Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 1 Lecture 11 – Psyco 350, A1 Winter, 2011 N. R. Brown

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 2 Outline Implicit Memory –Introduction –Dissociating Implicit & Explicit Memory –Transfer Appropriate Processing –Implicit Learning Dual Process Models –Recognition & Remember/Know –Process Dissociation Procedure Direct Tests

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 3 Evidence for Implicit Memory on Indirect Tests Indirect tests typically use improved performance as the measure of implicit memory Priming = the improvement in performance on a subsequent occasion due to processing on a previous occasion

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 4 Priming Effects Exp condition = a prior exposure to stim Control = “no” prior exposure to stim Priming: fragment, stem, anagram: dv – % complete: exp > control Perceptional Identification: dv -- % correct: exp > control Lexical Decision: dv – RT: exp < control

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 5 Dissociating Implicit & Explicit Memory Dissociation: One variable affects one task differently than it affects another _______________________________________ Tulving, Schacter, & Stark (1982) Design: Delay X Test Type. 1 hr fragment completion (indirect) 1 week recognition (direct)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 6 Tulving, Schacter, & Stark (1982) Phase 1Intentional Study (96 words) 1 hr delay  Phase 2 Recognition 48 words Frag Completion 48 words 1 week delay  Phase 3 Frag Completion 48 words Recognition 48 words

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 7 Tulving, Schacter, & Stark (1982) Results: Reco  w/ dealy frag unaffected by delay Delay causes a dissociation between reco & frag tests. Implication: Test tap different “forms” of memory.

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 8 (Double) Dissociating Implicit & Explicit Memory Jacoby (1983) Aims: Using same materials demonstrate: explicit memory  w/ depth of processing implicit memory  w/ perceptual similarity Materials selected so that: as depth of processing , perceptual similarity 

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 9 Jacoby (1983) Design: Encoding Task X Test. (Antonym) Generation recognition Read (antonym in context)perceptual ID (40 ms) Read (target alone)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 10 Jacoby(1983): Two perspective on Encoding Tasks Predictions: Recognition: deeper processing should produce better performance. Percp ID: priming should become stronger as study and test materials become more similar. TaskexampleLOPperc similarity Generate hot  deeplow Read in context hot – COLD mid Read no context COLD shallowhigh

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 11 Jacoby (1983): Results w/out prior exposure (control): perc ID = 60% In all conditions: –Perc ID > 60% –priming _________________________ Reco  with Depth of Processing Perc ID  perc similarity (Perc ID  LoP) Evidence for 2 types of memory

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 12 Jacoby (1983): Results w/out prior exposure (control): perc ID = 60% In all conditions: –Perc ID > 60% –priming _________________________ Reco  with Depth of Processing Perc ID  perc similarity (Perc ID  LoP) Evidence for 2 types of memory

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 13 Transfer Appropriate Process: Theory Assumes: Performance depends of match between processing at study and processing at test. Analogous to encoding specificity. Two-types of Processes –Data-driven (perceptual) – processing of physical features. –Conceptually-driven (semantic) – processing for meaning

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 14 Transfer Appropriate Processing: Two Types of Indirect Test Data-driven (Perceptual): fragment completion stem completion anagram completion lexical decision perceptual identification Conceptually-driven (Semantic): word association doctor  ?? category-instance generation “name a mammal” general knowledge “The capital of the US is …?”

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 15 Transfer Appropriate Process: Theory Processing-type & memory task typically confounded: Direct tests require/benefit from conceptual processing Indirect tests require/benefit from data-driven processing. However, it is possible to unconfound test-type from process-type (e.g.): Fragment-cued, recall test – data-driven, direct general knowledge test – conceptual, indirect

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 16 Transfer Appropriate Processing: Blaxton (1989) Goal to demonstrate; –data-driven processing can affect direct tests –data-driven processing do not necessarily affect indirect tests Design: TEST TYPE Study Mode X Explicitness X Level. visual direct data-driven auditory indirect conceptually-driven

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 17 Blaxton (1989): Four Types of Memory Test Data-drivenConceptually-driven DirectGraphic-cued Recall Free Recall IndirectFragment Completion General Knowledge Target word: bashful graphic-cued recall: looks like “bushful” free recall frag completion: b_sh_u_ General knowledge: “Name one of the 7 dwarfs”

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 18 Blaxton (1989): Competing Predictions Data-drivenConceptually-driven Directno modality effect Indirectvisual > auditory Standard view: modality match should affect only indirect tests  for both implicit tests: visual > auditory  for both explicit test: visual = auditory

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 19 Competing Predictions Data-drivenConceptually-driven Directvisual > auditoryno modality effect Indirectvisual > auditoryno modality effect TAP View: modality match should affect data-driven tasks only. priming depends on match between study/test processing match & not on test instructions:  for both data-driven tests: visual > auditory  for both conceptually-driven tests: visual = auditory

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 20 Blaxton (1989): Results Priming Effect (v > a) for data- driven tasks only: indirect: frag completion direct: graphemic-cued recall Not all indirect tests display priming effect. Gen Know (indirect, conceptual): v = A graphemic-cued recall fragment completion free recall General knowledge

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 21 Transfer Appropriate Processing: Conclusions It is the match between processing at study and processing at test that produces priming effects. Priming can affect performance on both indirect tests and direct tests. Implication: at least for direct tests, performance reflects both implicit and explicit memory Question: Is it also the true that indirect tests reflect both implicit and explicit memory?

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 22 Implicit Learning Learning w/out intention or awareness Covariation (required for use of availability/familiarity in judgment) Frequency-of-occurrence Sequence Learning –Fixed sequences –Rule-based sequences

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 23 Fixed Sequence Learning: Nissen & Bullemer (1987) Task: Press button under 1 of 4 lights Sequence Type: Repeating– same pattern reports every across every 10 trials Random – lights presented at random (no sequence). Details: trial sequences (!)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 24 On each trial a light goes on Just press corresponding button

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 25 Nissen and Bullemer (1987): Results: Repeated: RT rapidly  over blocks Random: RT little changed over block Repeat-condition Ps unable to report sequence Conclusion: Sequence learning/use was unconscious/implicit

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 26 Rule governed Another N & B (1987) Exp. Subjects are sensitive to the presence of the sequence even when they deny knowing that there was a sequence Violates rules

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 27 Rule-based Sequence Learning (Reber) Artificial Grammars – General Approach Use Artificial Grammar to define/generate “grammatical sequences”

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 28 Example of an Artificial Grammar

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 29 Aim: Can people learn “grammatical” rules w/out intention: Two Groups: Grammatical– (implicitly) learn sets of grammar- generated letter sequences Random – learn sets of randomly generated letter sequences Test: Grammatically judgment: 50% grammatical 50% ungrammatical Reber (1967)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 30 Results: Phase-1Learning: grammatical faster than random Phase-2 Grammatical-judgment task: –Grammatical group: 79% –Random group: chance Grammatical group could not state the rules explicitly Conclusion: Grammatical group (implicit) learned the rules/grammar during Task 1 Rules: facilitated string learning; enabled classification Reber (1967)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 31 Approaches to Implicit Learning Rules (Reber) Instance Based (Brooks) –Encode examples/instances –assess similarity between target and stored instances Fragment-based (Perruchet) –Learn string fragments (bigrams, trigrams) –reject strings lacking learned fragments Problem – knowledge might be explicit.

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 32 Dual-Process Accounts General View – two sources of info  analytic, explicit, controlled  nonanalytic, implicit, automatic Assumption – “no process pure tasks” Interpretation problem for Indirect Tests: contamination Issue generalizes to: direct tests judgments tasks

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 33 Recognition: Background Recognition Task (Radvansky, pp ) Process of list of items: STIM 1 …. STIM n Test:“Was STIM x on prior list?” STIM x on list  “OLD” STIM x not on list  “NEW”

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 34 Dual-Process Account of Recognition: Mandler (1980) Reco judgments based on 2 types of information: Recollection: –Judgment based on successful retrieval of information about the study episode Familiarity: –Judgment based on assessed familiarity (fluency). Evidence: –Remember/Know Judgments –Process Dissociations

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 35 Remember/Know Two memory processes  2 phenomenal experiences remember = successful recollect of details of prior episode know = high levels familiarity, in the absence of recollection remember  R know  A

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 36 Remember/Know: General study: manipulate some factor likely to manipulate test: recognition “yes” “no” r/k

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 37 Remember/Know: An Example – Rajaram (1993) Exp 1. Levels of Processing R: semantic > rhyme; K: deep = shallow Exp 2. Pictures vs words R: picture > words; K: picture = word

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 38 Remember/Know (Radvansky, pp ) General Findings: factors  recollection,  “remember” LOP, repetition, short (vs long) delay Problems: poor terminology

