross = not supporting learning styles idea
Crossover interaction is needed to support learning styles ideas!
Lit review on learning styles:
Many published papers are opinion pieces, give anecdotal accounts = ignored!
Among empirical studies, most haven’t used appropriate methods (as previously specified… these studies weren’t empirically valid)
Of the few dozen studies that did use appropriate methods, not one is supportive of the idea that learning/teaching is better if it’s consistent with students' preferences for visual/verbal/hands on presentation… aligning methods with preferences doesn’t aid learning at all… damn
Massa & Mayer study, separate from the lit review:
Focused on visual-verbal distinction; determined learning preferences in numerous ways (one item rating on visual-verbal scale; questionnaire; learning preference test that assesses the tendency to select visual v verbal help; spatial ability test (generally, spatial learners = visual))
Had all students read an online essay in which they were required to click highlighted terms to get more info; randomly assigned to get the additional info in visual format (picture) or verbal format (words)
Comparison condition: visual pref x visual format; visual pref x verbal format; verbal pref x visual format; verbal pref x verbal format (all types possible)
When based on 1 item rating: no crossover – visual x visual did slightly better, but verbal learners still did well with visual info (closer results, but not overlap) → visually presented info was better for everybody
When based on questionnaire: visual info was best for both learner types
When based on what help they selected: everyone did better in visual presentation > verbal presentation
Spatial ability: high spatial ability = better on visual info (but low spatial ability = better on visual info)...
→ all evidence suggests that in all cases, people presented with visual info do better than when presented with verbal info… doesn’t support learning styles view
Learning styles challenge:
In 2006 a challenge was issued: if anyone can prove with a real-world intervention proving that learning styles are real, you get 5k… nobody can do it
Conclusions on learning styles:
Students do have preferences when it comes to how they like to learn & how they like to have info presented
But teaching/learning that caters to that preference doesn’t aid learning/retention
What methods actually work?
Some general benefits of presentation format:
General benefit of visual material for some topics for most everyone, regardless of their preference
General benefit of multiple delivery methods or modes of learning (i.e., getting the info as many ways as possible helps everyone
Some forms of tailored instruction can be helpful: don’t overgeneralize learning styles
Can be helpful to tailor instruction/learning to individuals’ strengths & weaknesses in knowledge or ability (struggle w math = focus on math)
Can be helpful to tailor instruction based on what an individual understands & is struggling with
Highlighting: