Study Guides (400,000)
CA (160,000)
U of G (8,000)
PSYC (1,000)
Midterm

PSYC 2650 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Anterograde Amnesia, Asteroid Family, World War Ii


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 2650
Professor
Karl Hennig
Study Guide
Midterm

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 15 pages of the document.
LONG TERM MEMORY
Episodic memory: remembering parts of one’s life; autobiographical memory; particular thing that
happened at a particular time
o Recalling memories from a specific time
Semantic memory: things you are aware of; based on knowledge, not personal experience
History
Herman Ebbinghaus
o Wrote “On Memory” in 1885
o At the time introspection was the normal method of study
o The way he studied memory was not popular; ahead of his time
o Pioneer in the study of memory
o Before Ebbinghaus people started with formed ideas and looked backwards to find the
source
o He studied how memory developed
o Was able to bring many variables under scientific control
o E studied how memory developed by introducing something the subject knew noting about
and developed the memory from scratch; controlled the exposure to the memory
o Resembles how learning was studied by behaviourists
Ebbinghaus and Experimental Control
o To-Be-Remembered Stimuli
No prior experience with the memory
Meaningless; with no semantic associations to avoid the use of memory strategies to
help the individual remember/ make associations
Non-Sense Syllables: consonant-vowel-consonant
Pronounceable but not a known word (experiments were conducted in German)
o Independent Variables
Retention Interval: time interval over which the subject has to remember the
information
Longer retention intervals are bad for memory because memory fades with
time
List Length
More thing to remember have a negative result on memory
Extended Practice (over learning)
Serial Order
Being exposed to a memory in a certain order leads to the expectation that
when exposed to the memory again, it will be shows in the same order
o Dependent Variable
Retention savings
Example Ebbinghaus Experiment
o Study list of nonsense syllables
o Measure study time for 2 perfect recitation
o Independent variable: retention interval (ranging from 20min to 31 days)
o Relearn list after retention interval and re-measure study time for two perfect recitations
o Measure how much time it took to remember something perfectly
o Study time in the second occasion would be shorter
o Calculating Retention Savings: savings= study time before RI study time after RI
Study time before RI
o Retention interval 20min
Study time before RI= 1000 sec
Study time after RI= 400 sec
Savings= ](1000-400)/1000]x 100 = 60%

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Ebbinghaus Forgetting Function
o Function that captures retention interval as the independent variable (x axis) and retention
as the dependent variable (y axis)
o Memory decay is not a linear function
o Rapidly loss of information, then asymptotes
o 30% savings measure: after 30% retention, we remember that information for an extended
period of time (long term memory)
Extended Practice
o After learning the list until two perfect recitals, recite list 30 more times
o Using a 24 hour retention interval, his savings in relearning this overlearned list was 64%
compared to the 34% from normal learning
o Overlearning has almost doubles retention savings
Serial Order
o Strength of the association between adjacent items on the list
o Direction of associations: forward and backwards
o Forward association: expectation of what comes afterwards
o Backwards association: expectation of what comes before
o Ex: track listing on a CD
o Example list: MEV, GOR, DUX
Forward association: would presenting MEV evoke GOR?
Backward association: would presenting GOR evoke MEV?
o Experiment:
Learned 3 lists of 8 stimuli
Then relearned each list under different conditions
Same order, reversed order, random order
o If forward associations exist, then savings on relearning the same list would be greater than
savings for a random list
o If backward associations exist, then savings on relearning the reversed list would be greater
than savings for a random list
o Results: forward and backward associations both exist, but forward associations are
stronger
Same: 33%
Reversed: 12%
Random: 0%
Strengths in Ebbinhaus’ Approach
o Meticulous selection of stimuli
o Defining relevant independent variables
o Innovative dependent measures to measure strength of memory traces
Problems with Ebbinhaus’ Approach
o Some non-sense syllables may have meaning (eg. Dux= ducks)
o He used himself has a subject
o Representativeness? : can he be considered a representation of the population?
o Expertise? : did he have too much experience with the subject?
o Bias? : did his own opinions reflect the results of his experiment?
Ebbinhaus’ Contributions to Cognitive Psychology of Memory
o Encoding
Extended practice
List length
o Storage
Forward and backward associations
o Retrieval

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Retention interval
EPISODIC MEMORY
Memory Encoding
Factors that affect whether something gets stored in the Long Term Memory
Primacy effect is because of quantity of rehearsal, what about quality?
Elaboration: something more creative that just repeating information to yourself
o Quality of practice is important for memory encoding
o Involves embellishing a to-be-remembered item with additional information
o If memory is embellished with other qualities, it is easier to remember
o Building on memory trace makes it easier to remember because an interconnected series of
memories can help to trace back and activate the original memory
o Task: remember simple sentences like “The doctor hated the lawyer”
Two study conditions
Elaborative: generate an elaboration “because of the malpractice suit”
Control: just read and study the sentence
Memory test: complete the sentence
Cued recall: finishing the sentence; cue to allow participant to remember the
rest of the phrase
Free recall: no cue to encourage the recollection of the memory
Results: recall of the elaboration might lead to recall of the work when word would
otherwise not be recalled
Elaborative: 72% recall
Control: 57% recall
o Embellishment has to be done by the participant for it to have the effect
o Self generating the embellishment increases the chance of remembering the information
o Meaningful Elaboration: deep, meaningful processing of to-be-remembered information
leads to a better memory than shallow processing
Not all elaborative encoding is equal; meaningful elaboration is more successful
Levels of processing (studied at U of T)
Deep level of processing: really have to associate semantic value to the information
Task: read pairs of associated words
Two types of associations: semantic vs. rhymes
Results: 81% semantic recall and 70% rhyme recall
Nature of the association is different
Shallow associations like rhyming don’t include any semantic meaning or relevance
o Self Reference:
Test: kind, rigid, brave, selfish
Does this word have an e? (shallow processing)
Does this word describe you? (deep processing)
o In the shallow processing, words don’t necessarily commit to memory because it doesn’t go
through enough processing
o Deep processing requires more processing
Intention: commitment to trying to remember and encode information
o Test: subjects saw a list of 24 words at 3 words per second
Two task conditions:
Deep: rate pleasantness of the word
Shallow: check for “e” or “g” in the word
Two learning conditions
Intentional: you will be given a memory test
Incidental: naïve about memory test
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version