Upload
pearl-bond
View
221
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PSY 368 Human Memory
Semantic Memory cont.Reconstructive Memory
Announcements
• Data from Experiment 3 due April 9 (Mon)• Experiment 3 Report due April 16
• If you missed the details of the Experiment, I included them again at the end of this lecture
• Optional reading for Monday is posted on Blackboard site (Media Library: Optional Readings):• Einstein, et al (2005) Prospective Memory article • Dr. Dawn McBride will be our speaker
Exam 2• … was hard!
• The mean % was 67.7%.
• The range of scores was from 41% to 92%
• So when interpreting your score, think “good job” if in the 80s and 90s and ‘okay’ if in the mid 60s to 70s.
• It was harder than I expected, so I am thinking about offering an additional, one-time-only extra credit option. I’ll get the details hammered out this weekend (probably another article and focus questions kind of thing)
Summary of Semantic Memory
• Semantic memory = knowledge• Some evidence for a separate system• Early models suggested hierarchical network - cognitive
economy• Results suggest no strict hierarchy or cognitive
economy• But current network models suggest loosened hierarchy
(spreading activation)• Other ideas: compound cues, prototypes, exemplars,
schemas
• What kind of impact is there of this organization on retrieval of memories?
• Alternatives to Spreading activation models• Examine mechanisms of priming and extent to explain of priming
effects
• Make predictions about performance in memory retrieval tasks
• Generally they are mathematical models that predict sets of results based on strength of cue associations
• There are a lot of models to choose from (see “optional chapter” for details)• In SAM (Search of Associative Memory), a matrix of association among cues
and memory traces, which are called images• Cues are assembled in a short-term store, or probe set, which is the match against all
item in memory
• In TODAM (Theory Of Distributed Associative Memory), to-be-remembered items are represented as vectors of features• Sum of vectors, convolution
• The resulting scalar can be mapped into familiarity and, in turn, into response time and accuracy
Compound Cue Models
Semantics as Exemplars
• Instance theory: each concept is represented as examples of previous experience (e.g., Medin & Schaffer, 1978; Hintzman, 1986)
dog
• Make comparisons to stored instances• Typically have a probabilistic
component• Which instance gets retrieved for comparison
Semantics as Prototypes
• Prototype theory: store feature information with most “prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975)
chaircouc
h
tabledesk
1) chair1) sofa2) couch3) table::12) desk13) bed::42) TV54)
refrigerator
bed
TV
refrigerator
Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 if these are good examples of category: Furniture
Semantics as Prototypes
• Prototype theory: store feature information with most “prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975)
• Prototypes: • Some members of a category are better instances of the
category than others• Fruit: apple vs. pomegranate
• What makes a prototype?• Possibly an abstraction of exemplars
• More central semantic features• What type of dog is a prototypical dog?
• What are the features of it?
• We are faster at retrieving prototypes of a category than other members of the category
Semantics as Prototypes
• The main criticisms of the theory• The model fails to provide a rich enough representation of conceptual
knowledge • Vague: How can we think logically if our concepts are so vague?
• Flexibility: How do our concepts manage to be flexible and adaptive, if they are fixed to the similarity structure of the world?• features have different importance in different contexts
• what determines the feature weights
• Individual differences: If each of us represents the prototype differently, how can we identify when we have the same concept, as opposed to two different concepts with the same label?
• Does membership = similarity?: Why do we have concepts which incorporate objects which are clearly dissimilar, and exclude others which are apparently similar?
• Before we start talking about constructive (integrative) and reconstructive memory, let’s do a demonstration.
• I will present you with a long list of words, which I’ll later test your memory for.
