Learning and Remembering

Memory Model Memory Declarative Procedural Explicit Implicit Semantic episodic skills priming simple nonassociative Memory memory motor perceptual conditioning habituation Facts events perceptual cognitive sensitization cognitive

Implicit memory (procedural) Skills Motor skills – riding a bicycle; requires conscious effort to learn but becomes automatic with practice Perceptual skills – we learn how to organize stimuli into complex wholes Cognitive skills – learning to solve puzzles and problems

Implicit memory Priming Perceptual priming – seeing one member of a category makes recognizing another member of the category quicker Semantic priming – seeing a related word will speed up recognition of a second word Meyer et al, 1975 – subjects given a word and then a string of letters. They were told to determine if the second string was a word or not 3 conditions Words were related bread- butter; nurse – butter Words phonetically the same bribe – tribe; rumor-fumor Words graphemically similar phonetically different touch - couch

Implicit memory 3 Associative learning Classical conditioning – learning an association between two stimuli Operant conditioning – learn to associate a response with a reward or punishment

Implicit memory 4 Nonassociative learning Habituation – reduced response to a frequently presented stimuli Sensitization – increased response to a frequently presented stimuli

Explicit Memory – Episodic and Semantic Both forms of memory are best remembered when the information is organized – it makes sense Natural organization – similarities exist between the material to be remembered – material induced organization Subjective organization – the use of mnemonics – we incorporation or induce an organization because it is not naturally organized

Mnemonics Formal – pre-existing memory aids that usually have been developed and used by others Method of loci Peg word device Acronyms such as HOMES or NOIR Informal – we invent ourselves, they are personal to us Mnemonics work by doing 3 things Provide structure to the information Assist in the storage of information Provide retrieval cues to help access memories

Early memory research - Ebbinghaus 1st systematic psychological studies of memory Best know for 3 things: Used himself as his only subject Invented the use of nonsense syllables; the C-V-C triad Use of relearning paradigm and concept of savings Relearning paradigm seen as innovative use of nonsense syllables recently criticized as being too artificial

Metamemory Ebbinghaus used nonsense syllables because he knew his memory could be influenced by previous learning This is called metamemory – knowledge about our own memory, how it works and how sometimes it doesn’t work Generally it increases with age and experience It allows us to change memory strategies if we feel we are not doing well We are not always accurate in our knowledge

Storage in episodic memory Key to storing information is rehearsal Ebbinghaus repeating syllable lists over and over created best memory for lists Led to theory that the more frequently information is present the better it is remembered 2nd theory based on the idea that making information more distinctive – different from other information makes it easier to understand – von Restorf effect You should notice that important terms are highlighted in your text book as a cue they are important

Levels of processing theory Craik and Lockhart (1972) Two fundamental assumptions of levels of processing 1. Memory is produced through perception and comprehension –we have to attend to information and the more attention you pay to it, the better it is remembered, but it does not depend upon conscious intent 2. Memory is different depending upon how information is encoded or how it is rehearsed

Levels of processing – types of rehearsal Type 1 or maintenance rehearsal – nonsemantic rehearsal of information; repetition of information as in memorization Considered shallow processing because most of the information is lost if rehearsal stops Type 2 or elaborative rehearsal - semantic processing of information; using the meaning of the material to better remember it Gets information into long term memory – deep level processing

Levels of processing – two predictions 1. Deep processing takes longer than shallow processing Deep processing results in better memory than shallow processing

Levels of processing Supporting studies Craik and Watkins (1973) Craik and Tulving (1975)

Levels of processing - Problems In ability to define shallow or deep levels independent of performance on memory tests No method existed for predicting ahead of time whether a rehearsal strategy was shallow or deep The only way to determine whether a strategy was deep processing was to see if it improved memory Task effects – Glenberg (1977) – found support for levels of processing on recall memory tests, but not on a recognition test

Levels of processing conclusions Levels of processing is a useful description of how we can improve memory, but not useful from a scientific perspective. Looking at how material is organized and ways we can organize information is more useful

Visual imagery Why does the method of loci techniques and other uses of visual imagery improve memory? Paivio’s dual coding hypothesis: Word’s with concrete referents are remembered better than abstract concepts These words are encoded into memory twice Once as a word with meaning Second as a visual image – you can form a visual image of the object the word stands for

