chapter 11 forgetting. memory internal record or representation of past experience not necessarily...
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter 11
Forgetting
Memory
• Internal record or representation of past experience
• Not necessarily the same as the original experience
Comparative Psychology View of Memory
• Not experiences stored or retrieved
• Experience’s ability to change an organism’s behaviour under certain conditions
• Stimulus control
Forgetting
• Deterioration in learned behaviour following a period without practice
• Defined behaviourally
• Note: extinction is not the same as forgetting
Measuring Forgetting
• Training
• Waiting for some period (“retention interval”)
• Testing
Free Recall Method
• Train, wait, test
• Performance deterioration?
• “All-or-nothing” test of behaviour
• May not be appropriate for complex tasks
• Some elements remembered, others not
Prompted (Cued) Recall
• Give prompts to increase likelihood of behaviour
• Number of prompts needed?
Relearning Method
• Reinstall original training procedure after retention period
• How many trials (or time) needed compared to original training to return to initial level of proficiency?
Recognition Method
• Subject only has to identify material previously learned
• E.g., distinguish between original stimulus and a number of distracter stimuli
Delayed Matching to Sample
• Show S+
• Wait
• Choose from S+ and S-
Sample
Delay
Matching
Extinction Method
• Train two subject groups
• Put both on extinction, but one has delay between training and extinction and the other doesn’t
• Compare rate of extinction
Gradient Degradation Method
• Establish stimulus control
• Measure generalization gradient over time
• If generalization gradients flatten: forgetting
Variables in Forgetting
Retention Interval
• Time between learning and testing
• Greater the interval, less retained (i.e., more forgetting)
• But, time is not an event (time doesn’t account for forgetting)
• Need causal factors
Degree of Learning
• Overlearning
• Learn to asymptote, then keep training
• Point of diminishing return
Prior Learning
• Meaningful material easier to retain than random material (e.g., learning katas)
• Prior experience important in determining what is meaningful (e.g., words in known or unknown language)
DeGroot (1966)
• Arranged chess pieces in legal patterns on board
• Chess masters and novices; 5 seconds to observe
• Masters reproduced arrangement 90% of time, novices only 40%
• Is this prior experience, or do chess masters forget less than other people?
Chase & Simon (1973)
• Chess pieces placed randomly on board
• Masters no better than novices at recall
• Past learning of “legal” arrangements is what increased masters’ performance in deGroot (1966) study
Proactive Interference
• Previous learning interferes with recall
• Paired Associate Learning (PAL) technique– Subjects learn paired lists, tested with 1 item and
must recall second– All learn A-C list, but some previously learned
A-B list– In testing, give A and ask to recall C– Those with A-B learning have more difficulty
recalling C when given A
Proactive PAL Design
Experimental Group
Phase 1 (A-B) Phase 2 (A-C) Phase 3 (C?)
apple-ball apple-comb apple-???
aardvark-birch aardvark-car aardvark-???
atom-banana atom-cod atom-???
ant-bomb ant-cream ant-???
Phase 1 (N/A) Phase 2 (A-C) Phase 3 (C?)
apple-comb apple-???
aardvark-car aardvark-???
atom-cod atom-???
ant-cream ant-???
Control Group
Levine & Murphy (1943)
• Proactive interference with attitudes
• Students read pro- and anti-communism passages
• Students who had prior pro-communist attitudes forgot anti-communist elements of passages but remembered pro-elements (and vice versa)
• Attitudes not innate; effect of prior learning
Subsequent Learning
• Inactivity during retention interval leads to less forgetting than activity
• Implies forgetting partly based on learning new material
Rec
all (
%)
100
50
Hours after learning tested
0 2 4 6 8
sleep
awake
Retroactive Interference
• New learning interferes with ability to recall earlier learning– PAL technique– Subjects learn A-C, but some then learn A-B– Test by giving A and recalling C– Subjects who learned A-B have worse recall
for C
Retroactive PAL Design
Experimental Group
Phase 1 (A-C) Phase 2 (A-B) Phase 3 (C?)
apple-comb apple-ball apple-???
aardvark-car aardvark-birch aardvark-???
atom-cod atom-banana atom-???
ant-cream ant-bomb ant-???
Phase 1 (A-C) Phase 2 (N/A) Phase 3 (C?)
apple-comb apple-???
aardvark-car aardvark-???
atom-cod atom-???
ant-cream ant-???
Control Group
Context
• Learning occurs in a context
• Various stimuli around the learner
• These stimuli serve as cues to evoke a behaviour
• If stimuli absent, may have cue-dependent forgetting
• Stimulus control
Perkins & Weyant (1958)
• Train two groups of rats in two mazes, one black, one white
• 1 minute retention interval
• Half of each group tested in original maze, half in maze of opposite colour
• Opposite colour rats did poorly compared to original maze tested rats
Kamin (1957)
• Gave rats avoidance learning, tested at various retention intervals.
Avo
idan
ce (
%)
Retention Interval (hr)
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84
100
50
State-Dependent Learning
• Train under a particular physiological state (e.g., drug condition) and test under various states
• Recall best when in the same state as training
Application: Foraging
• Finding food
• Cache: food store
• Retrieval of food later
• Spatial memory
• Wide variety of species
• Accuracy can be quite high for very long times
Application: Eyewitness Testimony
• Notoriously poor
• Basic issue of retention interval and forgetting
• Also the nature of the question used to retrieve information
Loftus & Zanni (1975)• Subjects watched film of auto accident• Asked “Did you see <the>/<a> broken headlight?”• “the” subjects twice as likely as “a” subjects to say
“yes”• Actually, no broken headlight shown• Reinforcement history• Previous conditioning: “the” (definite article)
implies presence; “a” implies possible presence
Learning to Remember
• In essence, improving learning
• Practice increases retention
• Overlearning
• Mnemonics
• Context cues
• Prompts