Long--Term Memory
Long
n
n
Recall of information at longer intervals (30 sec)
Factors that influence ability to recall
n
Encoding
Modal Model
n
n
Interaction between STM and LTM
Waugh and Norman (1965)
n
n Type
of processing
n Organization
n
Encoding -- transfer of info to LTM
rehearsal
Retrieval
n Retrieval
n Match
cues / context
between encoding and retrieval
Sensory
Store
STM
LTM
loss
Evidence for Modal Model
n
Serial Position Effect
Serial position effect in free recall
n
n
Given list of words
Recall in any order
80
Immediate
70
60
Distractor Task
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
n
Primacy
n
n
n
Items more likely to enter LTM
More rehearsal
Recency
n
n
Items “dumped” from STM
Disappears with distractor task
Serial Position
Encoding
n
Primacy effect (early view)
n
n
Rehearsal in STM allows entry into LTM
Exposure not sufficient
n
Nickerson and Adams (1979)
n
n
Recall: 50% head facing wrong way
Recognition: > 50% couldn’t identify
Type of processing matters (later view)
n
Elaborative vs. Maintenance rehearsal
1
Levels of Processing
n
Levels of Processing
n
Craik and Tulving (1975)
n
Craik and Lockhart (1972)
Three levels of processing (judgments)
n Case:
Different ways to process info
n “Deeper” processing -- better encoding
n
upper vs. lower? (TABLE or table)
Rhymes with weight
weight?? (crate or market)
n Sound:
n Meaning:
n
Fits in sentence? (friend or cloud)
“He met a ______ in the street.”
n
Judged 60 words (20 each condition)
n
Recognition test (180 words: 60 old, 120 new)
n 200
ms presentation
n Case:
17%
37%
n Sound:
n Meaning:
Expectations?
n
Hyde and Jenkins (1969)
Surprise vs. Expected memory test
n Shallow processing: number of letters
n Deep processing: rate pleasantness
n Surprise test: 68% vs. 39%
n Expected test: 69% vs. 43%
Criticisms of Levels of Processing
n
n
Depth of processing
n
n
n
Circular definition
Independent measure of processing depth?
Neuroimaging techniques – alternative measures
n
Brain & Cognition Box in Chap 5
Elaboration and Memory
n
Elaboration or Explanation
Embellishing with additional information
n Extraction of meaning
n Integration with prior knowledge
n
n
65%
Elaboration Studies
n
Craik and Tulving (1975)
n
n
Fit in sentence? task
Manipulated complexity of sentences
n She
n The
Provides additional retrieval cues (next chap)
cooked the _______ . (turkey or chair)
_______ frightened the children. (thunder or floor)
n The
great bird swooped down and carried off the
struggling _______ (rabbit or newspaper)
n
n
Most elaborate -- 80% correct recall
Least elaborate -- 40% correct recall
2
Elaboration Studies (cont)
n
n
n
Bobrow and Bower (1969)
Memorize simple subject -verb
verb--object sentences
Two conditions
Given experimenter generated sentences
n Given nouns -- generate own sentences
n
n
Retrieval factors
n
Retrieval context influences memory
n
Encoding -retrieval interactions
EncodingBetter match between encoding and retrieval
n
n
Better memory performance
Test: Given subject -- recall object
n
n
Experimenter generated:
Self generated:
29%
58%
Encoding Specificity
n
Tulving and Thomson (1973)
Four part experiment
Part 1: learn target words (context word to help
help))
n
Part 2: Free association -- generate 6 associates
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Recognition usually better than recall
n
n
n
head - LIGHT
More “context” present in question
(multiple choice vs. short answer)
Tulving & Thomson found
Recall better than recognition
22% recognition performance
n 59% recall performance
n
n
Dark: light
light,, black, etc.
Part 3: Recognition (circle words from part 1)
Part 4: Cued recall (given cue -- recall target)
n
Results
n
Better match between encoding and retrieval
head - ?????
Physical/External context
n
n
Environmental cues -- Aid in retrieval
Godden and Baddeley (1975) -- Scuba divers
Internal context
n
n
Encoding: Land vs. Underwater
n Test: Land vs. Underwater
n
n
40
Better memory when test state matches
encoding
n
State of consciousness
n
Mood
25
Learn Land
Learn Water
n
5
0
Test Land
Test Water
Retrieval Condition
Internal factors such as mood, state, etc.
Small but reliable effects
n
35
30
20
15
10
State--dependent learning
State
n
Sober vs. Drunk
Happy vs. Sad
3
Implications for studying
Spacing effect
n
n
Chapter outlines -- Organization
Memory better if exposure Spaced vs. Massed
n
Even if total exposure time is matched
n (10
n
n
n
Type of studying -- elaborative vs. maintenance?
n
Generate your own outline or questions
n
Don’t “cram”
min – 10 min – 10 min vs. 30 min)
n
Spaced practice
n Reminding
/ reactivation of original memory
more varied associations
n Associations lead to better recall/recovery of info
n
n Richer,
n
Forgetting
n
Decay?
n
n
n Law of disuse
n Info
Interference?
n
Overwriting
n Still
Self--generated -- requires elaboration
Self
Use spaced rather than massed practice
While studying lists – signal to forget info preceding
signal
n Tested with recall – don’t list “info to forget”
n Tested with recognition – will recognize
there – can’t access – retrieval cues not effective
n
n Replaced
in memory by more recent events
n More on this in Chapter 7
Failure to remember does not mean forgotten
Intentional forgetting studies (Bjork
(Bjork,, 1972)
n
not used or studied – weaken in strength
confounded with learning of new information
n Time
n
Make associations (explanations) -- better memory
Not Remembered vs. Forgotten
What happens to “forgotten” information?
n
Establish retrieval cues for related info
Savings in relearning
n
Faster to relearn information compared to learning
new information
Interference
n
Interference
Retroactive Interference
n
n
n
Forgetting caused by later learning
Control group – better recall
Group
Proactive Interference
n
n
Original Interpolated
Learning
Learning
Forgetting caused by earlier learning
Control group – better recall
Test
Group
Prior
Learning
Learning
Test
Experimental
List A
List B
List A
Experimental
List B
List A
List A
Control
List A
Rest
List A
Control
None
List A
List A
4