episodic memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory ) encoding
Post on 30-Dec-2015
36 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory)
EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)
EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings
Encoding / Retrieval Paradigm Retrieval
Test Test Condition 1 Condition 2
Condition 1 Encoding
Condition 2
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)
Encoding x RetrievalLevel of Processing
transfer of processing
Cues during study and testweak vs. strong vs. none
own cues vs. others’ cues
Picture
Morris, Bransford, & Franks (1977) Study phase: Level-of-processing (LOP) manipulation 2 levels: rhyme condition, semantic condition (category)
Test phase: Test manipulation 2 tests: rhyme test, semantic test (standard recognition)
Rhyme teste.g., for studied word, bear was there a word that rhymed with care?
Standard recognition test thought to tap conceptual (semantic information); e.g., was bear presented?
Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep condition(semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test
Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case)regardless of the type of test
Results: Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63
Encoding Semantic .33 .84
Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case)regardless of the type of test
Results: Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63
Encoding Semantic .33 .84
Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case)regardless of the type of test
Results: Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63
Encoding Semantic .33 .84
Evidence against level of processing theory.
Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep LOP condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test
Results: Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63
Encoding Semantic .33 .84
Alternative theory
Transfer of processingMemory performance will vary depending on the
amount of overlap in processing from study to test. The greater the overlap in the mental processes engaged during encoding and retrieval, the better the performance should be.
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)
Encoding x RetrievalLevel of Processing
transfer of processing
Cues (context) during study and testweak vs. strong vs. none
own cues vs. others’ cues
Picture
Cues during study and test: weak vs. strong vs. none
Tulving and Osler (1968)3 study conditionsPs studied 24 words in one of three conditions (1) alone (chair) (2) with weak associate (leg – chair) (3) with strong associate (table – chair)
Cues during study and test: weak vs. strong vs. none
Tulving and Osler (1968)3 study conditionsPs studied 24 words (1) alone (chair) (2) with weak associate (leg – chair) (3) with strong associate (table – chair)
3 test conditions (1) no cues (free recall) (2) weak associate (leg -- ) (3) strong associate (table -- )
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Number of words recalled by study and test condition.
Test
Alone Weak Strong
Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5
Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Number of words recalled by study and test condition.
Test
Alone Weak Strong
Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5
Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0
No benefit of a second word during encoding for free recall test.
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Number of words recalled by study and test condition.
Test
Alone Weak Strong
Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5
Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0
Strong associate retrieval cuehelps a bit if word studiedalone
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Number of words recalled by study and test condition.
Test
Alone Weak Strong
Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5
Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0
Strong associateretrieval cueclearly helps if the same strong associate was presented during study
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Number of words recalled by study and test condition.
Test
Alone Weak Strong
Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5
Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0
But not a goodretrieval cue if study word waspaired with a weak associate
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Number of words recalled by study and test condition.
Test
Alone Weak Strong
Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5
Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Number of words recalled by study and test condition.
Test
Alone Weak Strong
Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5
Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0
Performance best when study and test cues match!
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Performance best when study and test cues match!
Encoding specificity principleRetrieval cues are effective to the extent that
features in the cue overlap/match those in the memory trace.
Tulving and Osler (1968)
Performance best when study and test cues match!
Encoding specificity principleRetrieval cues are effective to the extent that
features in the cue overlap/match those in the memory trace.
Note: Transfer of processing based on encoding specificity principle—the difference in 1977 (e.g., Morris, Bransford, & Franks) is subtle. Later, transfer of processing becomes more developed by other researchers and the name changes slightly.
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)
Encoding x RetrievalLevel of Processing
transfer of processing
Cues during study and testweak vs. strong vs. none
own cues vs. others’ cues
Picture
Cues during study and testown cues vs. others’ cues
Mäntylä (1986)Ps saw 504 words over 3 days (168 words each day)
group 1 – generate 1 property for each word e.g., banana: split
group 2 – generate 3 properties for each worde.g., banana: yellow, split, nose
incidental learning: didn’t know they would be testedPicture
Mäntylä (1986)Ps saw 504 words over 3 days (168 words each day)
group 1 – generate 1 property for each wordgroup 2 – generate 3 properties for each word
Day 3 – surprise recall test for 252 wordsgroup 1 – get 1 property as retrieval cue
half: own property half: someone else’s property
group 2 – get 3 properties as retrieval cues half: own properties half: someone else’s properties
Mäntylä (1986)
Proportion of words recalled by number of properties and type of test cues (properties).
Test Cues (properties)
Someone Own Else’s
# of properties 1 .61 .11generated
3 .91 .55
Mäntylä (1986)
Test Cues (properties)
Someone Own Else’s
# of properties 1 .61 .11generated
3 .91 .55
Own cues better than someone else’s; 3 cues better than one cue; 91% recall with own 3 cues!
Mäntylä (1986)
Two important aspects for recall performance(prerequisites for perfect recall performance)
1) distinctiveness of cues
2) compatibility of retrieval cues to study context
Extra Info – not on testBreaking down results into separate components:
Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63Encoding
Semantic .33 .84
Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations?
Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63Encoding
Semantic .33 .84
Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation? NoEffect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations?
Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63 .55Encoding
Semantic .33 .84 .59
Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation? YesInteraction of study and test manipulations?
Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63Encoding
Semantic .33 .84
.41 .74
Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations? Yes compare opposite corners: .67 vs. .50
Test
Rhyme Semantic
Rhyme .49 .63Encoding
Semantic .33 .84
Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations?
Does the pattern of results change across test conditions? Plot a line graph. Do the lines cross?
Rhyme test Semantic test
SemanticLOP
RhymeLOP
top related