episodic memory (memory for episodes) encoding retrieval encoding x retrieval interactions...
TRANSCRIPT
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)
EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)
EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings
Materials
EncodingTasks
Retrieval Tasks/Conditions
Subjects/Participants
Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards
Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition
Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding
Attention – Full vs. Divided
Response Deadline/Response Signal DelayShort to Long
Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards
Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition
Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding
Attention – Full vs. Divided
Response Deadline/Response Signal DelayShort to Long
Instructions – any part old vs. old only if exact match of study word
Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968)
Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs;
e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ?
Criterion: perfect twice consecutively
RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words) (
Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968)
Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs;
e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ? RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words)
Immediate RGN (89%) worse than recall (100%) (
Recognition memory
Feature-conjunction paradigm(Underwood & Zimmerman, 1973;Reinitz, Lammers, & Cochran, 1992)
try to recognise exact matches
rearrange components of studied itemsto form tricky lures on the test
Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied itemsto form tricky lures
Feature lures: part old, part new
Examples
Study: pardon OR vodka tealeaf OR buttercup
Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied itemsto form tricky lures
Feature lures: part old, part new
Examples
Study: pardon OR vodka tealeaf OR buttercup
Test: parka teacup
Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied itemsto form tricky lures
Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged
Examples
Study: pardon & vodka tealeaf & buttercup
Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied itemsto form tricky lures
Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged
Examples
Study: pardon & vodka tealeaf & buttercup
Test: parka teacup
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Typical pattern of “old” responses
old > conjunction > feature > new
Hits False Alarms (incorrect)
Conjunction effectConjunction error rate – new error rate
Feature effectFeature error rate – new error rate
Dual-process theories of recognition
Familiarity – fast process (automatic)
Recollection – relatively slow process (consciously controlled)
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection
Familiarity pushes one toward an error
Successful recollection (i.e. of a parent word) can allow one to avoid an error
Study: pardon & vodka tealeaf & buttercup
Test: parka teacup
Recollection of parent words:
par in pardon, not parka ka in vodka, not parka
tea in tealeaf, not teacup cup in buttercup, not teacup
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Recollection of parent compound words can be difficult but recollection-based rejections occur
(Jones & Jacoby, 2001; Lampinen, Odegard, & Neuschatz, 2004)
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Get feature and conjunction effects with nonverbal materials, too
face drawings, Reinitz et al. (1992) face photographs, Searcy et al. (1998) abstract drawings, Kroll et al. (1996)
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Hit – accomplished by familiarity or recollection
Miss – happens because of a lack of familiarity and a lack of recollection
False alarm – occurs due to influence of familiarity without recollection
Correct rejection – either lack of familiarity or recollecting that something similar (but different) was shown earlier
Feature-conjunction paradigm Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation
Divided attention (at encoding): identify number sequences while studying words recognise test words under full attention
Divided attention (at retrieval): process study words under full attention identify number sequences while recognising words
Full attention process study words under full attention recognise test words under full attention
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation
Reasoning: Dividing attention should take up resources, making it more difficult to use a controlled process
Predition: Dividing attention should lower hit rates.
Group
Full Div.-Study Div.-Test
Mea
n C
orre
cted
Pro
por
tion
of
"O
ld"
Res
pon
ses
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.0
OldConjunctionFeature
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Response signal delay (or response deadline) manipulation: Short vs. Long
Short – must respond quickly (under time pressure)
Long – have more time to respond
Reasoning: Less time to use the slower controlled process (recollection) in the recognition decisions
Prediction: Should lower hit rates
Table 2 Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type
Deadline GroupItem Type Long ShortOld .55 (.20) .34 (.21)Conjunction .23 (.18) .23 (.17)Feature .12 (.15) .14 (.11)
Table 2
Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type
Deadline Group
Item Type Long Short
Old .55 (.20) .34 (.21)
Conjunction .23 (.18) .23 (.17)
Feature .12 (.15) .14 (.11)
Feature-conjunction paradigm
Conclusion from divided attention and response signal delay manipulations
These manipulations hurt recollection but not familiarity
Deficit in recollection shown as a decrease in hits (in increase in feature and conjunction errors would provide even stronger evidence)
Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)
EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings