Retrieval processes I. Essential (also for lecture 10): a) Baddeley, ch. 11, b) Eysenck
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
1. Learning & Memory 9. Retrieval processes I
2. Retrieval processes I
3. Time versus intervening (similar) experiences as predictors of forgetting (Baddeley & Hitch, 1977)
4. “Retroactive” and “proactive” interference “Verbal learning” research in 1940s,1950s: participants learned lists of arbitrary pairings between “stimulus” words and “response” words — “paired associates”.
5. Endel Tulving C.V.
Importance of retrieval processes.
Disproof of a theory of recall (generate-recognise)
Creation of a retrieval theory (encoding specificity)
Proposer of structural LTM distinction (Episodic / semantic)
6. Importance of retrieval processes (Release from proactive interference) Availability vs. accessibility.
Subjects presented with 1-6 word lists.
Each list 24 words.
4 words from each of 6 categories.
Free recall followed by recall cued.
7. Generate and recognise Harry Bahrick (1970)
Recall is a two-stage process
Generation of likely alternatives.
Recognition of recently presented item amongst those alternatives.
Extra-list cues assist the generation process.
8. Disproof of Generate & Recognise (Tulving & Thompson, 1973) 1. List of 24 cue-target (<1% FA) pairs e.g.
2. Generate four free associates from strong associate of target: table
DESK CHAIR LAMP PLATE
3. Make forced-choice recognition.
DESK CHAIR LAMP PLATE
4. Cued recall
9. Disproof of Generate & Recognise Target generated: 0.66
Target selected when generated: 0.53
Cued recall: 0.61
Many words subjects failed to recognise must have subsequently been recalled successfully.
G&R cannot account for this.
10. Encoding specificity hypothesis Successful retrieval is more likely when overlap between context at encoding and cues at retrieval is high.
Only cues encoded at the time the “to-be-remembered” information is encoded are effective retrieval cues.
In the T&T experiment, overlap is lower for recognition than recall.
Extra-list cueing explained by assumption that subjects store category label at encoding.
11. Testing encoding specificity Lists of 24 cue-target (<1% FA) pairs.
dirty - CITY
Immediate recall target with either:
equally associated cue
village - CITY
12. Re-emergence of G & R (Disproof of encoding specificity) Greg Jones (1982)
1) List of 25 cue-target pairs (low assoc.)
regal - BEER
2) Forced four-choice recognition
BEER, RUBBISH, VICTORY, DANCE
3) Cued recall (controls)
13. Re-emergence of G & R All cues are heteropalindromes.
The heteropalindromes are strong associates of the cue word
14% subjects noticed and were excluded. Remainder presumably did not notice heteropalindrome at encoding.
14. Re-emergence of G & R 3) Cued control (experimental)
Indicate the source of additional cue
“May help you remember the item”.
Exp. 0.52 0.38
Ctrl. 0.55 0.18
15. Dual-route reconciliation Tulving’s “feature overlap” view of retrieval is one retrieval process (direct retrieval).
Bahrick’s “generate and recognise” view of retrieval is another retrieval process (indirect retrieval).
Tulving was incorrect to assume indirect retrieval does not occur.
16. Classifications Of Memory (Tulving, 1989)
Just read this particular overhead out.Just read this particular overhead out.
17. Episodic-semantic distinction Episodic memory (Context-dependent)
Storage of specific events or episodes which occurred at a specific place and a specific time. “What, where and when” memories.
Semantic memory (Context-independent)
“It is a mental thesaurus, organised knowledge a person possesses about words and other verbal symbols” (Tulving, 1972).
18. Dissociable memory systems? The word COLD is presented
An episodic memory of that event is stored.
A semantic memory of COLD is activated.
Two possible retrieval routes
Recall of the specific episode.
Familiarity as a result of recent processing.
19. Jacoby (1983) Context condition
20. Jacoby (1983) Two types of test phase
Recognition of target words from distractors
21. Rationale Recognition
Requires access to particular episode
Context in training should help
Does not require access
Performance improves by recent activation of semantic memory
Context should hinder
22. Dissociable memory systems Larry Jacoby (1983)
No context Context Generate
Recognition .56 .72 .83
Perceptual ident. .82 .76 .67
Evidence for dissociable memory systems?
23. Multiple dichotomies Teresa Blaxton (1989)
24. Transfer-appropriate processing Left-to-right: No context, Context, Generate
25. Depth of processing at acquisition Craik & Tulving (1975) showed a series of unrelated words, and gave one of three orienting tasks:
Is it written in upper/lower case?
Does it rhyme with X?
Does it fit into a sentence (e.g. “The man broke his ____”)
Later unexpected recognition test—>
MORAL: processing the meaning is better than processing surface form (unless, of course, details of surface form are what you are required to remember)
26. Tulving: Assessment
27. What next?