Demo
queen
crown
castle
England
throne
ruler
prince
royalty
power
hill
valley
climb
summit
top
molehill
peak
plain
glacier
butter
food
eat
sandwich
rye
jam
milk
flour
jelly
thread
pin
eye
sewing
sharp
point
prick
thimble
haystack
steal
robber
crook
burglar
money
cop
bad
rob
jail
shoe
hand
toe
kick
sandals
soccer
yard
walk
ankle
Name as many state capitals as you can
(1) Vermont
(2) New York
(3) North Carolina
(4) Alaska
(5) California
(6) Texas
(7) Maine
(8) Missouri
(9) Colorado
(10) Florida
(11) Washington
(12) Virginia
(13) New Mexico
(14) Oregon
Write Y or N for each word below to indicate if you saw it in the list (Y) or not (N)
(1) haystack (13) airplane (25) rye (37) thief(2) sandals (14) flow (26) melody (38) hill(3) fright (15) pretty (27) spider (39) power(4) weather (16) ankle (28) music (40) butter(5) sharp (17) awake (29) girl (41) foot(6) hot (18) doctor (30) bread (42) father(7) creek (19) frame (31) sweet (43) jagged(8) king (20) jelly (32) stream (44) door(9) thread (21) top (33) soft (45) throne(10) shoe (22) jazz (34) river (46) money(11) winter (23) sugar (35) jail (47) mountain(12) tide (24) needle (36) glacier (48) steal
(1) haystack (13) airplane (25) rye (37) thief(2) sandals (14) flow (26) melody (38) hill(3) fright (15) pretty (27) spider (39) power(4) weather (16) ankle (28) music (40) butter(5) sharp (17) awake (29) girl (41) foot(6) hot (18) doctor (30) bread (42) father(7) creek (19) frame (31) sweet (43) jagged(8) king (20) jelly (32) stream (44) door(9) thread (21) top (33) soft (45) throne(10) shoe (22) jazz (34) river (46) money(11) winter (23) sugar (35) jail (47) mountain(12) tide (24) needle (36) glacier (48) steal
Studied list words - Accurate memories
• Count up your correct Yes responses
(1) haystack (13) airplane (25) rye (37) thief(2) sandals (14) flow (26) melody (38) hill(3) fright (15) pretty (27) spider (39) power(4) weather (16) ankle (28) music (40) butter(5) sharp (17) awake (29) girl (41) foot(6) hot (18) doctor (30) bread (42) father(7) creek (19) frame (31) sweet (43) jagged(8) king (20) jelly (32) stream (44) door(9) thread (21) top (33) soft (45) throne(10) shoe (22) jazz (34) river (46) money(11) winter (23) sugar (35) jail (47) mountain(12) tide (24) needle (36) glacier (48) steal
Critical theme words - False memories• Count up your false Yes responses• Pay particular attention to the ones in
brown
Demo
• The task that we just did is called the DRM task• (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995)
• It is designed to create false memories • We’ll return to discussing this procedure later in
the lecture
Remembering larger chunks
• How do people acquire and remember ideas• Not individual sentences, but integrated
semantic ideas
Semantic Integration• How do people acquire and remember ideas• Not individual sentences, but integrated semantic ideas
Bransford & Franks (1971)
• Each idea grouping consisted of 4 separate simple propositions (a simple relationship between 2 concepts)• The ants in the kitchen at the sweet jelly that was on the table.
• The ants were in the kitchen• The ants ate the jelly• The jelly was sweet• The jelly was on the table
• Whether subjects responded OLD or NEW was not related to whether the sentence was old or new
• Confidence in memory was NOT related to accuracy
• Subjects “remembered” seeing complex sentences that captured the meaning of the simple sentences• The ants in the kitchen ate
the sweet jelly on the table
• The simple sentences were integrated into one sentence that captured the story’s gist
Semantic IntegrationBransford & Franks (1971)
• A composite memory • We store separate bits of info together to
the extent those bits are related to each other (semantic relatedness)
• Using what we already know (schemata & scripts) to understand new experiences in a conceptually-driven fashion
• Drawbacks: May lead to distortions when we try to remember and may not be technically accurate
• Advantages: Content accuracy is enhanced and thus we can remember complex, meaningful events
Bransford & Franks (1971)
Semantic Integration
• Scripts and schemas:• Knowledge is packaged in integrated
conceptual structures. • Scripts: Typical action sequences (e.g., going to the
restaurant, going to the doctor…)• Schemas: Organized knowledge structures (e.g.,
your knowledge of cognitive psychology).
• Enable us to predict events, make sense of unfamiliar circumstances, organize our own behavior
• Act as filters to perception & recall
Schema Theory
Schema Theory
?The mind takes in the impoverished sensory input and matches it to a schema derived from past experience. The schema is used to ‘fill in the blanks’ in the input and to give it a meaning. Your ability to ‘see’ what’s there depends on your having an appropriate schema.
• Restaurant Script
Schema Theory
• 73% of respondents reported these common events when going to a restaurant:• Sit down• Look at menu• Order• Eat• Pay bill• Leave
• 48% also included:• Enter restaurant• Give reservation
name• Order drinks• Discuss menu• Talk• Eat appetizer• Order dessert• Eat dessert• Leave a tip
Bower, Black, and Turner (1979)
• People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts are typical).
Schema Theory
• People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts are typical).
Schema Theory
• When people see stories like this:Chief Resident Jones adjusted his face mask while anxiously surveying a pale figure secured to the long gleaming table before him. One swift stroke of his small, sharp instrument and a thin red line appeared. Then an eager young assistant carefully extended the opening as another aide pushed aside glistening surface fat so that vital parts were laid bare. Everyone present stared in horror at the ugly growth too large for removal. He now knew it was pointless to continue.
• People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts are typical).
Schema Theory
• And you ask them to recognize words that might have been part of the story, they tend to recognize material that is script or schema typical even if it was not presented.
• Which of the following words appeared in the story?Chief Resident Jones adjusted his face mask while anxiously surveying a pale figure secured to the long gleaming table before him. One swift stroke of his small, sharp instrument and a thin red line appeared. Then an eager young assistant carefully extended the opening as another aide pushed aside glistening surface fat so that vital parts were laid bare. Everyone present stared in horror at the ugly growth too large for removal. He now knew it was pointless to continue.
• Scalpel• Assistant• Nurse• Doctor• Operation• Hospital
• When people are told the script or schema that is appropriate before hearing some material they tend to understand it better than if they are not told it at all or are told it after the material.
Schema Theory
Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being held, especially since the charge against him had been weak. He considered his present situation. The lock that held him was strong but he thought he could break it. He knew, however, that his timing would have to be perfect. Rocky was aware that it was because of his early roughness that he had been penalized so severely - much too severely from his point of view. The situation was becoming frustrating; the pressure had been grinding on him for too long. He was being ridden unmercifully. Rocky was getting angry now. He felt he was ready to make his move. He knew that his success or failure would depend on what he did in the next few seconds.
PrisonWrestling
Other
?
Schema Theory
Every Saturday night, four good friends get together. When Jerry, Mike, and Pat arrived, Karen had just finished writing some notes. She quickly arranged the cards and stood up to greet her friends at the door. They followed her into the living room and sat down facing each other. They began to play. Karen's recorder filled the room with soft and pleasant music. Her hand flashed in front of everyone's eyes and they all noticed her diamonds. They continued for many hours until everyone was exhausted and quite silly. Jerry made his friends laugh as he theatrically took a bow, entertaining them all with the wildness of his playing. Finally, Karen's friends went home.
Playing music
Playing cards
Other
?
Schema Theory
Schema Theory
• Potential “down-side” of schemata• Memory is not a direct record of what was witnessed• What is encoded and how it is retrieved depends on:
• Information already stored in memory• How this info is understood, structured and organized
• Reconstructive retrieval• Refers to schema-guided construction of episodic memories
that alter and distort encoded memory representations.• Reconstruction levels by losing details, assimilates by
normalizing to fit expectations, and sharpens by embellishing details.
• Bartlett (1932) • Read unfamiliar story “War of the Ghosts”• Then the subjects “re-told” the story• Looked at progressive changes in what
subjects remembered about the story• Remembered differently depending on
expectation
Schema Theory
• Bartlett (1932)
Schema Theory
• Bartlett (1932)
Schema Theory
• Omissions:
• Poor recall for many of the details (specific names, or events)
• Minor events were omitted (recall for main plot and sequence of events was not too bad)
• Shorter than the original
• Normalizations:
• Tendency to add and alter the stories to make them more conventional or reasonable (top-down processing)
• When recalled by UK PPs:• Some details
changed• More consistent
with ‘Western’ schema
Proportions of text propositions recalled after varying retention intervals (adapted from Bergman & Roediger, 1999)
Schema Theory
• Conclusions:• Human memory for this type of
material is NOT reproductive• A highly accurate, verbatim recording of an event
• Rather, it is reconstructive• Altered during BOTH storage and retrieval• Combining elements from the original material
with existing knowledge
• Bartlett (1932)
Reconstructive Effects
• Knowledge about a theme of a passage improves peoples memory for the passage• Providing a theme can also distort recall
Sulin & Dooling (1974)• Subjects read identical stories about:
• Carol Harris (fictitious) or Helen Keller• “Problem child from birth, wild, stubborn, violent…”
• Asked to identify if sentences were the same, nearly the same, or different from the story
Reconstructive Effects
• Knowledge about a theme of a passage improves peoples memory for the passage• Providing a theme can also distort recall
Sulin & Dooling (1974)• Subjects who read the Keller paragraph rated
sentences as the same more frequently when they matched their existing knowledge about Keller• Even though the original paragraph did not contain such
info• 1 week later: “Was she deaf, dumb, and blind?”
