Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Paivio
|
• Paivio (1965)
Manipulation • List 1: abstract words • List 2: concrete words o Dual-code hypothesis • Imaginable words can be encoded both in terms of: Verbal meaning Visual appearance Procedure • Subjects learned noun pairs with concerete (C) and/or abstract (A) words and recalled them • 4 types CC: book/table CA: chair/justice AC: freedom/dress AA: beauty/truth o Predictions • Dual-code hypothesis (Paivio’s idea) says concrete words should be remembered better than abstract words • Strongest test: CC vs. AA o Results • Graph shows decreasing performance as abstract words were introduced into word pairs (even if it was put before a concrete word in a pair, the abstract/concrete pair was harder to recall than a concrete/abstract pair) o Interpretation: • Concrete words are better remembered b/c they’re encoded verbally and in your imagination • Having created multiple retrieval routes improves odds of successful recall • Concrete first word in a pair acts as a mental anchor for second word (abstract word) |
|
|
Craik & Lockhart
|
• Which type of rehearsal is better?
• Levels-of-processing hypothesis: Information can be processed on a variety of levels, from the most basic (visual form), to phonology, to the deepest level (contextual meaning) Visual→Phonology→Semantics (meaning) *The deeper the task, the better the memory Memory should not be affected by intentionality You can be doing deep processing without intending to remember • E.g., reading for leisure |
|
|
Hyde & Jenkins
|
Is there evidence for LOP?
Method 2 learning conditions • Intentional vs. incidental 4 cover tasks at study: • Does the word contain E or G? • Is the word a noun or verb? • How common is this word? • How pleasant is this word? Predictions? • No difference between learning conditions • Deeper the task, the better the recall o Expect best performance in pleasantness task o Expect worst performance in E or G task Results • On average, no effect of intentionality • Memory performance increases as the cover task becomes “deeper” Conclusion • Results supported LOP • It’s important to think about the meaning of what you’re trying to learn |
|
|
Morris, Bradford, & Franks
|
Question: what happens when we combine shallow and deep study manipulation with shallow/deep test
1. TAP: Shallow Shallow > Deep Shallow and Deep Deep> Shallow Deep 2. LOP: Deep study will be better regardless of test type a. Deep/(anything) > Shallow/(anything) Procedure: study conditions vs test conditions Results 1. With a Deep test: Deep better than shallow studying 2. With a Shallow test: shallow better than deep studying Conclusion 1. Transfer Appropriate Processing supported but not perfect 2. Compatibility is key |
|
|
Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada
|
Question: are people more likely to remember info that is relevant to SURVIVAL?
Method: 1. 3 groups rated 30 unrelated words a. Rated according to survival b. According to moving c. According to pleasantness 2. Free recall Result 1. Judging relevancy to survival is associated with superior memory performance Conclusion 1. There are techniques even more effective than pleasantness |
|
|
Bower
|
Prediction: distinguish between dual-code hypothesis and relational organizational hypothesis
Methods/Procedure: SS given strategy for learning word pairs 1. Rote rehearsal 2. Separate images 3. Interacting images Results: 1. Interacting images worked best for memory 2. No difference btwn rote and separate images Conclusion Relational Organization hypothesis supported |
|
|
Smith, Rips, and Shoben
|
• Procedure
Participants were given a category, and then had to decide if each word belonged to the category Overlap between word and category • Predictions The less overlap, it takes longer to decide if a statement is true or not • Results It took less time to decide if a statement was true when there was high overlap, and longer time for less overlap • Interpretation 1st pass: compare all features 2nd pass: Only compare defining features (takes longer) |
|
|
Neely
|
• Neely (1977)
o 3 manipulations • Instructions to participant Bird: Target, decide if second word/target is a word • Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) Amount of time between onset of 1st word and 2nd word • Congruency between participants’ expectations and what they actually saw Incongruency happens when the words are unrelated o Results • Responses to “bird-robin” faster than “bird-arm” o Conclusions • Why are they faster? 2 possibilities They were expecting bird names after the instructions “bird” activated “robin” o 2nd experiment: new instructions, same procedure (first word is body, second word is a part of a building) • body-door? If primed- due to subjects’ expectations • Body-heart? If primed, due to spreading activation • Results Priming for associated words occurs when both words are presented simultaneously Priming for expected words occurs after subjects have some time to think • Interpretation 2 types of priming Automatic- 0 milliseconds Strategic- 2000 ms • Automatic: more relevant to the model |
|
|
Read and Bruce
|
Study to determine how people resolve their TOT state
Method When cued subjects had to give the names of famous entertainers If a subject resolved their TOT they reported how they did it. Results Environmental cuing and others were more prevalent. Few pop ups |
|
|
Burke, MacKay, Worthley, & Wade
|
Method
Diary study Subjects were to record the times when they were in a TOT state and how they resolved it. Results Pop ups more likely |
|
|
Jones & Langford
|
Study done to test the frequency of incomplete activation vs blocking
Method Step 1 Put people in a TOT state Definitions used to cue responses Step 2 When in TOT state give them hint Words related to the target Predictions for both were as follows Incomplete activation Able to resolve TOT because the target was in reach Blocking Fail to resolve TOT because the search is being blocked. Results Presentation of related words decrease the likelihood of TOT |
|
|
Marian and Neisser
|
Study
Do memories become more successful when linguistic environment at retrieval matches the environment at encoding Method Two sessions English and Russian Subjects received cue in one language and were told to generate a memory from their past in that language Conclusion Memories generated tended to be from the same language Memories are easier to access when retrieval takes place in the same mode as encoding |
|
|
Brown and McNeil
|
Subjects were asked to indicate weather they were in tot state
If so guess or indicate any available info about the word Results Participants were better able to recall associated info that the actual test word. |
|
|
Godden & Baddeley
|
Study was to see if environment played a roll in retrieval
Results Memory learned on land was best recalled on land Memory learned underwater was best recalled under water |
