Memory Exam 2

Front 1

What is the difference between the Ebbinghaus and Bartlett approach to studying memory?

Back 1

Ebbinghaus ran carefully controlled experiments in the laboratory, he was criticized for focusing on narrow issues and phenomena, and largely ignored how memory works in the real world. Bartlett studued recall of complex material (e.g drawings, folk tales), he examined recall errors, stressed participants' effort after meaning, assumed schemas: stored knowledge used to make sense of new material, and influenced by social and cultural factors.

Front 2

Episodic Memory

Back 2

Memory that allows you to access specific events located at a particular point in time.
"Mental time travel"
bacward: to relive earlier episodes, forward: to anticipate future events.

Front 3

Semantic Memory

Back 3

Generalized knowledge. May arise thru consolidation of numerous episodic memories.
(e.g. Conway et al.:
short delay: info recalled in episodes, long delay: same info integrated into semantic memory.

Front 4

Dual-coding hypothesis

Back 4

Imageable words can be encoded both in terms of:
visual appearance
verbal meaning
creating multiple retrieval routes improves odds of accurate recall.

Front 5

Cloze Technique

Back 5

Task: Ask individual to fill in sentences where every fifth word is missing(like Mad libs, e.g. "The dog chased his __")
Results: the more predictable the prose, the easier it is to recall.

Front 6

The importance of depth of processing to memory.

Back 6

The depth of processing helps determine the durability in LTM.
Deepest level of processing: contextual meaning.

Front 7

Craik and Tulving (1975)

Back 7

Task: Participants viewed words and were asked to make three different types of judgments:
visual processing
phnological
semantic
Finally, participants were asked to recognize the words they had seen before in a surprise test.
Results: Memory was better for words that were more deeply processed. Particularly for questions with a "yes" response.

Front 8

Does the levels-of-processing effect generalize to many situations?

Back 8

The levels-of-processing effect is found:
across numerous encoding tasks, on both recognition and recall tests, regardless of whether participants expect a final test.
its limits:
not necessarily processing speed, diff levels of processing can occur simultaneously, deeper processing does not always lead to better performance.

Front 9

Morris, Bransford, & Franks (1977)

Back 9

tested the principle of thhe transfer-appropriate processing principle.
task: participants made either a phonological or semantic judgment about each item on list, learning was incidental; participants didnt know they would be tested later, final test was either a standard recognition test for learned words, a rhyming recognition test for learned words.
Results: standard recognition test: deeper processing led to better performance
rhyming recognition test: shallower rhyme-based encoding task led to better performance because ot matched the testing situation.
Conclusion: Match between learning and testing context is very importnat.
follow up studies show that deeper encoding typically leads to better memory.

Front 10

Mandler (1967)

Back 10

Task: participants get a deck of cards with a word on each and are divided into four groups, and asked to do one of the following:
learn words, sort cards into categories based on meaning, sort cards by meaning knowing that they'll be tested, arrange words in columns.
Results: sorting by meaning with/out knowledge of test produced similar recall level, worst recall was found for incidental learning group-arrange into columns
Conclusions: as long as you're paying attention to the material, intention doesn't matter, but level/type of processing does matter.

Front 11

HERA (Hemispheric Encoding and Retrieval Asymmetry hypothesis)

Back 11

Verbal encoding is supported by the left frontal region, episodic retrieval is supported by the right frontal region.

Front 12

How are concepts organized in semantic memory?

Back 12

Assumes semantic memory is organized by semantic relatedness.
measures relatedness: "how related are these two words (e.g. bird-canary)?
what examples of birds can you think of? more people that come up with certain member, the more related they were

Front 13

Spreading activation model

Back 13

When a person encounters a concept, that node is activated. then activation spreads to related concepts.
it decreases as it gets further away from initial point of activation(i.e. weakly related items).
explains typicality effect
predicts semantic priming.

Front 14

What is DRM illusion?

Back 14

Deese-Roediger-McDermott Paradigm:
Behavioral results: participants tend to mistakenly recognize the missing target word, consistent with spreading activation model.
Neuroimaging Results: the pattern and intensity of brain activity was the same for correctly recognized items as for incorrectly identified, related words.

Front 15

Grandmother cell hypothesis

Back 15

semantic memories are repressed in brain as whole objects.

Front 16

feature-based approach

Back 16

different kinds of info about a given object are stored in separate brain regions.
this is becoming more popular.

Front 17

Schemas

Back 17

well-integrated chunks of knowledge about the world, events, people, or actions. strongly influence memory, allow us to form expectations, allow us to draw inferences/fill in gaps, enhancing understanding.

Front 18

Scripts

Back 18

Knowledge about events and consequences of events.

Front 19

Palmer

Back 19

Schemas and Visual scenes;
Probability of identifying an object is facilitated when it is an expected context and inhibited when context is inappropriate.
contexual match condition:
kitchen-bread
no context condition:
mailbox
contexual mismatch condition:
kitchen-mailbox

Front 20

Brewer & Trevens

Back 20

studied schema-driven memory errors in incidental memory, by walking particpants into a naturalistic setting.(an office)
schema-consistent objects(desk,calendar)
schema-inconsistent objects(toys, a skull)
things missing(like books)
participants were then surprised with a test asking them to:
recall all objects they could remember, recognize items actually in the office from those that were not.
Results: participants recalled more schema-consistent than inconsistent items. they recognized more objects than they recalled.
conclusion: schemas lead to errors in memory, schemas are often used as a retrieval mechanism to facilitate recall.

Front 21

Consistency bias

Back 21

people tend to remember info consistent with their own views better than inconsistent info.