Mnemonic Strategies

  • View
    51

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Mnemonic Strategies. Chunking Method of Loci Peg Word Mnemonic. Chunking. Grouping elements into “chunks” Chase and Ericcson’s subjects Chunked digits into running times Remembered up to 82 digits! Not as effective as more elaborative strategies. Method of Loci. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of Mnemonic Strategies

  • Mnemonic StrategiesChunking Method of Loci Peg Word Mnemonic

  • ChunkingGrouping elements into chunks Chase and Ericcsons subjectsChunked digits into running timesRemembered up to 82 digits! Not as effective as more elaborative strategies

  • Method of LociBased upon visual imagery Imagine a grocery list (eggs, milk, cheese, bread, butter)

    Imaging items placed in a common scene

    To recall, mentally stroll through scene

    Bizarreness / distinctiveness

  • Peg Word MnemonicUses prememorized list (e.g., rhyme)

    One is a bun ==>

    Two is a shoe ==>

    Three is a tree ==>

    Four is a door ==>

  • AcronymsCreate word from beginning letters

    Create a limerick from beginning letters OOOTTAFAGVAH 12 Cranial nerves

  • Why Do Mnemonics Devices Work?Provide structure for learning Provide durable trace (less interference) Provide retrieval structure

  • Which Mnemonic is the Best?Roediger (1980)

  • Interaction of Encoding and Retrieval ProcessesAnderson & Pichert (1978)Participants read a story about the activities of two boys at home either from the point of view of a burglar or a homebuyerLater the participants were asked to remember as much as possible about the story they readThe point of view affected what participants recalledHomebuyers were more likely to remember that the basement was mustyBurglars were more likely to remember the coin collection and color TV

  • To Understand Memory ProcessesNeed to understand encoding processes, retrieval processes, and how they function together for short term storage (STM) and long term storage (LTM)

  • Encoding ProcessesCreating an acoustic codeWhat it sounds likeCreating a semantic codeWhat it meansCreating a visual codeWhat it looks like

  • Encoding Types and STMType of code may rely on type of task STM refers to memory that needs to be held temporarilyEvidence exists for a variety of encoding types for STM

  • Evidence for Acoustic Encoding in STMConrad (1964)Visually present a series of lettersAsk participants to write the order letters are presentedWhat types of errors are made?

  • Conrad (1964)Found evidence for the use of an acoustic code in STM Participants made acoustic errorsF for S, B for V, P for BNot visual errors E for F, O for Q, R for PParticipants encoded items acoustically even though stimuli were presented visually

  • Shulman (1970)Evidence for semantic encoding in STMParticipants viewed 10-word listsGiven a recognition test using visually represented "probe words" which were either: Homonyms - e.g. "bawl" for "ball" Synonyms - e.g. "talk" for "speak" Identical to the original word

  • Shulman (1970) ResultsThe Homonym and Synonym probes produced similar error rates - this suggests that an equal amount of acoustic and semantic processing must be taking placeHomonyms - e.g. "bawl" for "ball"

    Synonyms - e.g. "talk" for "speak"

    Identical to the original word

  • Posner & Keele (1967)Evidence for visual encoding in STMLetter matching taskTwo letters separated by brief intervalParticipant had to indicate if same letterA-aYesA-AYesA-M NoMeasure reaction time

  • Posner & Keele (1967) ResultsIf letters were the same visually (a-a) participants were faster than if the letters were not the same visually (A-a)Results indicate that visual code was also present for STM

  • Encoding Types & LTMType of code may rely on type of task LTM refers to memory that may be held permanently Evidence exists for a variety of encoding types for LTM

  • Semantic Encoding in LTMGrossman & Eagle (1970)Study 41 different wordsGiven recognition test after delay9 of the distractors were semantically related to words on list9 of the distractors were not False alarms for each type: 1.83 of synonyms, but only 1.05 of unrelated

  • Visual Encoding in LTMFrost (1972)Participants studied 16 drawingsManipulated visual orientation and semantic categoryAfter a delay, participants were asked if they had studied an object with the same name as the test object Reaction time was measuredParticipants responded faster to identical drawings than drawings in a different orientationThis result indicates visual encoding occurred

  • Acoustic Encoding in LTMEvidence of very long-term memory for songs Rubin (1977) Participants recall more of the text when provided with the melody of a well-learned song ("Star Spangled Banner") than when given no cue