• 5% of Harris group said yes• 50% of Keller said yes
• The Keller groups’ “memory” of these stories was influenced by their knowledge of Keller
False Memories
• Memory is reconstructive• Errors of omission
• Transience, absent-mindedness, blocking
• Errors of commission • Misattribution, suggestibility, bias
• Why do we study them?• Like perceptual illusions, can give better
understanding of “normal” processes• Eyewitness testimony credibility• Recovered memories issue
Eyewitness Testimony
• Eyewitness Testimony• Reconstructive memory
• Schema driven errors
• Effect of leading questions
Eyewitness Testimony
• Persuasiveness • Most persuasive form of evidence
• Eyewitnesses believed ~80% of the time (Loftus, 1983)
• Juries cannot tell the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate witness• Accurate witness believed 68% of time• Inaccurate witness believed 70% of time
Type of Evidence
% guilty votes
Eyewitness testimony
78
Fingerprints 70
Polygraph 53
Handwriting 34
Eyewitness Testimony• Persuasiveness
• Juries cannot tell the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate witness
• Wells et al. (1998)• Studied 40 people who were convicted but later cleared
by DNA• In 90% (36) of the cases, there was false eyewitness
identification• Rattner (1988)
• Studied 205 wrongfully convicted defendants• 52% were due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony
• Brandon and Davies (1973)• Described 70 cases of people wrongfully convicted due
to inaccurate eyewitness testimony
Eyewitness Testimony
• Persuasiveness • Experimental studies
• Buckhout (1975)• Simulated crime on a TV newscast• 2,145 callers• 14.7% were accurate
• Buckhout (1974)• Staged assault on professor in front of 141
students• 7 weeks later, students shown line-up of six
photographs• 40% identified attacker• 36% identified bystander• 23% identified person not there
Eyewitness Testimony
• What do witnesses report?Attribute % Reporting % Accurate
Gender 99.6 100
Height 91.2 44
Clothing (upper body) 90.8 58
Clothing (head) 89.6 56
Build 84.4 57
Weapon 76.4 71
Clothing (pants) 73.6 53
Age 62.4 38
Type of speech 46.8 84Fashsing, Ask, & Granhag (2004)
Eyewitness Testimony
• Schema Driven Errors• Witnesses to crimes filter information during
acquisition & recall• Their schematic understanding may influence how
info is both stored & retrieved• Distortions may occur without the witness realizing,
based on things like:• Past experiences
• Assumptions about what usually happens
• Stereotypes & beliefs about crime & criminals
Eyewitness Testimony
• Interference paradigm• Information presented after an event can lead to
distortions• Post-event information can be incorporated into the
original memory• Misinformation effect
• are even found when participants are warned that misleading information might be presented
• Repeated exposure to misinformation strengthens memory about the misinformation
• Repeated questioning about an event can enhance recall of certain details and induce forgetting of others (also increases confidence in memory of the event)
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of leading questions on recall• Leading questions introduce new information • Leading info may activate wrong schemas in
witness‘ mind• Consequently, witness may recall events incorrectly
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of leading questions on recall
Loftus & Palmer (1974)• Showed film of car accident• Estimated speed• How fast were the cars going when they ____ into each
other? (smashed, hit, collided, etc)• ‘Smashed’ led to higher speed estimates
• Did you see a/the broken headlight?• ‘The’ produced more affirmative (incorrect)
responses
Smashed 40.8 mphCollided 39.3 mphBumped 38.1 mphHit 34.0 mphContacted 31.8 mph
Eyewitness Testimony
• Effect of leading questions on recall
• Most affected by leading Qs when:• Witness believes questioner knows more than
them• Witness does not realize they may be misled• Leading information is peripheral, not central• Leading information is not blatantly incorrect
Eyewitness Testimony
• Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978)• Saw slides of car turning to hit a pedestrian• Saw stop or yield sign• “Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was at
the ____ sign?” (consistent vs. inconsistent)• Recognition test for correct photo of car with sign
• Effect of misleading information on recall
Eyewitness Testimony
• Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978)• Misinformation effect: People incorrectly claim to
remember the misinformation (the yield sign) Immediate
Consistent 75%Inconsistent 40%
2 week delayInconsistent 20%
• Effect of misleading information on recall
Misattribution & Misinformation
• Genuine alteration for the original memory may be only one part of the memory distortion explanation
• Three important effects:• Source misattribution• Misinformation acceptance• Overconfidence in the accuracy of the
memory
Source Misattribution
• The inability to distinguish whether the original event or some later event was the source of the information (misremember what we have experienced)
• Did I remember the stop sign because it was actually in the picture?
