Encoding  Storage  Retrieval
Encoding: Putting information into memory
– previous lectures: elaborative encoding, levels of
processing, mnemonics…
Storage: Keeping information in memory
– consolidation
Retrieval: Recovering information from
memory
– Forgetting: failure to retrieve vs. nothing to retrieve
Topics for today: forgetting, flashbulb memories, retrieval
cues, encoding specificity principle…
encoding
new information
prior knowledge
current context
encoding strategies
memory “trace”
bi-directional
retrieval cues
current context
retrieval strategies
remembering
retrieval
Exceptional Retrieval:
“FLASHBULB” MEMORIES
• (Christiansen, 1989)
• Swedish students interviewed within 24 hours of the assassination
of Olof Palme, the Prime Minister of Sweden (1969-1986).
Then questioned again after . . .
how were you informed?
6 weeks
1.00
one year
.72
what time of day was it?
.92
.25
what were you doing?
.92
.50
who were you with?
.94
.83
what was your first thought?
.83
.44
most vivid event from
prior Saturday (control)
.89
.11
P e r c e n t o f la s t s c o r e
THE FORGETTING FUNCTION
P e r c e n t S a v in g s
Memory is not permanent: we do forget!
0.8
100
English-Spanish
80
0.6
Spanish-English
60
0.4
40
0.2
0
20
20 min
8 hr
2 days
31 days
Retention Interval
Ebbinghaus (1885): forgetting of list
of nonsense syllables
0
1
2
5
9
14
25
34
49
Years since class
Bahrick & Phelphs (1987): forgetting
of Spanish learned in college
Forgetting: Is information lost forever???
RECOVERY FROM “CONCUSSION
AMNESIA”
time of accident
yrs mo day
??????? ???
hours later
? ?? ? ??
?
? ??
?
Retrograde Amnesia
- can be severe
- worse for recent events
- almost complete recovery
days . .
weeks . .
Anterograde Amnesia
- mild to moderate
- worse for events just after trauma
- “blank periods” may remain
Retrieval from LTM:
Retrieval Cues
Retrieval cues in everyday life
Experiment by Tulving & Pearlstone (1966)
Study Phase:
– words from specific categories
categories: e.g., birds, furniture, professions
words presented: e.g., pigeon (category: bird), etc.
Test Phase
– free recall: 40%
– cued recall (names of categories provided at test): 75%
Provided word: bird
Correct response: pigeon
Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)
The results for each group are on the right.
The Effects of Context:
Encoding Specificity Principle
•
How an event is encoded determines the
effectiveness of various retrieval cues (Tulving,
1972). Memory will be best if cues/context at study
and test are the same
Similar terms:
Context-dependent memory
Transfer-appropriate processing
What do we mean by context???
Physical:
– Location
(e.g., study for an exam in the room where exam is
taken).
Physiological/ Psychological:
– Effects of alcohol and marijuana
– Mood
– Stress
– Way of encoding (pair-associate or list)
Godden & Baddeley (1975)
Encoding Specificity Principle
Study Phase:
– deep-sea divers learn 40 unrelated words either
on land , or 20 feet under the sea.
Test Phase:
– Tested their recall either
on land or underwater
Godden and Baddeley (1975) “diving” experiment.
• Each test condition are indicated by the bar directly underneath that condition.
* (asterisks): study and test conditions matched.
Godden & Baddeley (1975)
Results:
– Better recall when contexts matched
Percent correct
50
Words learned on land
Words learned underwater
40
30
20
10
0
Recalled on land
Recalled underwater
Place of Recall
Grant et al.’s (1998) “studying” experiment
Eich and Metcalfe’s (1989) “mood” experiment.
(Smith, Glenberg & Bjork, 1978)
Task: free recall of word lists
Study in..
Test in..
% recalled
office
office
lab
lab
27%
office
lab
lab
office
20%
How Emotions and Mood
Influence Memory
Mood congruence
– Recall is better if material being learned
“matches” the learner’s present mood
– These effects are very consistent
Mood-state dependence
– Recall is better when mood at retrieval
“matches” mood during encoding
– Example of encoding specificity