Textbook Notes (280,000)
CA (160,000)
Western (10,000)
PSYCH (5,000)
Chapter 6-7

Psychology 2135A/B Chapter Notes - Chapter 6-7: Artists And Repertoire, Guided Imagery, Umber

Course Code
Richard Brown

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 18 pages of the document.
Chapter 6: Memory Codes
-Memory codes – the representation used to store an item in memory
- Option to create different memory codes is particularly advantages when a memory
deficit limits the kind of memory codes that a person can create
-Auditory memory span - number of items recalled from short term memory following
an auditory presentation of items
oP.V. had selectively AMS being unable to repeat back auditory sequences longer
than two or three words
oUsed pair-association pairs to see impact on LTM, found the most challenging
task was to listen to eight pairs where the stimuli were words and the responses
were pronounceable nonwords
Control learned it in 10 trials while PV couldn’t remember any of it
o Possibility to visually encode the material partially compensates fro her
impaired AMS (when learning 8 visually presented nonword pairs)
oBeing able to use meaningful associations between words resulted in normal
-Orienting task – instructions to focus on a particular aspect (physical, phonemic,
semantic) of a stimulus (judgment task)
Levels of Processing
Emphasis on Coding Strategies
- Theory that proposes that “deeper” (semantic) levels of processing enhance memory
(Craik and Lockhart)
- C&L had three objectives: to examine the reason fro proposing multistore models, to
question the adequacy of such modes, and to propose an alternative framework in
terms of levels of processing
- Sensory store is preattentive in the sense that it occurs before perceptual recognition
- Sensory store provides a literal copy of the stimulus input but rapidly decays, not
possible to use a control process or strategy to maintain the store so info must be read
out using pattern recognition to reserve it in a more permanent store
- Enter STM the info must be attended to and described (stays here through verbal
rehearsal and continued attendance)
- Info entered into LTM through rehearsal
oOrganized according to meaning
- C&L argued
oThe capacity of STM was really more variable than Miller’s estimate of from five
to nine chunks
oThere is evidence fro visual and semantic codes in STM and for visual and
phonemic codes in LTM
oDecay rates vary considerably depending on the material being learned, ideally,
a single fast rate of decay rates for STM and single, slow rate of decay for LTM
would provide the strongest evidence for a spate STM and LTM
- Weakest part of theory is the variety of decay rates
- There are different ways to code material and that some memory codes are better than
- Preliminary processing is concerned with the analysis of physical features
- Later stages are concerned with pattern recognition and identification of meaning

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

- LoPT claims that analysis proceeds through a series of sensory states to levels
associated with pattern recognition to semantic associative stages
- Memory code and its persistence are by products of perceptual processing
- Not concerned with the structural components or stages of memory
Implication for Verbal Rehearsal
- Rehearsal depends on level of which the material is processed
- What happens when rehearsal is not used for learning/ are there different kids o
rehearsal to promote only some learning
- Experiment: students were told to listen to a series of word lists and at the end each list
report the last word beginning with a particular letter
oSee the vary lengths of time a word would have to be maintained in STM until
they heard another letter
oMaintenance rehearsal: rehearsal that keeps info active in STM
oIf MR results in learning the probability of recalling a word at end of experiment
should function of the length of time it was maintained in STM
oProbaibliy of recalling words was independent of length of time it was
maintained in STM
oShowed that rehearsal does not cause learning
oLoPV – knew they had to only hold in memory for short time, did not make
lasting memory codes
- Actors are expert analyzers not expert memorizers
The Hyde-Jenkins Experiment
- Incidental Learning Task – people given some material but are not told that they have
to learn it
- 1st experiment:
oOne group given an intentional learning task in which the subject were asked to
remember 24 words
oWords consisted of 12 pairs of primary associations (words that strongly
associate with each other)
oWords presented in random order with the restriction that primary associations
could not occur next to each other
oOther 3 groups were ILG who were not informed that they should remember
First group consider meaning of word, the last would consider the
Same effect as intentional learning
- Defined the %s as clustering – the number of associated pairs recalled together
divided by the total number of words recalled
Structural, Phonemic, and Semantic Processing
- Different levels of coding
oThe structural coding – questions asks to emphasize whether the word is in
capital letters
oPhonemic coding – encouraged by asking whether a word rhymes with
another (pronunciation)
oSemantic coding – a person must evaluate the meaning to answer correctly

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

- Criak and Tulving
oExpects memory to vary systematically
- Students askes which words had been presented during initial judgment task
oRecognized the more words when they had initially judged whether the word fit
into a sentence (semantic processing) and the fewest words whether the letters
were upper or lower (structural)
oRecognition was intermediate level when students had been asked whether one
word rhymed with another (phonemic)
oSupported prediction that retention would increase as processing proceeded
from the structural to the phonemic to the semantic
oSame for recall and recognition
oLittle impact on STM
oPhonological processing was the predominate code used in STM
- Cofounding between levels of processing and amount of time spent processing
- Good retention is caused by long response time the structural processing should now
result in better retention than the semantic processing
- It was too easy to account for differential rates of forgetting by appealing to the theory
oDifferences in rates of forgetting were caused by differences in levels of
processing without measuring the levels of processing
- Problem with sequence (structural to phonemic to semantic) is that is not necessary
- Does not tell us why some codes are more effective than others
oWhy are semantic codes better than phonemic codes/ phonemic codes better
than structural
Memory codes differ in how elaborate they are and more elaborate codes
result in better memory
More distinct codes result in better memory
Elaboration of Memory Codes
- Memory codes differ in the number and types of elaborations sorted in memory
oView assumes that people store much more than simply the items presented to
them, also store associations that help them remember the item
- Anderson and Redder propose that it is difficult to construct elaborations at the
structural or phonemic level
- Associations concerned with meaning
- Provides explanation of how differences can occur within a particular level of
- Can not account for difference in retention
- Three levels of sentence complexity (simple, medium and complex)
- After 60 judgments subjects asked to recall many words (shown original sentence and
asked to recall the word associated with each sentence)
oNoncued recall (first part)  without hints or cues
oCued recall (second part)  with hits or cues
- Sentence complexity had a significant effect on recalling words that did fit in that
oTrue for NCR and CR
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version