Learning

1
Learning Memory

• 9. Retrieval processes I

2
Retrieval processes I
Essential (also for lecture 10) a) Baddeley,
ch. 11, b) Eysenck Keane, ch. 6 c) Anderson,
ch. 7, d) Blaxton 1989 e) Jacoby 1991
Release from RI
Episodic vs. semantic 2021-6
Generate recognise
Proactive Retroactive interference 1121-5
Disproof of GR
Forgetting as interference 1121-5
Encoding specificity
Disproof of ES
Depth of processing 1121-5
Transfer appropriate proc
Before
After
During
3
PSY1121-5

• Time versus intervening (similar) experiences as
  predictors of forgetting (Baddeley Hitch, 1977)

• Two rugby teams recalled games played in a
  season.
• General decline in recall over time/number of
  games (though some games are more memorable)
• Players had missed some games, so could compare
  number of games and elapsed time as predictors of
  forgetting
• Number of intervening games was the only
  significant predictor

In general, little positive evidence for
spontaneous decay of memory traces, but ample
evidence for interference.
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.

• If
• S learns List 1 to criterion
• Then learns List 2 to criterion
• Later recall of List 1 much worse than with no
  List 2 learning - retroactive interference
• Later recall of List 2 worse than with no List 1
  learning - proactive interference
• Implication retrieval difficulty increases when
  other similar material has been learned,
  regardless of the retention interval.

• Learn
• Hat -- China
• Foot -- Penguin
• Goal -- Notion
• etc.
• Test
• Goal -- ??
• Hat -- ??
• etc.

PSY1121-5
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.
• Cue-dependent forgetting.

Tulving Psotka (1971)
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)

• table
• DESK CHAIR LAMP PLATE
• 3. Make forced-choice recognition.
• DESK CHAIR LAMP PLATE
• 4. Cued recall
• glue-

• 1. List of 24 cue-target (lt1 FA) pairs e.g.
• glue-CHAIR
• 2. Generate four free associates from strong
  associate of target

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.
• GR 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 TT 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 (lt1 FA) pairs.
• dirty - CITY
• Immediate recall target with either
• same cue
• equally associated cue
• village - CITY
• no cue

Tulving Osler (1968)
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)
• regal -

13
Re-emergence of G R

• All cues are heteropalindromes.
• regal lager
• 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.
• Recognition Recall
• Exp. 0.52 0.38
• Ctrl. 0.55 0.18

15
Dual-route reconciliation

• Tulvings feature overlap view of retrieval is
  one retrieval process (direct retrieval).
• Bahricks 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)
MEMORY PROCESSES
EPISODIC (EVENTS)
SEMANTIC (MEANING)
PROCEDURAL (MOTOR)
PSY2021-6
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)
-
-
hot

• Context condition

cold
-
-
-
-
XXX

• No context condition

cold
-
-
-
-
hot

• Generate condition

????
-
-
20
Jacoby (1983)

• Two types of test phase
• Recognition of target words from distractors
• Perceptual identification
• - -

cold

21
Rationale

• Recognition
• Requires access to particular episode
• Episodic memory
• Context in training should help
• Perceptual identification
• 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
Unstudied scores .06 .27 .04 .25

• 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 testgt
• MORAL processing the meaning is better than
  processing surface form (unless, of course,
  details of surface form are what you are required
  to remember)

PSY1121-5
26
Tulving Assessment
27
What next?
Essential (also for lecture 10) a) Baddeley,
ch. 11, b) Eysenck Keane, ch. 6 c) Anderson,
ch. 7, d) Blaxton 1989 e) Jacoby 1991
No further previous lectures.