  • Transfer from STM to LTMConsolidationIntegrating new information into stored informationDisruption of consolidation is studied in amnesiacsECT patients (Squire)

  • Principles to Strengthen MemoryElaborative rehearsal is better than maintenance rehearsalDistributed practice is better than massed practice Spacing effectOrganizing information to enhance memory

  • Why Does Distributed Practice Work?REM TheoryThe more REM sessions following study sessions, the more consolidation that occursMultiple encoding contexts theoryMultiple study sessions lead to multiple types of encoding, thus more possibility of matching during test conditions

  • Prospective MemoryThe ability to remember a future intentionBuying bread on your way home from workGoing to the dentist on WednesdayRetrospective memory is memory of the past

  • Retrieval ProcessesGetting information back out Multiple processes can be used to enhance retrievalDifferent strategies are used for short term storage and long term storageMatching the type of processes done during encoding with the type of processes done at retrieval increases success

  • Retrieval from STMIs the search serial or parallel?Serial indicates one by one searchParallel means all items are processed at onceIs the search exhaustive or self-terminating?Exhaustive indicates that all items in the set are examinedSelf-terminating means that after target is found the search stops

  • Studying Searching in STMSaul Sternberg (1967) Memorize a set of numbers (6,3,8,2,7) Shown a probe digitParticipant must indicate if the probe was in the setReaction time to respond is measured

    6,3,8,2,72Yes0

  • Sternberg (1967)3 critical factors manipulatedHow many items were in the set the participants had to memorizeWhether the probe was in the listThe probes location in the set

    0

  • Sternberg (1967)Possible Result Patterns A represents parallel processingB illustrates serial processingC illustrates exhaustive serial processingD illustrates self-terminating serial processing

  • Sternbergs ConclusionA serial exhaustive modelBut.Corcoran (1971) proposed that a parallel model could also explain the pattern foundTownsend (1971) stated it was mathematically impossible to distinguish parallel from serialThus, both models still exist

  • If You Do Not Retrieve from LTMHas the memory disappeared? orIs the memory still there but cannot retrieve it (available, but not accessible)?

  • Evidence Supporting Still There Theory Nelson (1971)Paired associate List43-house67-dog38-dress77-sissors

    Cued recall test43- ________67- ________

    Two week delay

    Subjects recalled 75% of items on list

    But focus was on 25% they forgot.

  • Nelson (1971) Critical ManipulationIf participants forgot 38-dress and 77-sissors then participants relearned either same pairs or changed pairsThe better performance of participants in the same condition indicate that there was some memory left for forgotten items. Otherwise both groups would remember the same amount.

  • What Contributes to Forgetting? Decay theoryMemory is weakened with disuseInterference theory Proactive: old memories interfere with recall of new informationRetroactive: new memories interfere with recall of old information

  • Retroactive Interference from LTMThe experimental group will remembers less material from the tested list A compared to the control group

    Information learned afterwards interferes with retrieval of List A.0

    Experimental groupLearn List ALearn List BDelayTest for Memory AControl groupLearn List A------------DelayTest for Memory A

  • Proactive Interference from LTMThe experimental group remembers less material from the tested list B than the control group

    Information previously learned (list A) interferes with retrieval of List B

    Experimental groupLearn List ALearn List BDelayTest for Memory BControl groupNo studyLearn List BDelayTest for Memory B

  • Your Cheatin Heart

  • Damn that Proactive interference!

  • Using a similar scenario, what would retroactive interference look like?Melissa?! Whos Melissa?!

  • Flashbulb MemoriesSome researchers propose that events that are particularly surprising or arousing will yield flashbulb memoriesWhere were you when theChallenger explosion occurred?OJ verdict was read?JFK was assassinated?Bombing of the twin towers?

  • Flashbulb MemoriesSome research proposes good memory forPlace where you learned of informationWhat you were doing when you heard itWhere you heard the information fromEmotions in self and othersThe aftermath

  • Emotion and MemoryThere is a strong relationship (.90) between the emotionality and vividness of memory This does not mean that the memory is accurate Emotional events seem to be less resistant to forgetting over time Perhaps they are perceived betterPerhaps we think about them more

  • Flashbulb Memory ResultsNeisser and Harsch (1992)Tested immediate memory for Shuttle Explosion, and then tested it again 3 years laterThere was little agreement with the two memories despite the confidence of the participants