OR• Because I thought about the the sign when I heard the
questions?
Misinformation Acceptance
• Accepting additional information as having been part of an earlier experience without actually remembering that information (form memories on the basis of suggestion from some other source)
• Do I remember the car speeding because it was?
OR• Because the policeman said it was?
• Tendency grows stronger as more time elapses
Overconfidence in Memory
• Overconfidence comes from two factors:• Source Memory: Memory of the exact source of
the information (original event, later information, or general knowledge of the situation)
• Processing Fluency: The ease with which something is processed or comes to mind (remember “sleep” too easily for you to have imagined it)
Overconfidence in Memory
• We are surprisingly unaware of how unreliable our memory can be and overly confident in the accuracy of our memories
Roediger & McDermott (1995) study• DRM paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger &
McDermott, 1995)• Creates false memories in the lab• DEMO (like the task that we saw Schacter
give Alan Alda)
(1) haystack (13) airplane (25) rye (37) thief(2) sandals (14) flow (26) melody (38) hill(3) fright (15) pretty (27) spider (39) power(4) weather (16) ankle (28) music (40) butter(5) sharp (17) awake (29) girl (41) foot(6) hot (18) doctor (30) bread (42) father(7) creek (19) frame (31) sweet (43) jagged(8) king (20) jelly (32) stream (44) door(9) thread (21) top (33) soft (45) throne(10) shoe (22) jazz (34) river (46) money(11) winter (23) sugar (35) jail (47) mountain(12) tide (24) needle (36) glacier (48) steal
Studied list words - Accurate memories
(1) haystack (13) airplane (25) rye (37) thief(2) sandals (14) flow (26) melody (38) hill(3) fright (15) pretty (27) spider (39) power(4) weather (16) ankle (28) music (40) butter(5) sharp (17) awake (29) girl (41) foot(6) hot (18) doctor (30) bread (42) father(7) creek (19) frame (31) sweet (43) jagged(8) king (20) jelly (32) stream (44) door(9) thread (21) top (33) soft (45) throne(10) shoe (22) jazz (34) river (46) money(11) winter (23) sugar (35) jail (47) mountain(12) tide (24) needle (36) glacier (48) steal
Critical theme words - False memories
DRM Paradigm
• The lists rely on properties of semantic association
• Words that are similar in meaning or co-occur in language are associates
• Activation of a concept spreads to related concepts in the network
DRM Paradigm
• The lists rely on properties of semantic association
thief foot bread king mountain needlesteal shoe butter queen hill threadrobber hand food crown valley pincrook toe eat castle climb eyeburglar kick sandwich England summit sewingmoney sandals rye throne top sharpcop soccer jam ruler molehill pointbad yard milk prince peak prickrob walk flour royalty plain thimblejail ankle jelly power glacier haystack
DRM Paradigm
Roediger & McDermott (1995)
• Recall: ~ 40% recalled “sleep”
• Recognition: Remembering the lure (sleep) during recall strengthened participants memories of the lure during recognition• Participants claimed to
“remember” the lure rather than merely “know” it had been on the list
DRM Paradigm
• Recent studies indicate it is very robust• Replicated may times
• Explicit warnings fail to eliminate the effect• May see a reduction in the effect
• As the number of list items increases, rate of false recollection increases (Robinson & Roediger, 1997)
Spreading Activation Model
Example
power
castlejewel
ruler
prince
throne
royalty
England
crown
queen
king
Theoretical explanations
• Activation-source monitoring• Lure is consciously or unconsciously activated• Activation is automatic • High activation results in false recollection
Theoretical explanations
• Activation-source monitoring• Memories for imagined events are attributed
to other source• Participants think they studied items they
thought about• Increased familiarity
Theoretical explanations
• Fuzzy-trace theory• Information is encoded in two formats
• Gist - meaning• Verbatim - details
• List memory = verbatim + gist• Lure memory = gist only
• Scripts
- We use knowledge about known events to fill in missing info
Theoretical explanations
Individual differences
• Young children are less susceptible to DRM paradigm• Have not yet developed associations
• But they are easily influenced by suggestive questioning
• Older adults are more susceptible to the illusion• Rely more on gist than verbatim traces
Recovered Memories
• A person remembers a traumatic event from many years ago
• The memory was “repressed”, but is now recovered in therapy• Intentional forgetting of painful or traumatic
experiences• Little empirical evidence for this type of
forgetting (could have the opposite effect)
Recovered Memories
• Therapies included…• Hypnosis (uses imagery, suggestive
questioning, & repetition)• Guided Imagery (for now, just imagine that
