Questions about Memory

1. Questions about Memory • Do we learn only with intention – or also without intention? • We learn with and without intention. • Is learning influenced by what we already know? And if so, how?

2. The two-edged sword • What we already know can help us perceive what is out there in the world (encoding) and help us recall it (retrieval). • It can also cause us to see what we expect (not what’s there) or to construct a memory of “what usually happens” (not what actually happened).

3. What we already know (WWAK) • 1. Knowledge effects at encoding • Levels of Processing theory • Criticisms of LoP • 2. Knowledge effects at retrieval • Transfer Appropriate Training • Encoding Specificity

4. Knowledge effects at encoding • Levels of Processing theory – Craik & Lockhart (1972) • In 1950s & 60s, CP was most interested in questions about structure (e.g., SM – STM – LTM). • In early 1970’s, CP became more interested in process • Craik & Lockhart said, ability to recall a stimulus depends upon how you processed it.

5. Craik & Lockhart’s (1972) tenets: • 1. Ease of information retrieval depends upon type of code generated at learning. • 2. Kind of code generated depends on your purpose when you first process the information. • E.g., are you looking for ared thingamong green things? Then generate visual codes.

6. Craik & Lockhart’s (1972) evidence • Orienting task - subjects read a list of words and answer one of three questions: • Which words in list contain letter 'e'? • Which words in list rhyme with CANE? • Which words in list name animate objects? • On surprise recall test, success varies with orienting task: Semantic > Rhyme > Spelling

7. Levels of Processing – the basic effect • Dependence of recall on orienting task is the basic levels of processing effect • Probability of recall varies with type of code generated when learning. • See also studies described in text (pp. 153 - 156) • Why does this effect happen?

8. Levels of Processing – the explanation • Craik & Lockhart – 2 types of rehearsal: • Maintenance Rehearsal • uses articulatory loop • simply saying words over and over • Elaborative Rehearsal • uses the meaning of the object or event • requires establishing associations

9. Levels of Processing – the explanation • Compare sound [banana] vs. meaning "banana" - what associations can be made? • Semantic associations are richer, more distinctive – therefore more memorable. • LoP effect reflects richer associations to stimuli processed for meaning.

10. Criticisms of LoP Theory • Baddeley – L.O.P Theory is circular • Which levels produce best memory? Deepest • Which levels are deepest? Those that produce best memory. • No independent way of assessing ‘depth.’

11. Criticisms of LoP Theory • Baddeley – result does not generalize to other tasks. • E.g., Glenberg, Smith, & Green (1972) – LoP effect not found for recognition task. • Recognition task: subject shown “old” and “new” stimuli, asked to say which is which. • Recognition task generally easier than recall task.

12. Knowledge effects at retrieval • Bransford – Transfer Appropriate Training • LoP – memory performance depends upon conditions under which encoding occurs. • Bransford – memory performance also depends upon conditions under which retrieval occurs.

13. Transfer Appropriate Training • Morris, Bransford, & Franks (1977) • used semantic & rhyme orienting tasks • at retrieval, some subjects asked to recall words seen during orienting task. • others asked to detect words that rhymed with words seen during orienting task.

14. Transfer Appropriate Training • Morris et al. (1977) • Group Task at • OrientationRetrieval • 1 Semantic Recall • 2 Semantic Rhyme • 3 Rhyme Recall • 4 Rhyme Rhyme

15. Transfer Appropriate Training • Morris et al. (1977) - Results • RecallRhyme Judgment • SO > RO RO > SO • Encode for the way you plan to use the information. • SO: Semantic orienting RO: Rhyme orienting

16. Knowledge effects at retrieval • Bransford’s idea was that retrieval success depends upon the match between what happens at retrieval and what happens at encoding. • At the time, it was a radical idea, because most researchers still believed (as behaviourists argued) that behaviour was governed by pre-existing learning…

17. Knowledge effects at retrieval • If behaviour was controlled by pre-existing learning, it shouldn’t matter whether retrieval conditions matched learning conditions. • Match/mismatch could not alter the facts about pre-existing learning. • Bransford’s results questioned this idea. So did Tulving’s (Tulving & Osler, 1968).

18. Encoding Specificity Theory • Thomson & Tulving (1970) • Subjects learned a list of words for later recall. • Some subjects got words without a context. • Subjects who got words in a context, got either strong or weak contexts.

19. Encoding Specificity Theory • In Thompson & Tulving’s (1970) study, subjects were given pairs of cues & targets in the learning phase. Then, in the test phase, they were given the cue and asked to recall the target. • LearnRecall cueResponse • COLD – hothotCOLD

20. Encoding Specificity Theory • Thompson & Tulving (1970) • ConditionLearnRecall cue • Strong 1 COLD – hot hot • Strong 2 COLD – hot blow

21. Encoding Specificity Theory • Thompson & Tulving (1970) • ConditionLearnRecall cue • Weak 1 COLD – blow hot • Weak 2 COLD – blow blow

22. Encoding Specificity Theory • Predictions: • If long-term learning is most important, then hot should have been a better cue for COLD than blow, regardless of learning condition. • If blow is a better cue (when it is presented at learning), that means that context matters.

23. Encoding Specificity Theory • Thompson & Tulving’s results: • Probability of recall with blow as cue was higher than with hot as cue, when blow was presented at learning. • A cue is more effective if it re-establishes the learning context. This was a radical idea at the time.

24. Review – Craik & Lockhart • Type of code you generate when you process a stimulus varies with your purpose. • Ability to retrieve a stimulus later varies with type of code you generated. • MaintenanceRehearsal involves simply repeating the stimulus, without creating new connnections.

25. Review – Craik & Lockhart • Deeper processing gives access to meaning, which permits more elaboration. • Elaborative Rehearsal involves working out connections between the new stimulus and what we already know. • Greater elaboration usually leads to better memory.

26. Review – Criticisms of LoP Theory • Baddeley: • LoP theory is circular. • LoP effects do not generalize well to tasks other than recall.

27. Review – Morris, Bransford, & Franks • Transfer Appropriate Training: • Conditions at retrieval are important as well as conditions at encoding. • Encode for the way you plan to use the information

28. Review – Thompson & Tulving • Encoding Specificity theory: • You encode aspects of context when you learn new information. • Cues help most in retrieval if they re-establish the learning context.