BUILDING MEMORIES II: Elaborative Encoding Themes –Elaboration adds potential retrieval paths –May be item-specific or relational –May be intentional or not –Effective elaboration boosts “distinctiveness” of memory Cue strongly elicits target and not other competitors

ITEM-SPECIFIC ELABORATION The levels-of-processing tradition –“depth” and memory (Craik & Tulving, 1975) –POS vs. NEG at study only matters for semantic decisions. Why? –Further elaboration helps only “positive” targets. Why?

Depth or Distinctiveness? –Reducing semantic distinctiveness: Moscovitch & Morris (1976): “semantic” questions free recall of target words: varied questions.85 constant question.50 –Increasing phonemic distinctiveness: Eyesenck (1979): P(recog) 48 semantic questions pronounce normally (e.g., comb like home) mispronounce (e.g., glove like home).42

Transfer-appropriate processing –Encoding that’s distinctive for one kind of cue may not be for another Morris, Bransford & Franks (1977): Cue Type itemrhyme semantic questions phonemic questions –Roediger’s work on conceptually- versus data-driven processing Memory best when operations at test match those at study Sound familiar?

RELATIONAL ELABORATION The list-organization tradition (Bousfield, 1953) –“organized” lists are recalled better –Blocking by category increases recall –Categories “cluster” in recall –Clustering increases over trials PEACHSANDHORSE EARGRAPELEG RAINSONGNOSE CATMATCHFOX FIGCOWGLUE PLUMBIRDKNEE DATEFOOT recall!

PEACHSANDHORSE EARGRAPELEG RAINSONGNOSE CATMATCHFOX FIGCOWGLUE PLUMBIRDKNEE DATEFOOT

–Cuing with category names (Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966) long categorized list of words (e.g., 12 categories, 4 items in each) free recall20 cued recall29 difference is in unrecalled categories –Subjective organization (Tulving, 1962) lists of unrelated words multiple-trial free recall “clustering” increases over trials

Relational encoding in text –Thorndike (1977) “importance” effect and overall recall reduced as text is “disorganized” “Material-appropriate” processing (McDaniel, et al., 1996) Strategy Text TypeQuestionsOutline Narrative Expository +31% +13% +28% +64%

MNEMONICS AND MEMORY SKILL Deliberate strategies to make encoding distinctive Utilize prior knowledge in learning May be item-specific or relational Effective mnemonics have: –Associability (cue is rich in potential associative “hooks”) –Bidirectionality (from target to cue at study, from cue to target at test) –Constructability (cue is accessible at time of study and test) –Discriminability (cue won’t be confused with others being used) (Bellezza, 1996) So, what does scurrilous mean? A sampler of classic mnemonics –Mindtools’ mnemonicsMindtools’ mnemonics

Memory as a skill –Tradition of study of “memory experts” Luria’s S Hunt’s VP Ericcson’s SF and JC Thompson’s Rajan –The bottom line(s) years of specific practice Encoding as where it’s at Expertise as highly domain-specific The debate about “talent” –An extraordinary memory for one’s life McGaugh’s AJ Some of her abilities Neuropsychological profile Encoding, or retrieval?