Know this concept and related definitions, i

Chapter 6

-What did work by Ebbinghaus demonstrate? What was his method?

Made nonsense words, BAX DAT, etc.. and learned them at a time 1 and a time 2. He systematically varied the intervals between T1 and T2 and measured the amount of time it took to learn lists of words on T1 and T2. Found it took longer to learn on the initial trial than on T2. Called difference "savings" (in time needed to learn). Once you learn something it is faster to re-learn it. Also, overlearning- if study extra at T1, learn even faster at T2. Also, found initial quick forgetting (cuz not really learned yet); and increases in interval = increases in forgetting, but the of forgetting slows.

Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) most fully developed the short term memory theory/model. Often included in teaching about memory, tho no longer considered accurate.

-what is memory span? It is said to be the number of elements one can immediately give back to you (if you were to give them a memory task)

-seems more sophisticated explanation needed. E.g.

- know articulatory loop. Not just # of elements. It's a time duration thing.

Used to think need to rehearse and rehearse to keep things in ST memory or will forget them - will get pushed out. Well things probably do get pushed out but can remember them even if really don't rehearse them a lot. Why?

Well cuz maybe it's not just quantity of rehearsing but quality of rehearsing, or

--Depth of Processing

demonstrated by Glenberg, Smith and Green (1977) - found amount of rehearsal did not increase retention

Even tho no longer think of ST memory as some memory waystation, do understand that there is some limit on the amount of information we can keep in mind at once

-see phonological loop and Baddeley, et al. and the word experiment

-Baddeley's more refined model of ST or working memory includes the visuospatial sketchpad, the phonological loop as well as the executive controller. The VS and the PL are 'slave systems" to the executive controller and we might have even more such slave systems.

-Evidence from primate studies pg. 179-180 Work by Goldman-Rakic and others demonstrating that an area in the brain was shown important in retaining spatial location information in monkeys. It is specifically Area 46 in the prefrontal cortices (in monkeys and we assume humans). There are neurons firing during lag times, and these neural areas seem to be tuned in more specifically to different areas in space. Monkeys with lesions in this area do not perform correctly. Human children do not perform well either, till after one year when their frontal cortex is more fully developed. Also, in human, is increased bloodflow to these areas when performing these tasks. Potential evidence that area 46 is Baddeley's VS. Also different areas for different colors in monkeys. Very specific areas parceled out to help with memory for specific kinds of information.

Activation and LT mem

Activation- determines probability of access to memory and the rate of access (speed) prior activation means easier current activation Experiments by Loftus (1974) to demonstrate

Activation is determined by 1). how recently we have used the memory (again see Loftus) and 2). how much we have practiced the material. These 2 factors effects on activation is demonstrated by Anderson (1976) The Sailor In The Park study

Spreading activation-- material or constructs associated with what is primed are more easily accessed. This happens to us unconsciously as well -called associative priming- this knowledge thru spreading activation See Ratcliff and McKoon and Meyer and Schvaneveldt

Practice and strength - Strength-how easily activated- increases with practice. Can lose strength if not activated over long periods of time. Indicated by power functions and the power law of learning

Long Term potentiation and the Power law

Neural correlate of manifested learning. Strong neural traces with increased activation.

Levels of processing

Can increase memory

-with more meaningful elaboration (such as semantic associates, Nelson (1979)).
-with more elaborative processing - embellishing material, see Bobrow and Bower (1969)
Know that experimenters can constrain material
- with more Meaningful Elaborations !!! Combo!

What seems to be critical is HOW one processes the info - we can learn incidentally, without ever intending it See Hyde and Jenkins (1973)

Know the PQRRRR and associated research

From notes!--Proactive interference and Wickens on release from proaction show that semantic influences are found in STM. Many of the same processes seem to be involved in STM ans Working memory

Delayed response is an experimental technique which investigates STM as a separate system. It has neuro and evolutionary correlates.

There is much evidence based on what is recalled and errors of commission that memory often depends on an organized system of information, and not some taped recall--Deese, Roediger, Brewer, Pompi and Lachman, Bransford, Loftus are a few of the researcher supporting this "constructive memory"

Chapter 7

Why can't we always remember things we have learned?? 2 possibilities

1 - it has disappeared, vanished

2 -we have trouble retrieving it for any of several different reasons--it's in the wrong format, not accessible to consciousness, don't have appropriate retrieval cues active, it's too weak to be retrieved,

-Know the Penfield studies- he electrically stimulated areas of brain and asked what experienced. hard to know how veridical (true) such "memories" are

- Know Nelson experiments - are demonstrative that at least part of traces remain

How retain Info? The retention function-

The retention function

Wickelgren and the 'd - the performance of retention is a function of delay.

Similar to power law of learning - and both are negatively accelerated. Less forgetting as longer delay. (Or, for learning, less improvement with more and more practice).

-Indicates that forgetting in ST memory systems is essentially the same process as is involved in forgetting in LT memory system

-know Bahrick's work

-There is again a correlate at neural level - where LTP's decays as a power function of retention interval - is use it or lose it!! Some say neural decay, loss of trace strength, explains behavioral/performance decays

The decays of retention, behaviorally and/or neurally referred to as the "decay theory of forgetting" and can be contrasted, compared with the "interference theory of forgetting."

-Interference - also effects retention level

-see the Fan Effect (Anderson). Yet another sailor in yet another park. Basically shows in increase in retrieval time needed when there are more elements associated with a concept. You gotta truck thru the muck.

Does this happen with real memories (preexperimental memories) How can we screw with people?

Yes, so sayeth Napolean Bonaparte. Actually, Lewis and Anderson. They added more facts to subjects existing knowledge, some bogus, some not. The more facts added, i.e. the bigger the fan they created, the longer the reaction time (retrieval time) to identify facts as true or false.

Interference and decay-

Some speculate that what has been labelled decay may really only be interference.

Cool section here with info relevant to student studying. Therefore read it, and give it some meaningful elaboration, over and over.

Interference and redundancy

Interference effects are eliminated or even reversed when given redundant, causally related facts, shown in a study by Bradshaw and Anderson (1982). This is related to the inferential processes involved in retrieval.

Inference and Retrieval

Is evidence that people make and rely upon inferences when recalling, and don't even know they are making such inferences and not using pure recall.

See the study by Bransford, Barclay and Franks !1972). Turtles and logs....

Also, do subjects make inferences at time of test or time of study? Know Dooling and Chritiaanson - seems made at time of testing. Seems as more time passes, and have more decay, more reconstruction (inferences) needed to put the story back together in retrieval.

Plausible retrieval

possibly how we really operate in real life - making plausible inferences or judgements rather than recalling exact facts. See Reder (1982) -The french fry heir.......

Know also Reder and Ross

The interaction of elaboration and inferential reconstruction

Owens, Bower and Black (1979) demonstrate that elaborative processing leads to an increase in both recall of what was studied, and in inferences made, but which were not studied. Nancy and the doctor.....