1. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 1 Lecture 6 – Psyco 350, B1 Winter, 2011 N. R. Brown

2. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 2 Outline An Alternative Perspectives on WM – Reading& Operation Span tasks –Cowan’s Embedded Processes Mode –WM Capacity as Executive Control LTM: Episodic-Semantic Distinction Memory Basics: Concepts & Associations (nodes & links) Factors that influence Storage: –Rehearsal maintenance vs elaborate massed vs spaced

3. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 3 Alternatives Perspectives On WM Motivated by: Problems w/ Baddeley’s Model A need to better understand executive functioning Predictive power of span task. Three Related Issue 1.Reading/Operation Span as a measure of “capacity” 2.WM contents as the active portion of LTM 3.WM as executive attention

4. Psyco 350 Lec #5 – Slide 4 Measuring WM Capacity Key Idea: Performance on complex cognitive task reflects a number of different capacities –retrieval efficiency –processing efficiency –“attention-free” capacity of relevant slave system – attentional management (ability to focus on relevant info & inhibit irrelevant info. –etc. WM span tasks developed to measure relation between WM and performance on complex cognitive tasks

5. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 5 WM Memory Span WM span = # of words recalled Demonstrates capacity for holding load while processing. Large individual differences in WM span (2-6 items) WM span measures predict performance on IQ, achievement tests (e.g., SATs), & g. digit/word span uncorrelated with IQ/SAT tests

6. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 6 WM Memory Span – Two Interpretations 1.Domain Specific Capacity: Efficient processing of immediate task, leaves additional resources for maintaining load. –Accounts for dual task performance (e.g. Brooks) 2.Domain General Capacity: General ability to “control attention to maintain information in an active quickly retrievable state.” Engle, 2009, p. 20.

7. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 7 An Alternative: WM as Information in an Active State

8. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 8 WM as Activation: Cowan’s Embedded Processes Model Central Executive: directs and controls voluntary processing. Encoding: –Incoming info activities representation in LTM

9. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 9 WM as Activation: Cowan’s Embedded Processes Model Central Notation: LTM in one of 3 states: 1.Dormant 2.Activated –fades (decays) unless reactivated 3.“In focus” (of attention) –limited to 4 items

10. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 10 Span from Activation Perspective Two components: 1.read-out from focus 2.activated material, retrieved before decay Predictions: factors  LTM,  span –concreteness (Walker & Hulme, 1999) –word frequency (Roodenrys & Quinlan, 2000) Span > 0 when rehearsal suppressed

11. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 11 WM Memory Span – Competing Interpretations 1.Domain Specific Capacity: Efficient processing of immediate task, leaves additional resources for maintaining load. Accounts for Dual-task 2.Domain General Capacity: General ability to “control attention to maintain information in an active quickly retrievable state.” Engle, 2009, p. 20.

12. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 12 Span as Executive Control Main Idea: Active, irrelevant info infers w/ performance People differ in their ability to inhibited irrelevant info or remain focused on relevant info Prediction: Individual differences in reading/operation span predict performance on tasks that require executive control.

13. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 13 Three Lines of Evidence Span & Proactive Interference Participants: High-span Low-span Materials & procedure: 3 10-word lists (words from same category) 2 s/word 16 s Delay 20 s recall periods

14. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 14 Three Lines of Evidence Span & Proactive Interference Results: Proactive Interference PI worse for Low-span

15. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 15 Three Lines of Evidence Span & Anti-saccade TasK Task: Move eyes away from cue to find taget Measures: Distractibility Main Finding: Low Span worse (more distractible) than High-span

16. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 16 Three Lines of Evidence Span & The Stroop Task StroopTask – Name Color of font

17. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 17 Three Lines of Evidence Span & The Stroop Task StroopTask – Name color of font General Finding: Incongruent trials (BLUE) slower than congruent trials (GREEN) Interpretation: Response slowed because attention required to inhibit color name.

18. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 18 Three Lines of Evidence Span & The Stroop Task Participants: Low Span Vs High SP Materials: Congruence: 0%, 50%, 75% Difficulty increases w/ congruence

19. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 19 Three Lines of Evidence Span & The Stroop Task Results: Difficulty increases w/ congruence Low-span worse than High-span Effect increase w/ congruence Interpretation: Inhibitory capacity particularly important when task is difficult.

20. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 20 WM Capacity as Executive Attention Engle (2009) Main Claim: WM capacity (as measure by reading & operation span) reflect individual differences in ability inhibit/exclude competing (partially active) sources of information.

21. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 21 Summary: Alternative View Contents of WM Active portion of LTM Differences in Capacity Reflects individual differences in ability to remain focused and inhibit irrelevant info. Reflect in LTM and task perceptual tasks

22. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 22 Conclusions No pure measure of STM –Contents: focal info + activated LTM Covert Rehearsal: –one way of keeping info active Functional importance: –WM provides ability to access info and maintain in active state required for thought, language, problem-solving, etc

23. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 23 Procedural Knowing how Declarative Knowing that Memory Systems Declarative Procedural EpisodicSemantic

24. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 24 Episodic-Semantic Distinction: Tulving (1972) Episodic Memory: autobiographical temporally dated interference from similar episodes retrieval also serves as input (i.e., episodic memory is continually being updated )

25. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 25 Episodic-Semantic Distinction Tulving (1972) Semantic Memory: language (lexical memory) world knowledge not temporally dated very well-organized (organization protects memory from interference) not changed or modified by retrieval of information (i.e., not continually updated)

26. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 26 (Episodic) Memory Basics Content episodic memory –representation of specific events mini-events – “the work BOOK on List 2” real events – “Diving in Cozumel” An event representation (ER) = a particular instantiation of a configuration of intersecting concepts

27. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 27 Memory Trace: “the word BOOK on List 2” Event 34272 BOOKList 2 WM SM EM

28. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 28 Memory Trace: “Diving in Cozumel” Event 20342 CozumelDiving WM SM EP

29. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 29 (Episodic) Memory Basics Links between ER & concepts differ in strength (as do the links between concepts). Strength depends of: –frequency –contiguity –recency

30. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 30 (Episodic) Memory Basics Cues in WM access conceptual information in LTM. Origin of cues: –environment –self-generated –provided by experimenter Concepts “spread activation” to linked nodes (other concepts & ERs) ER n activation > threshold, “ER n retrieved”

31. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 31 Cue word: “Cozumel” Event 20342 CozumelDiving WM SM EP “ Cozumel ”

32. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 32 (Episodic) Memory Basic: Implications The stronger the link between a cued concept and an ER, the greater probability that the ER will be recalled. [non-elaborative rehearsal]

33. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 33 Cue word: Cozumel w/ strong link Event 20342 CozumelDiving WM SM EP “ Cozumel ”

34. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 34 (Episodic) Memory Basic: Implications The more ER-to-concept links there are, the greater the probability that a given cue will serve as an effective retrieval cue. [elaboration, depth or processing]

35. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 35 Cue words: “Cozumel” “diving” Event 20342 CozumelDiving WM SM EP “ hurricane ” hurricane

36. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 36 (Episodic) Memory Basic: Implications Context (internal & external) is encoded as part of the ER, and thus contextual features can serve as retrieval cues. Increasing the similarity between encoding contexts and retrieval contexts increases the probability of retrieval. [context effects, TAP]

37. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 37 Contextual Cue Event 20342 CozumelDiving WM SM EP taste of t. scrimp tequila scrimp

38. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 38 (Episodic) Memory Basic: Implications Probability of recall decreases, as # of ERs linked to a cued concept increases. [interference]

39. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 39 Cue word: “diving”  interference Event 20342 CozumelDiving WM SM EP “ diving ” Grand Banks Event 5632

40. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 40 Memory Processes Encoding: –process of storing information in memory Storage: –the retention (& loss) of information over time Retrieval: –recovery of previously stored information

41. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 41 Encoding Processes: Rehearsal Rehearsal: a set of techniques/strategies for encoding information into long-term memory Two kinds of rehearsal: –Maintenance: keeps information "alive" in WM; rote recycling; little effect on LTM –Elaboration: "promotes" information to LTM; think about and connect

42. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 42 Maintenance Rehearsal: Craik and Watkins (1973) Task : Monitor auditory list for words beginning w/ target letter (e.g., G) required to recall “last” target word at end of list (list could end at any time). Session final recall – recall as many words as possible. Manipulation: # of words between appearance of target word (assumed equal to amount of rehearsal).

43. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 43 Craik & Watkins (1973) Results: recall unaffected by # of rehearsals. Interpretation: rote (maintenance) rehearsal fails to transfer info to LTM. Question: What about Rundus (1971)? Maintenance + (elaboration, relational coding, etc)

44. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 44 Rundus (1971) again Analysis: –# rehearsals for each word (position) –% recall for each word (position) Results: –“For a given amount of rehearsal, items from the initial serial positions are no better recalled than items from the middle of the list” – Rundus, 1971, p. 66

45. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 45 Elaborative Encoding: Bradshaw & Anderson(1982) Tasks: Recall “target” fact Design: Encoding Context X Delay target onlyimmediate (no delay) target + 2 irrelevant facts1 week target + 2 relevant facts

46. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 46 Elaborative Encoding: Bradshaw & Anderson(1982) Target only: Newton became emotionally unstable and insecure as child. Target+2 irrelevant facts: Locke was unhappy as a student at Westminster. plus Locke felt fruits were unwholesome for children. Locke had a long history of back problems. Target+2 relevant facts Mozart made a long journey form Munich to Paris. plus Mozart wanted to leave Munich to avoid a romantic entanglement. Mozart was intrigued by musical developments in Paris.

47. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 47 Bradshaw & Anderson(1982): Results Encoding relevant facts improved recall. Encoding irrelevant facts hampered recall. Effect was magnified by delay. Interpretation: relevant elaboration increases # of retrieval path relevant facts fosters generation of appropriate cues irrelevant facts cause interference

48. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 48 Spacing Effects Issue: –Rehearsal improves memory. –Does the temporal distribution of rehearsals matter? Research Strategy –holding # of presentations constant, manipulate the lag (delay) between presentations.

49. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 49 Madigan (1969): Spacing Effect Method: –words studied twice at 6 different lags. Results: –recall  w/ lag Other findings: –spacing affects recognition (Glenberg, 1979) –obtained w/ textbook materials

50. Psyco 350 Lec #6 – Slide 50 Accounting for the Spacing Effect Deficient Processing –habituate to recently presented material (less “interesting”) –short lags  overestimation of learning --> decreases (or redistributed) rehearsals. Encoding Variability: –Recall depends in part on study context matching test context. –Context changes w/ time – the greater the lag, the more different the encoding contexts, and therefore the more likely that one of them will overlap with the test context.