Memory: Temporal Effects, Subjectivity, Retrospectivity-Prospectivity, and so much more!

Overview of talk

• Background and Introductions• Temporal aspects of memory– Activity

• Prospective memory– Overview– Activity– Experiment 1 review

Temporal Aspects of memory

• What is memory?• What is forgetting– Encoding?– Retrieval?

• What happens in between memories?– Interference?• What is interference?

– Emotion?– Information?

Temporal Aspects of memory

Activity (10 minutes)Write about an experience (1-2 paragraphs for each)

that occurred or will occur:(1) 5 years ago(2) 5 day ago(3) 5 days from now(4) 5 years into the future

Once you are done, lets hear from you all!!!

Temporal Aspects of memory

• Episodic memory– Memory of autobiographical events…A type of

declarative memory• Solomon Asch: – “the very meaning of a message can change as a

function of the source to which it is attributed.”– The meaning of the statement is dependent on not

only who says it, but also on how the recipient of the message interprets it.

• How subjective are our memories?

Trope & Liberman, 2011

Construal Theory

• Solomon Asch: – “that the very meaning of a message can change

as a function of the source to which it is attributed.”• “A little rebellion….is a good thing”

Construal Theory

• Solomon Asch: – “that the very meaning of a message can change

as a function of the source to which it is attributed.”• “A little rebellion….is a good thing”

Temporal Aspects of memory• Construal: person perceives, comprehends, and interprets

the world around him or her.• Construal level theory (CLT) proposes that we do so by

forming abstract mental construals of distal objects. – we cannot experience what is not present, we can make

predictions about the future, remember the past, imagine other people’s reactions, and speculate about what might have been.

– Predictions, memories, and speculations are all mental constructions, distinct from direct experience.

What are mental constructions?

Trope & Liberman, 2011

Temporal Aspects of memory

• Psychological distance is egocentric– Its reference point is the self

• Transcending the self in the here and now entails mental construal, and the farther removed an object is from direct experience, the higher (more abstract) the level of construal of that object.

• Similar distances from reference point are related to each other

• “Subjective reality impacts person”

Trope & Liberman, 2011

Mental Construals – Temporal Aspects

5 days ago5 years ago 5 days from now 5 years from now

More abstract Less abstract More abstract

Trope & Liberman, 2011

Prospective Memory

• Overview (Give me a description…It seems you all know by now)

• Activity (in groups of 3-5 people)– Develop a theory of prospective memory– Draw a diagram of how it might work• Create an experiment

– Dependant variables?– Independent variables?

Prospective Memory

• Typical paradigm– Multiple Blocks

• Block 1 (Baseline)– Ongoing task (LDT)

• Block 2 (PM Blocks)– Ongoing task (LDT)– PM task

– What makes it difficult?– Types of processing

» Semantic» Orthographic

– Effort = Depletion of cognitive resources

Dependent Measures-Response Times

(in ms)Low EffortHigh Effort

-Ongoing Task Accuracy (in proportions)

Low EffortHigh Effort

-PM Task Accuracy (in proportions)

Low Effort

High Effort

Prospective Memory

Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)• Cue focality

– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval

Prospective Memory

Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)• Cue focality

– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval

– Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP)• Match in processing• Mismatch in processing

Prospective Memory

Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)

• Cue focality– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval

– Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP)• Match in processing• Mismatch in processing

– Effects of Effort (Marsh et al., 2005)• High Effort = lower performance• Low Effort = high performance

Prospective Memory

Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)

• Cue focality– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval

– Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP)• Match in processing• Mismatch in processing

– Effects of Effort (Marsh et al., 2005)• High Effort = lower performance• Low Effort = high performance

Why so many theories?

Prospective Memory Experiment

• BAM! Let’s throw all of these ideas together!– Why? Because we can?.....Well yes, and it might

provide insight into what ACTUALLY happens in the real life???• That is called ecological validity!

• Transfer Appropriate Processing & Effort– What happens when we manipulate:• Difficulty (processing types)• Cognitive resources/depletion (effort)

Flow of Experiment

Baseline LDT (Block 1)

Semantic Instructions

Distractor (2 min)

Semantic PM Block (Block 2)

Orthographic Instructions

Distractor (2 min)

Orthographic PM Block (Block 3)

CounterbalancedWithin-subjects

Always first block

LOW EFFORT

hatch

sploof

house

MED EFFORT

roos

front

bail

HIGH EFFORT

blue

shirt

shorr

Flow of Experiment

Baseline LDT (Block 1)

Semantic Instructions

Distractor (2 min)

Semantic PM Block (Block 2)

Orthographic Instructions

Distractor (2 min)

Orthographic PM Block (Block 3)

LOW EFFORT

hatch

sploof

house

MED EFFORT

roos

front

bail

HIGH EFFORT

blue

shirt

shorr

Dependent Measures-Response Times***

(in ms)Low EffortHigh Effort

-Ongoing Task Accuracy (in proportions)

Low EffortHigh Effort

-PM Task Accuracy (in proportions)

Low Effort

High Effort

Results – PM Accuracy

Main Effect of Condition: F(1,38)=22.88, p<.001, η2=.376

TAP conditions (M=.78, SE=.03) regardless of effort have significantly higher PM accuracy than TIP conditions, M=.59, SE=.03, p<.001.

MATCH MISMATCH0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Experiment 1 - PM Performance

LOW EFFORTHIGH EFFORT

*

Results – Ongoing Task PerformanceWhat distribution do we typically use? Hint hint…Central Tendency….

Results – Ongoing Task PerformanceWhat distribution do we typically use? Hint hint…Central Tendency….

Two Parameters: MEAN and VARIANCE (STANDARD DEVIATION)

Results – Ongoing Task PerformanceAccording to the Worst Performance Rule (Coyle, 2003), slower RTs are more predictive of cognitive functioning (e.g., IQ)

Three Parameters: MEAN and VARIANCE (STANDARD DEVIATION) AND TAU

The ex-Gaussia

n Distribution

Results – Ongoing Task Performance

BASELINE MATCH MISMATCH0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Experiment 1 - RT - Mu (μ)

LOW EFFORTHIGH EFFORT

A main effect of Effort, F(1,28) = 10.03, p = .004, hp2

= .264 . No other MEs or Interactions were significant.

Results – Ongoing Task Performance

BASELINE MATCH MISMATCH0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Experiment 1 - RT - Tau (τ)

LOW EFFORTHIGH EFFORT

A main effect of PM Task Type was significant, F(2,56) = 19.09, p < .001, hp

2 = .405. No other MEs or Interactions were significant.

Results – Ongoing Task Performance

Conclusions

Match in processing resulted in higher PM cue detection.

Monitoring occurred during MATCH in processing ONLY when cognitive resources were depleted (High Effort) AND for all MISMATCH conditions.

The t parameter showed differences between PM conditions that the m and s did not.

PM performance and processes are affected by processing type and the amount of available cognitive resources.

Critical Question(s)

Is this really how the brain/mind works?

Seriously???

Any other questions???

Drew Abney

dhabney@ilstu.edu