1. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions Amnesia/Implicit memory Memory for natural settings

2. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions Amnesia/Implicit memory Memory for natural settings

3. Materials Encoding Tasks Retrieval Tasks Subjects/Participants

4. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Level of Processing Read vs. Generate Organisation Subjective Experimenter-controlled Imagery/Picture vs. Words Repetition Massed vs. Spaced Picture

5. Level of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975) Visualshallow Phonemic Semantic deep

6. Level of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975) Example item: bear Visual-- in capital letters? Phonemic -- rhyme with care? Semantic-- a type of animal?

7. Level of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975) Visualshallow Phonemic Semantic deep Basic idea: Deeper processing better for memory.

9. Encoding Tasks (manipulations) Read vs. Generate Jacoby (1978); Slamecka & Graf (1978) Read trial: xxx – cold Read (in context): hot – cold Generate trial:hot – ???

10. Encoding Tasks (manipulations) Read vs. Generate Jacoby (1978) Slamecka & Graf (1978) Generate condition > Read condition(s) generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978)

11. Encoding Tasks (manipulations) Read vs. Generate Generate condition > Read condition(s) generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978) works for different generation rules antonyms (hot – cold) synonyms (icy – cold) rhymes (bold – c____) categories (sickness – c____) works for different tests recognition, cued recall, recall*

12. Encoding Tasks (manipulations) Read vs. Generate Generate condition > Read condition(s) generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978) What is enhanced by generation? (aside from the effort itself) Types of information Item-specific information (cold; the target itself) more important for recognition tests Cue-Target relationship (hot - cold) more important for cued recall and free recall tests Target-target (one target to another) more importatn for free recall tests

13. Organisation Subjective

14. demo

15. Organisation Subjective participants organise information on their own know this by examining recall protocols same words get recalled together in a cluster measure of organisation – clustering (Tulving, 1962)

16. Organisation Experimenter-controlled Categorical structure (Bower et al., 1969) presented 112 words manipulation: random vs. organised presentation 4 study-test phases free recall after test

17. Random: silver, alloys, granite, copper, ruby, stones, bronze, minerals, etc. Organised: Minerals MetalsStones Rare CommonAlloysPreciousMasonry silver copperbronzerubygranite gold ironsteelemeraldmarble

18. Number of items recalled across tests. Test 1 2 3 4 Random 20.6 38.9 52.8 70.1 Organised 73.0 106.1 112 112

19. Number of items recalled across tests. Test 1 2 3 4 Random 20.6 38.9 52.8 70.1 Organised 73.0 106.1 112 112 Compared to a random presentation order, a well- organised presentation led to much greater recall performance. (Same effect for recognition in Exp. 2.)

20. Encoding Level of Processing Read vs. Generate Organisation Subjective Experimenter-controlled Imagery/Picture vs. Words Repetition Massed vs. Spaced Picture

21. Imagery/Picture vs. Words Dual – coding hypothesis (Paivio) Verbal code Imaginal code can use either code or both Picture

22. Imagery/Picture vs. Words Dual – coding hypothesis (Paivio) Verbal code Imaginal code Evidence: Picture superiority effect items studied as pictures better remembered than studied as words (occurs in recall and recognition) Picture

23. Imagery/Picture vs. Words Dual – coding hypothesis (Paivio) Verbal code Imaginal code More Evidence: Experiment on pairs of words (16 pairs) words could have high or low imageability values (e.g., high – easy to form an image; low – difficult to form an image) Picture

24. Dual – coding hypothesis (Paivio) More Evidence: Number of items recalled as a function of imagery- pair comination Imagery Mean Recall High-High11.5 High-Low 9.7 Low-High 7.2 Low-Low 6.4

25. Dual – coding hypothesis (Paivio) High imagery pairs thought to benefit from imagery encoding (verbal and imagery). Low imagery pairs thought be encoded only verbally. (Two codes better than one.)

26. Dual – coding hypothesis (Paivio) More Evidence: High imagery pairs thought to benefit from imagery encoding (verbal and imagery). Low imagery pairs thought be encoded only verbally. Asked subjects what they thought they did during the study phase: High-High pairs – “imagery” Low-Low pairs – “sentences”

27. Benefit of imagery compared to repetition Bower (1972) 5 lists of 20 word pairs (concrete nouns) Two conditions Interactive imagery Repetition (rehearsal)

28. Benefit of imagery compared to repetition Bower (1972) 5 lists of 20 word pairs (concrete nouns) Two conditionsImmediate Recall Interactive imagery75% Repetition (rehearsal)45% (Note: better performance on a delayed test, too)

29. Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Level of Processing Read vs. Generate Organisation Subjective Experimenter-controlled Imagery/Picture vs. Words Repetition (next lecture) Massed vs. Spaced Picture