Mnemonic Strategies

Mnemonic Strategies • Chunking • Method of Loci • Peg Word Mnemonic

Chunking • Grouping elements into “chunks” • Chase and Ericcson’s subjects • Chunked digits into running times • Remembered up to 82 digits! • Not as effective as more elaborative strategies

Method of Loci • Based upon visual imagery • Imagine a grocery list • (eggs, milk, cheese, bread, butter) • Imaging items placed in a common scene • To recall, mentally stroll through scene • Bizarreness / distinctiveness

Peg Word Mnemonic • Uses prememorized list (e.g., rhyme) • One is a bun ==> • Two is a shoe ==> • Three is a tree ==> • Four is a door ==>

Acronyms • Create “word” from beginning letters • Create a limerick from beginning letters • OOOTTAFAGVAH – 12 Cranial nerves

Why Do Mnemonics Devices Work? • Provide structure for learning • Provide durable trace (less interference) • Provide retrieval structure

Which Mnemonic is the Best? • Roediger (1980)

Interaction of Encoding and Retrieval Processes • Anderson & Pichert (1978) • Participants read a story about the activities of two boys at home either from the point of view of a burglar or a homebuyer • Later the participants were asked to remember as much as possible about the story they read • The point of view affected what participants recalled • Homebuyers were more likely to remember that the basement was musty • Burglars were more likely to remember the coin collection and color TV

To Understand Memory Processes • Need to understand encoding processes, retrieval processes, and how they function together for short term storage (STM) and long term storage (LTM)

Encoding Processes • Creating an acoustic code • What it sounds like • Creating a semantic code • What it means • Creating a visual code • What it looks like

Encoding Types and STM • Type of code may rely on type of task • STM refers to memory that needs to be held temporarily • Evidence exists for a variety of encoding types for STM

Evidence for Acoustic Encoding in STM • Conrad (1964) • Visually present a series of letters • Ask participants to write the order letters are presented • What types of errors are made?

Conrad (1964) • Found evidence for the use of an acoustic code in STM • Participants made acoustic errors • F for S, B for V, P for B • Not visual errors • E for F, O for Q, R for P • Participants encoded items acoustically even though stimuli were presented visually V . . . B!

Shulman (1970) • Evidence for semantic encoding in STM • Participants viewed 10-word lists • Given a recognition test using visually represented "probe words" which were either: • Homonyms - e.g. "bawl" for "ball" • Synonyms - e.g. "talk" for "speak" • Identical to the original word

Shulman (1970) Results • The Homonym and Synonym probes produced similar error rates - this suggests that an equal amount of acoustic and semantic processing must be taking place • Homonyms - e.g. "bawl" for "ball" • Synonyms - e.g. "talk" for "speak" • Identical to the original word

Posner & Keele (1967) • Evidence for visual encoding in STM • Letter matching task • Two letters separated by brief interval • Participant had to indicate if same letter • A-a Yes • A-A Yes • A-M No • Measure reaction time

Posner & Keele (1967) Results • If letters were the same visually (a-a) participants were faster than if the letters were not the same visually (A-a) • Results indicate that visual code was also present for STM

Encoding Types & LTM • Type of code may rely on type of task • LTM refers to memory that may be held permanently • Evidence exists for a variety of encoding types for LTM

Semantic Encoding in LTM • Grossman & Eagle (1970) • Study 41 different words • Given recognition test after delay • 9 of the distractors were semantically related to words on list • 9 of the distractors were not • False alarms for each type: 1.83 of synonyms, but only 1.05 of unrelated

Visual Encoding in LTM • Frost (1972) • Participants studied 16 drawings • Manipulated visual orientation and semantic category • After a delay, participants were asked if they had studied an object with the same name as the test object • Reaction time was measured • Participants responded faster to identical drawings than drawings in a different orientation • This result indicates visual encoding occurred

Acoustic Encoding in LTM • Evidence of very long-term memory for songs • Rubin (1977) • Participants recall more of the text when provided with the melody of a well-learned song ("Star Spangled Banner") than when given no cue

Transfer from STM to LTM • Consolidation • Integrating new information into stored information • Disruption of consolidation is studied in amnesiacs • ECT patients (Squire)