you were abused by your father)• Body Work (recovering memories from your
muscles)• Drug Therapies (sodium amytal, mostly)
Recovered Memories• 1990’s: A big spike in cases of people in therapy
recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse • Often early abuse (e.g., infancy)
• “Courage to Heal”: General premise that we were all abused as children, we need help to remember • Even if there is no evidence and we have no recollection of
being abused
• San Diego Reader: Ads identifying symptoms of abuse• Headaches, depression, eating disorders, urinary tract
infections
Recovered vs. false memories
• Several techniques to recover memories also can create false memories• Hypnosis• Repeated retrieval attempts• Guessing (The courage to heal)• Imagination• Repeated exposure to stories of abuse
Recovered memories
• Could some of the recovered memories be false?
• If it is possible to create false memories, then some recovered memories might be false
Recovered memories• McNally (2003) – review of several studies
• Identified 4 groups• Repressed memory• Recovered memory• Continuous memory• Control
Recovered memories• McNally (cont.)
• No differences in terms of personality traits between continuous & control
• Repressed scored higher than all other groups in terms of negative affectivity
• Repressed also reported more dissociative & PTSD symptoms
• Repressed & recovered scored higher in terms of fantasy proneness
Recovered memories
• Recovered are more likely than control to develop FM in laboratory paradigms
• Clancy et al. (2002)• Ss reported being abducted by aliens• Exhibited robust FM effects
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Modification of Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork (1994)• (see Blackboard Media Library Optional Readings to
download a pdf of this paper if you want to read more)
• Question: Can the retrieval of some items impact the retrieval of others?• e.g., Suppose that you are studying for a test. You
decide to study half the material. Does studying half the material have an impact on the half of the material that you didn’t study?
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Stimuli: 4 categories• Drinks, Weapons, Fish, Fruits• Six exemplars from each category• Write out category and exemplar on index cards
Experiment 3
• The full list of 24 items is in the detailed instructions
• Subjects: find 3 willing participants
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases• Study phase: subs will study all categories and exemplars
• Shuffle all of the cards, read Study phase 1 instructions, present each card to subject for 3 seconds in random order
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases• Practice phase: subs will attempt to remember some of
the studied items (half from 2 of the categories) by coming up with exemplars with cues (category and first letter)• Give practice phase recall sheet to subject, Read practice
phase instructions to subject, give subs category and first letter (see ordered list in detailed instructions) and give them 15 secs to practice it before moving to next item
• “drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases• Distractor phase: complete a city generation task
• Read distractor phase instructions, Give distractor US Cities Task sheet
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Procedure: 4 phases• Test phase: free recall of all studied items (by
category)• Read test phase instructions, give recall test response
sheets (1 for each of the 4 categories)• Give 30 seconds for recall for each category
Experiment 3
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Experiment 3
Subject #1 Data
Practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Non-practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Control # recalled
% (divide # by 12)
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Experiment 3
Subject #1 Data
Practiced # recalled 3
% (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50%
Non-practiced # recalled
% (divide # by 6)
Control # recalled
% (divide # by 12)“drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Experiment 3
Subject #1 Data
Practiced # recalled 3
% (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50%
Non-practiced # recalled
3
% (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50%
Control # recalled
% (divide # by 12)“drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”
Don’t count “beer”, not
on list
• Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard)
• Scoring:
Experiment 3
Subject #1 Data
Practiced # recalled 3
% (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50%
Non-practiced # recalled
3
% (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50%
Control # recalled 6
% (divide # by 12) 6/12 = 50%“drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”
Don’t count “beer”, not
on list