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 39 Remember/Know Instructions: Rajaram (1993)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 40 Remember/Know General Findings: factors  recollection,  “remember” LOP, repetition, short (vs long) delay Problems: poor terminology judgmental criteria r/k as confidence judgment Converging Evidence: Process dissociation studies

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 41 Process Dissociation; Jacoby (1991) Two Independent Process: recollective (R) automatic (A) Strategy: set processes in opposition  manipulate factor(s) affecting recollection  2 tests: recollection  yes (Inclusion) recollection  no (Exclusion)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 42 Process Dissociation 2 tests: recollection  yes (Inclusion) recollection  no (Exclusion) Goal: Compute values for R & A Data: Inclusion = R + A(1-R) Exclusion = A(1-R) Parameter Estimates R = Inclusion – Exclusion A = Exclusion / (1-R)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 43 Process Dissociation Evidence for the role of Dual-Processes in two classes of memory test 1.A Direct Test (recognition) 2.An Indirect Task (fragment completion)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 44 Process Dissociation: Direct Test Read a list of words – List 1 Hear a list of words – List 2 Two recognition tests: –Both tests include List 1, List 2 and novel words. –Inclusion test: Respond “old” if word was on either list. –Exclusion test: Respond “old” only if word was on List 2.

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 45 Inclusion test Inclusion test: Respond “old” if word was on either list. –Intentional (recollective) process will have a certain probability of concluding “old” for List 1 words – R –Automatic process will also have a certain probability of concluding “old” for List 1 words – A –If either process concludes “old”, the subject will respond “old” P(old) = R + A (1-R)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 46 Inclusion Condition List 1 Word “OLD R ” Recollected NOT Recollected High Familiarity “OLD A ” “New” Low Familiarity P(OLD) = P(OLD R ) + P(OLD A ) R% 1-R% 1-A% A%

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 47 Exclusion test Exclusion test: Respond “old” only if word was on List 2. –Subject will only respond “old” to List 1 words if two things happen: The automatic process responds “old” due to a feeling of familiarity – A The intentional process fails to recognise the word (if it had, it would recall it was from List 1) – (1-R) P(old ) = A(1-R)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 48 Exclusion Condition List 1 Word “NEW” Recollected NOT Recollected High Familiarity “OLD A ” “New” Low Familiarity P(OLD) = P(OLD A ) R% 1-R% 1-A% A%

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 49 Dissociating the processes Data: Inclusion: P(old) = R + (1- R) Exclusion: P(old) = A(1-R)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 50 Inclusion Condition List 1 Word “OLD R ” Recollected NOT Recollected High Familiarity “OLD A ” “New” Low Familiarity P(OLD) = P(OLD R ) + P(OLD A ) R% 1-R% A% 1-A%

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 51 Exclusion Condition List 1 Word “NEW” Recollected NOT Recollected High Familiarity “OLD A ” “New” Low Familiarity P(OLD) = P(OLD A ) R% 1-R% 1-A% A%

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 52 Dissociating the processes Data: Inclusion: P(old) = R + (1- R) Exclusion: P(old) = A(1-R) Parameter Estimates Inclusion – Exclusion = R A = Exclusion / (1-R)

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 53 Jacoby (1991) Materials: List 1: READ words List 2: HEAR words Tests: Inclusion –List 1  “OLD” –List 2  “OLD” Exclusion –List 1  “NEW” –List 2  “OLD”

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 54 Jacoby (1991; Exp 3) Two recognition tests (% “OLD” for READ words): Inclusion testP(old) = 0.48 Exclusion testP(old) = 0.37* –R = Inclusion – Exclusion = 0.11 –A = Exclusion / (1-R) = 0.37 / 0.89 = 0.42 *in exclusion condition, “OLD” are errors

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 55 Jacoby (1991; Exp 3) Two recognition tests (% “OLD” for READ words): Inclusion testP(old) = 0.48 Exclusion testP(old) = 0.37* –R = Inclusion – Exclusion = 0.11 –A = Exclusion / (1-R) = 0.37 / 0.89 = 0.42 *in exclusion condition, “OLD” are errors

Psyco 350 Lec #11– Slide 56 Jacoby (1991; Exps 2 & 3) Implication: When recollection is knocked out, P(OLD) in exclusion condition should equal A Exclusion test w/ digit monitoring task (monitor for 3 odd digits in a row). Expectation: Recollection eliminated by divided attention (digit task) – R = 0 Prediction: Exclusion = A(1-R) = 0.42 (1-0) = 0.42 Results: Exclusion w/ divided attention: Prob(Old) = 0.43