Semantic Memory cont. Reconstructive Memory

Semantic Memory cont. Reconstructive Memory
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?

Compound Cue Models 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 These models are mentioned in CH 12, but more fully explained in CH 11, which I pulled out of your reading. Context = related concepts EX: “A canary is a bird” - stored concept of canary is retrieved with cue bird and when you learned about canaries, you probably learned they were birds.

Semantics as Exemplars
Instance theory: each concept is represented as examples of previous experience (e.g., Medin & Schaffer, 1978; Hintzman, 1986) Make comparisons to stored instances Typically have a probabilistic component Which instance gets retrieved for comparison dog Make comparisons to specific instances. In contrast to prototype theory, in which you make comparisons to the prototype rather than the specific instances Assumptions of model 1) Encoding of a memory is automatic, obligatory result of attention 2) Retrieval of a memory is automatic, obligatory result of attention (attending to something automatically triggers retrieval of associated instances). Retrieval may not always be successful, but it is initiated 3) Each encounter is encoded separately

Semantics as Prototypes
Prototype theory: store feature information with most “prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975) 1) chair 1) sofa 2) couch 3) table : 12) desk 13) bed 42) TV 54) refrigerator TV Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 if these are good examples of category: Furniture bed couch chair So an alternative account is to store the feature information, not at the highest level possible, but rather with the most prototypical instance (basic level category) table desk refrigerator

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 So an alternative account is to store the feature information, not at the highest level possible, but rather with the most prototypical instance (basic level category)

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?

Demo 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.

castle

England

throne

prince

royalty

valley

summit

molehill

glacier

butter

sandwich

thread

sewing

thimble

haystack

robber

burglar

sandals

soccer

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

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 (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

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 Bransford & Franks (1971)
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

Semantic Integration Bransford & Franks (1971)
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 Integration Bransford & 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

Schema Theory 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 ? 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.

Schema Theory Bower, Black, and Turner (1979) Restaurant Script
48% also included: Enter restaurant Give reservation name Order drinks Discuss menu Talk Eat appetizer Order dessert Eat dessert Leave a tip 73% of respondents reported these common events when going to a restaurant: Sit down Look at menu Order Eat Pay bill Leave

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 People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts are typical). 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.

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). 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? Scalpel Assistant Nurse Doctor Operation Hospital 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.

Schema Theory 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 ? Wrestling Prison Other
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. Wrestling Prison Other ?

Schema Theory ? Playing cards Playing music Other
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 cards Playing music Other ?

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.

Schema Theory 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 Story didn’t match British cultural stories so subjects remembered story in way that was consistent with that schema (of the stories they knew)

Schema Theory Bartlett (1932)
Story didn’t match British cultural stories so subjects remembered story in way that was consistent with that schema (of the stories they knew)

Schema Theory Bartlett (1932) Omissions: Normalizations:
Proportions of text propositions recalled after varying retention intervals (adapted from Bergman & Roediger, 1999) Bartlett (1932) When recalled by UK PPs: Some details changed More consistent with ‘Western’ schema 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) Story didn’t match British cultural stories so subjects remembered story in way that was consistent with that schema (of the stories they knew)

Schema Theory Conclusions:
Bartlett (1932) 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 Story didn’t match British cultural stories so subjects remembered story in way that was consistent with that schema (of the stories they knew)

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 Why do we study them?
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) Type of Evidence % guilty votes Eyewitness testimony 78 Fingerprints 70 Polygraph 53 Handwriting 34 Juries cannot tell the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate witness Accurate witness believed 68% of time Inaccurate witness believed 70% of time

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 84 Fashsing, 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

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 mph Collided mph Bumped mph Hit mph Contacted mph

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 Effect of misleading information on recall
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

Eyewitness Testimony Effect of misleading information on recall
Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978) Misinformation effect: People incorrectly claim to remember the misinformation (the yield sign) Immediate Consistent 75% Inconsistent 40% 2 week delay Inconsistent 20%

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)

Studied list words - Accurate memories

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 needle steal shoe butter queen hill thread robber hand food crown valley pin crook toe eat castle climb eye burglar kick sandwich England summit sewing money sandals rye throne top sharp cop soccer jam ruler molehill point bad yard milk prince peak prick rob walk flour royalty plain thimble jail 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
queen Example ruler crown throne prince England king jewel castle power royalty

Theoretical explanations
Activation-source monitoring Lure is consciously or unconsciously activated Activation is automatic High activation results in false recollection

Activation-source monitoring Memories for imagined events are attributed to other source Participants think they studied items they thought about Increased familiarity

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

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

Experiment 3 • 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 Drink: vodka The full list of 24 items is in the detailed instructions Subjects: find 3 willing participants Weapon: sword Fish: trout

Experiment 3 • 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 Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Fish: trout

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: Subject #1 Data Practiced # recalled % (divide # by 6) Non-practiced # recalled Control # recalled % (divide # by 12) Sample data Banana Guppy Orange Trout Lemon Ale Tomato Rum Club Vodka Sword Beer Bomb

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) Scoring: Subject #1 Data Practiced # recalled 3 % (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50% Non-practiced # recalled Control # recalled % (divide # by 12) Sample data Banana Guppy Orange Trout Lemon Ale Tomato Rum Club Vodka Sword Beer Bomb “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) Scoring: Subject #1 Data Practiced # recalled 3 % (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50% Non-practiced # recalled Control # recalled % (divide # by 12) Sample data Banana Guppy Orange Trout Lemon Ale Tomato Rum Club Vodka Sword Beer Bomb Don’t count “beer”, not on list “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) Scoring: Subject #1 Data Practiced # recalled 3 % (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50% Non-practiced # recalled Control # recalled 6 % (divide # by 12) 6/12 = 50% Sample data Banana Guppy Orange Trout Lemon Ale Tomato Rum Club Vodka Sword Beer Bomb Don’t count “beer”, not on list “drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”

Semantic Memory cont. Reconstructive Memory

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Semantic Memory cont. Reconstructive Memory"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Semantic Memory cont. Reconstructive Memory

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Semantic Memory cont. Reconstructive Memory"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback