Retrieval of memories

1
Retrieval of memories

• I. Explicit measures of recall
• II. Study-test interactions
• III. Implicit memories

2
I. Are the memories there?

• Nelson (1978) and savings
• Learn paired associates, such as 43-dog
• Wait until both recall and recognition memory
  fail
• Measure trials to learn 43-dog vs. 43-house
• Is all forgetting retrieval failure?

3
Why is recognition memory easier than recall
memory?

• Cued recall vs. free recall
• Access to cues as category labels Tulving and
  Psotka (1971)
• Recognition memory two context cues
• Recall memory One context cue

4
Recall vs. recognition Memorize the following
words

• then that also list each
• word more just much need
• call them ones food only
• sofa eggs cats test dart
• duck pill scat miss free

5
Recognition test Select the words from the
following list

• too good they also free more
• tend that there just test
  holy
• word much call ones each then
• dogs into eggs spill dart list
• that need thou them food hats
• only sofa will cats pill
  duck
• sips scat mister stuck unto miss

6
Mnemonic methods

• Generate-recognize Stories
• Pegword method
• Cue reliability is crucial
• Method of loci

7
Is recognition easier than recall?

• Mnemonic methods affect recall more than
  recognition.
• Intentional memory shows a similar effect
  relative to incidental memory.
• The difference is due to the availability of cues
  and the difficulty of the distractors.

8
II. Study-test interactions

• Context-dependent memory
• State-dependent memory
• Mood-dependency and mood-congruency
• Encoding-specificity hypothesis (Tulving, 1975)
• Memories are associated to specific cues.
• Memory is best if the learning cues are present
  at test.

9
A different model

• The variants on the encoding-specificity
  hypothesis focus on cues.
• Bransfords transfer-appropriate processing
  focuses on processes rather than cues.
• Semantic associates vs. phonetic rhymes
• Target word run
• Study jog-run vs. bun-run
• Test race-? vs. sun-?

10
Morris, Bransford Franks (1977) results

• 1. Semantic processing (race-?) showed better
  recall.
• 2. Recall was better when test process matched
  study process than when study and test processes
  were reversed.

11
Reconstructive and inferential memory

• We infer what we cannot recall about a story from
  what we can recall.
• As we make inferences, we engage in elaborate
  processing.
• As the elaborately processed inferences are
  available at recall, we benefit from
  transfer-appropriate processing.
• Elaboration must happen while learning.

12
A danger in inferential processing

• Once we process inferences, we find it difficult
  to remember whether an item was actually studied
  or inferred a sort of positive transfer.
• Intrusions can be added at test (Helen Keller)
• Failure to distinguish inferences from
  experiences distorts eyewitness testimony and
  clinical recollection.
• DID and inferred abuse experiences

13
III. Explicit vs. implicit memory

• Feeling of knowing/ Tip-of-the-tongue
• Accurately predicts eventual recognition
• TOT words recalled better than non-TOT words when
  primed with the initial letter
• TOT words have a shorter tachistoscopic threshold
• Jeopardy effect
• Hit the buzzer in 1.7 sec, begin answer in 2.5
  sec
• Feeling of knowing is 90 accurate.
• This is an example of implicit memory.

14
Familiarity

• Experiencing an item creates record strength
• Items with record strength are subjectively
  familiar
• Familiarity speeds recognition of targets
• Familiarity slows rejection of distractors
• Familiarity breeds false alarms
• Familiarity increases belief Mere exposure
  effect and propaganda

15
Priming effects

• Prior exposure increases retrieval accuracy
• Priming helps implicit memory more than explicit
  memory
• Priming may strengthen records without
  strengthening associations

16
Procedural memory

• Effective solutions without conscious processing
• Procedural knowledge without declarative
  knowledge
• Motor memory Typewriter keyboard

17
Amnesia

• Brain damage areas
• Cortex Specific agnosias
• Hippocampus Anterograde amnesia
• Surgery cases H.M.
• Alzheimers disease
• Korsakoffs syndrome

18
Selective amnesia

• Hippocampal damage produces anterograde amnesia
  for free recall
• Primed memory (cued recall and word completion)
  are not affected, however.
• Procedural learning is better than declarative
  learning
• Hippocampal damage mainly affects explicit,
  declarative memory

19
Bransford Franks results
0.4
Semantic test
0.3
Proportion of words recalled
0.2
Rhyme test
0.1
Semantic
Rhyme
Study Condition