Conclusion about the storage of information Information is best stored in ways that it will be best retrieved Encoding specificity: Information should not be stored as isolated facts but incorporated into a mental representation that includes other information related to the new information This related information can serve as retrieve cues which can help memory retrieval

Retrieval from Episodic Memory Basic competing theories: Decay theory; forgetting is a storage problem; memory traces decay from storage and are lost Interference theory – there is no forgetting; memories are permanent, but are sometimes inaccessible as a result of interference

Interference theory More popular as a experimental paradigm Seems to fit the data better than decay Jenkins and Dallenbach (1924) Interference was much easier to study experimentally and an experimental task already existed – paired associate task

Paired associate learning Proactive interference proactive interference: learn one list of paired associates; then learn a 2nd list. Learning of the 1st list interferes with memory for 2nd list. Most interference if the same words are used List 1 list 2 Test list 2 Tall – bone tall - bench Plan – leaf plan - pencil Nose – fight nose - wait Park – flea park - student Grew – cook grew - window

Paired associate learning Retroactive interference – learn 1st list then learn 2nd list. 2nd list will interfere with your ability to remember the first. Little interference if 2nd list unrelated to 1st. List 1 list 2 Test list 1 Tall – bone tall - bench Plan – leaf plan - pencil Nose – fight nose - wait Park – flea park - student Grew – cook grew - window

Paired associate learning Proactive transfer – learning 1st list facilitates or helps learning 2nd list List 1 List2 Tall – bone smoke – arm Plan – leaf mess – people Nose – fight rabbit – several Smoke – hand tall - skeleton Mess – crowd plan – tree Rabbit – few nose - battle

Paired associate learning Negative transfer – learning a 2nd list is more difficult because of same words used, but in different pairs List 1 list 2 Tall – bone plan - bone Plan – leaf smoke - leaf Nose – fight rabbit fight Park – flea grew - flea Grew – cook nose - cook

Behaviorist interpretation Reason for interference was that subjects learned A – B associations, which A word was associated with which B words. When they learned new associations, they had to unlearn the A – B associations Slamecka (1966) – 1st associations (A – B) were not unlearned when A – C associations learned Subjects presented with A words and told to come up with their own B words using free association The learned new A – C associations tested on the A- B associations they had made – no interference Paired associate task irrelevant for memory where meaning was involved

Memory failure as retrieval failure Memories are for the most part permanent – new information interferes with the retrieval not storage of information Or there is an active inhibition of irrelevant information – you avoid retrieving unimportant information Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)

Retrieval and encoding specificity Memory is best when you try to retrieve information under the same circumstances under which it was learned – context can provide effective retrieval cues Thompson and Tulving (1970) Given word list under 3 conditions No cue given, just the words to be remembered Weakly associated cue wind – COLD Highly associated cue hot - COLD Memory of words tested under same 3 conditions Encoding specificity can even cause recall to be better than recognition

Two ways retrieval cues can be effective 1. You remember previously learned information and spontaneously encode it while learning new information 2. The retrieval cue is presented along with the information to be remembered You could be generating your own retrieval cues to information in a lecture Or I could provide you with retrieval cues

Example of the importance of context Subjects bilingual in Russian and English Subjects remembered more life experiences from the period when they spoke Russian when interviewed in Russian Remembered more of their English speaking lifetime when interviewed in English What does this imply about studying psychology together

Amnesia The loss of memory or memory ability caused by injury or disease Amnesias can be classified by the type of memory loss and in relationship to where the damage is located

Amnesia terms Retrograde amnesia – loss of memory for information acquired before damage occurred Anterograde amnesia – disruption of memory for acquiring new information after the damage occurred Dissociation – one form of memory is impaired while another is intact Double dissociation – in one patient memory A is impaired but not memory B; in a second patient, memory B is impaired but not memory A

Amnesias classified by type of memory loss Patient K. C. – motorcycle accident – complete loss of episodic memory after his accident – no old or new memories Intact semantic memory – remembers and can learn new factual information Patient H. M. – surgical removal of medial temporal cortex Anterograde episodic amnesia, semantic and most retrograde episodic memory intact Korsakoff's syndrome – anterograde episodic amnesia with deficits in metamemory

Dissociation of implicit and explicit memory Schacter and Graf (1987) –study of memory in Alzheimer’s disease Poor performance on explicit memory test Normal performance on implicit memory test