episodic memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory ) encoding

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory)

EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)


Materials

EncodingTasks

RetrievalTasks

Subjects/Participants

Encoding / Retrieval Paradigm

Retrieval

Test 1 Test 2

Condition 1 Encoding

Condition 2

Encoding / Retrieval Paradigm Retrieval

Test Test Condition 1 Condition 2

Condition 1 Encoding

Condition 2


Encoding x RetrievalLevel of Processing

transfer of processing

Cues during study and testweak vs. strong vs. none

own cues vs. others’ cues

Picture

Morris, Bransford, & Franks (1977) Study phase: Level-of-processing (LOP) manipulation 2 levels: rhyme condition, semantic condition (category)

Test phase: Test manipulation 2 tests: rhyme test, semantic test (standard recognition)

Rhyme teste.g., for studied word, bear was there a word that rhymed with care?

Standard recognition test thought to tap conceptual (semantic information); e.g., was bear presented?

Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep condition(semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test

Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case)regardless of the type of test

Results: Test

Rhyme Semantic

Rhyme .49 .63

Encoding Semantic .33 .84

Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case)regardless of the type of test

Results: Test

Rhyme Semantic

Rhyme .49 .63


Evidence against level of processing theory.

Level of processing theorypredicts better performance in deep LOP condition (semantic encoding condition, in this case) regardless of the type of test

Results: Test

Rhyme Semantic

Rhyme .49 .63


Alternative theory

Transfer of processingMemory performance will vary depending on the

amount of overlap in processing from study to test. The greater the overlap in the mental processes engaged during encoding and retrieval, the better the performance should be.




Cues (context) during study and testweak vs. strong vs. none


Picture

Cues during study and test: weak vs. strong vs. none

Tulving and Osler (1968)3 study conditionsPs studied 24 words in one of three conditions (1) alone (chair) (2) with weak associate (leg – chair) (3) with strong associate (table – chair)

Cues during study and test: weak vs. strong vs. none

Tulving and Osler (1968)3 study conditionsPs studied 24 words (1) alone (chair) (2) with weak associate (leg – chair) (3) with strong associate (table – chair)

3 test conditions (1) no cues (free recall) (2) weak associate (leg -- ) (3) strong associate (table -- )

Tulving and Osler (1968)3 x 3 design (9 conditions)

Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone Study Weak

Strong

Tulving and Osler (1968)

Number of words recalled by study and test condition.

Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5

Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0



Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5

Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0

No benefit of a second word during encoding for free recall test.



Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5

Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0

Strong associate retrieval cuehelps a bit if word studiedalone



Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5

Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0

Strong associateretrieval cueclearly helps if the same strong associate was presented during study



Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5

Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0

But not a goodretrieval cue if study word waspaired with a weak associate



Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5

Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0



Test

Alone Weak Strong

Alone 11.7 10.3 16.3 Study Weak 7.1 19.8 5.5

Strong 12.0 5.7 20.0

Performance best when study and test cues match!



Encoding specificity principleRetrieval cues are effective to the extent that

features in the cue overlap/match those in the memory trace.



Encoding specificity principleRetrieval cues are effective to the extent that

features in the cue overlap/match those in the memory trace.

Note: Transfer of processing based on encoding specificity principle—the difference in 1977 (e.g., Morris, Bransford, & Franks) is subtle. Later, transfer of processing becomes more developed by other researchers and the name changes slightly.




Cues during study and testweak vs. strong vs. none


Picture

Cues during study and testown cues vs. others’ cues

Mäntylä (1986)Ps saw 504 words over 3 days (168 words each day)

group 1 – generate 1 property for each word e.g., banana: split

group 2 – generate 3 properties for each worde.g., banana: yellow, split, nose

incidental learning: didn’t know they would be testedPicture

Mäntylä (1986)Ps saw 504 words over 3 days (168 words each day)

group 1 – generate 1 property for each wordgroup 2 – generate 3 properties for each word

Day 3 – surprise recall test for 252 wordsgroup 1 – get 1 property as retrieval cue

half: own property half: someone else’s property

group 2 – get 3 properties as retrieval cues half: own properties half: someone else’s properties

Mäntylä (1986)

Proportion of words recalled by number of properties and type of test cues (properties).

Test Cues (properties)

Someone Own Else’s

# of properties 1 .61 .11generated

3 .91 .55

Mäntylä (1986)

Test Cues (properties)

Someone Own Else’s

# of properties 1 .61 .11generated

3 .91 .55

Own cues better than someone else’s; 3 cues better than one cue; 91% recall with own 3 cues!

Mäntylä (1986)

Two important aspects for recall performance(prerequisites for perfect recall performance)

1) distinctiveness of cues

2) compatibility of retrieval cues to study context

Extra Info – not on testBreaking down results into separate components:

Test

Rhyme Semantic

Rhyme .49 .63Encoding

Semantic .33 .84

Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations?

Test

Rhyme Semantic


Semantic .33 .84

Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation? NoEffect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations?

Test

Rhyme Semantic

Rhyme .49 .63 .55Encoding

Semantic .33 .84 .59

Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation? YesInteraction of study and test manipulations?

Test

Rhyme Semantic


Semantic .33 .84

.41 .74

Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations? Yes compare opposite corners: .67 vs. .50

Test

Rhyme Semantic


Semantic .33 .84

Breaking down results into separate components:Effect of study (encoding) manipulation?Effect of test (retrieval) manipulation?Interaction of study and test manipulations?

Does the pattern of results change across test conditions? Plot a line graph. Do the lines cross?

Rhyme test Semantic test

SemanticLOP

RhymeLOP

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory)


episodic memory (memory for episodes; also called autobiographical memory ) encoding

Documents

rhyme condition

test manipulation

study weak strong tu

better performance

study phase

study conditionsps

level of processing

weak associate leg chair