Principles to Strengthen Memory • Elaborative rehearsal is better than maintenance rehearsal • Distributed practice is better than massed practice • Spacing effect • Organizing information to enhance memory

Why Does Distributed Practice Work? • REM Theory • The more REM sessions following study sessions, the more consolidation that occurs • Multiple encoding contexts theory • Multiple study sessions lead to multiple types of encoding, thus more possibility of matching during test conditions

Prospective Memory • The ability to remember a future intention • Buying bread on your way home from work • Going to the dentist on Wednesday • Retrospective memory is memory of the past

Retrieval Processes • Getting information back out • Multiple processes can be used to enhance retrieval • Different strategies are used for short term storage and long term storage • Matching the type of processes done during encoding with the type of processes done at retrieval increases success

Retrieval from STM • Is the search serial or parallel? • Serial indicates one by one search • Parallel means all items are processed at once • Is the search exhaustive or self-terminating? • Exhaustive indicates that all items in the set are examined • Self-terminating means that after target is found the search stops

0 Studying Searching in STM • Saul Sternberg (1967) • Memorize a set of numbers (6,3,8,2,7) • Shown a probe digit • Participant must indicate if the probe was in the set • Reaction time to respond is measured 2 6,3,8,2,7 Yes

0 Sternberg (1967) • 3 critical factors manipulated • How many items were in the set the participants had to memorize • Whether the probe was in the list • The probe’s location in the set

Sternberg (1967) • Possible Result Patterns • A represents parallel processing • B illustrates serial processing • C illustrates exhaustive serial processing • D illustrates self-terminating serial processing

Sternberg’s Conclusion • A serial exhaustive model • But…. • Corcoran (1971) proposed that a parallel model could also explain the pattern found • Townsend (1971) stated it was mathematically impossible to distinguish parallel from serial • Thus, both models still exist

If You Do Not Retrieve from LTM… • Has the memory disappeared? or • Is the memory still there but cannot retrieve it (available, but not accessible)?

Paired associate List 43-house 67-dog 38-dress 77-sissors Cued recall test 43- ________ 67- ________ Two week delay Subjects recalled 75% of items on list But focus was on 25% they forgot. Evidence Supporting “Still There” Theory Nelson (1971)

Nelson (1971) Critical Manipulation If participants forgot “38-dress” and “77-sissors” then participants relearned either same pairs or changed pairs The better performance of participants in the same condition indicate that there was some memory left for “forgotten” items. Otherwise both groups would remember the same amount.

What Contributes to Forgetting? • Decay theory • Memory is weakened with disuse • Interference theory • Proactive: old memories interfere with recall of new information • Retroactive: new memories interfere with recall of old information

0 Retroactive Interference from LTM The experimental group will remembers less material from the tested list A compared to the control group Information learned afterwards interferes with retrieval of List A.

Proactive Interference from LTM The experimental group remembers less material from the tested list B than the control group Information previously learned (list A) interferes with retrieval of List B

Your Cheatin’ Heart

Damn that Proactive interference!

Using a similar scenario, what would retroactive interference look like? Melissa?! Who’s Melissa?!

Flashbulb Memories • Some researchers propose that events that are particularly surprising or arousing will yield flashbulb memories • Where were you when the… • Challenger explosion occurred? • OJ verdict was read? • JFK was assassinated? • Bombing of the twin towers?

Flashbulb Memories • Some research proposes good memory for • Place where you learned of information • What you were doing when you heard it • Where you heard the information from • Emotions in self and others • The aftermath

Emotion and Memory • There is a strong relationship (.90) between the emotionality and vividness of memory • This does not mean that the memory is accurate • Emotional events seem to be less resistant to forgetting over time… • Perhaps they are perceived better • Perhaps we think about them more

Flashbulb Memory Results Neisser and Harsch (1992) • Tested immediate memory for Shuttle Explosion, and then tested it again 3 years later • There was little agreement with the two “memories” despite the confidence of the participants

Encoding Specificity • Memory is improved when information available at encoding is also available at retrieval

Encoding Specificity • Tulving (1983) • People encode the context with the target material • Physical match (class, diving, smell) • Emotional match (happy, depressed) • Understanding match (childhood amnesia, under the influence of drugs match)

State Dependent Learning

Mnemonic Strategies