1. Chapter 6: Memory Retrieval PowerPoint by Glenn E. Meyer, Trinity University ©2004 Prentice Hall Cognition – 2/e Dr. Daniel B. Willingham

2. ©2004 Prentice Hall 2 Why is Memory Retrieval Unreliable? Measures of MemoryMeasures of MemoryMeasures of MemoryMeasures of Memory Sensitivity of Memory MeasuresSensitivity of Memory MeasuresSensitivity of Memory MeasuresSensitivity of Memory Measures Differences in CuesDifferences in CuesDifferences in CuesDifferences in Cues Encoding and Retrieval ReduxEncoding and Retrieval ReduxEncoding and Retrieval ReduxEncoding and Retrieval Redux Retrieval cues & the Physical EnvironmentRetrieval cues & the Physical EnvironmentRetrieval cues & the Physical EnvironmentRetrieval cues & the Physical Environment Identical Cues, Different Memories?Identical Cues, Different Memories?Identical Cues, Different Memories?Identical Cues, Different Memories? Retrieval and Prior KnowledgeRetrieval and Prior KnowledgeRetrieval and Prior KnowledgeRetrieval and Prior Knowledge

3. ©2004 Prentice Hall 3 Measures of Memory Important Terms – Ways to Measure Memory:Important Terms – Ways to Measure Memory:  Free Recall A way of testing memory in which the experimenter provides no cues other than the time and place in which the memory was encoded (e.g., “Tell me the words I read to you an hour ago”).  Recognition Task Method of testing memory in which the experimenter presents the participants with the to-be-remembered material along with other material that was not initially encoded (distractors). The participant must select the to-be-remembered items from among these other items.  Distractors, foils Items that appear on a visual search experiment trial that are not the target item that the participant is to find. Also used Glossary in recognition memory experiments to denote incorrect responses. Synonyms of distractor in memory experiments are foil and lure.  Savings in Relearning A way of testing memory in which the participant learns some material (e.g., a list of words) to a criterion (e.g., can recite the list twice without error). After a delay, the participant must relearn the list to criterion again. If the participant can reach criterion in fewer trials the second time, he or she has shown savings in relearning. Generally true that recognition is easier than cued recall which is easier than free recall.Generally true that recognition is easier than cued recall which is easier than free recall.

4. ©2004 Prentice Hall 4 Sensitivity of Memory Measures Free recall not a very sensitive testFree recall not a very sensitive test Important Terms:Important Terms:  Sensitivity: the ability of a test to detect memories that are in the storehouse Important Studies/TheoriesImportant Studies/Theories Tulving and Pearlstone (1966)  Cued recall better than recall  On a repeated cued recall test after a free recall test, subjects remember many more items Hart (1965, 1967) Subjects unable to recall general knowledge questions were able to recognize the answer 50%Subjects unable to recall general knowledge questions were able to recognize the answer 50%

5. ©2004 Prentice Hall 5 Differences in Cues Different measures of memory provide different cuesDifferent measures of memory provide different cues Important Terms:Important Terms:  Context : Information about the time & place in which memory was encoded  As seen in Table 6.1  Free Recall A way of testing memory in which the experimenter provides no cues other than the time and place in which the memory was encoded (e.g., “Tell me the words I read to you an hour ago”).  Cued Recall: A way of testing memory in which the experimenter provides the participant the time and place in which the memory was encoded as well as some hint about the content of the to-be-remembered material (e.g., “Tell me the words I read to you an hour ago. One of them was something to eat.”). Recognition: Method of testing memory in which the experimenter presents the participants with the to-be-remembered material along with other material that was not initially encoded (distractors). The participant must select the to-be-remembered items from among these other items.

6. ©2004 Prentice Hall 6 Differences in Cues - Continued Strength View of MemoryStrength View of Memory The idea that memories vary in how strongly they are represented, and more strongly represented memories are easier to retrieve. More cues needed to retrieve weak memoriesThe idea that memories vary in how strongly they are represented, and more strongly represented memories are easier to retrieve. More cues needed to retrieve weak memories Important Study/TheoryImportant Study/Theory Tulving (1967) – demonstrated problems with strength view of memory  Found subjects remembered new items and forgot already recall items over successive tests.  This is incompatible with strength view

7. ©2004 Prentice Hall 7 Encoding and Retrieval Redux Memory can be retrieved or not depending if cues different on separate retrieval attemptsMemory can be retrieved or not depending if cues different on separate retrieval attempts Important Study/Theory:Important Study/Theory:  Light and Sobel (1970) as seen in Fig. 6.2 Biasing the meaning of a noun hurts recognition performance  Barclay, et al. (1970) Changing the properties of an object itself (but not changing the object) affect cue based retrieval

8. ©2004 Prentice Hall 8 Retrieval cues & Memory Test Sensitivity If a cued recall test makes subjects think about items the same way they did at encoding, it should be more sensitive than a recognition test.If a cued recall test makes subjects think about items the same way they did at encoding, it should be more sensitive than a recognition test. Important Definitions:Important Definitions:  Recognition Failure of Recallable Words: The effect in which words that were not recognized are nevertheless recalled successfully on a later test.  Low Associates: Words which are not strongly associated with each other Important Studies/Theories:Important Studies/Theories:  Tulving and Thomsom (1973) –designed to reverse the usual finding that recognition is better than recall due to recognition failure generated by mismatched info  Hintzman (1992) – argued Tulving and Thomson was a statistical oddity and not important, due to low associates  Aereleman (1997), Bryant (1991) – if subjects don’t connect cue and stimulus words, recall failure effect disappears.

9. ©2004 Prentice Hall 9 Retrieval Cues & the Physical Environment Memory may be better if physical environment of encoding and retrieval are similarMemory may be better if physical environment of encoding and retrieval are similar Important Terms:Important Terms:  Context Effects The idea that memory will be better if the physical environment at encoding matches the physical environment at retrieval Important Studies/Theories:Important Studies/Theories:  Godden and Baddeley (1975) – subjects tested on land and underwater after learning material on land or underwater. Matching environments led to better performance  Glenberg and Bjork (1978) – similar study in a college environment showed a significant but modest environmental effect Conclusion – the effect is weak and probably depends on a match of thoughts at time of encoding and retrievalConclusion – the effect is weak and probably depends on a match of thoughts at time of encoding and retrieval

10. ©2004 Prentice Hall 10 Identical Cues, Different Memories? Important Terms:Important Terms:  Priming The facilitation or bias of later processing of a stimulus caused by prior exposure to the stimulus. Usually taken to mean that the representation of the word is in an active state, resulting in easier processing. A word can be primed if a person has seen or heard the word recently or if a word close in meaning has been perceived recently. Important Studies/Theories:Important Studies/Theories:  Graf, Shimamura and Squire (1985) – demonstrated priming in amnesiacs  Meyer and Schvaneveldt (1971) as seen in Fig. 6.3. Subjects faster to identify a word if they have seen a semantically related word. Shows priming for semantic associates  Frontal Lobe and Memory – are there separate brain areas for different methods of retrieval?  Greshberg and Shimamura (1995) – different types of memory call on different cognitive processes and frontal lobe play an important role Frontal lobe patients had didn’t use strategies such as ordering of items at recall. Cued recalled helped them

11. ©2004 Prentice Hall 11 Retrieval and Prior Knowledge Prior Knowledge influences retrieval of typical events but not atypical ones.Prior Knowledge influences retrieval of typical events but not atypical ones. Important Studies/Theories: Bartlett (1932) – War of the Ghosts - subjects tested for memory of this story :Important Studies/Theories: Bartlett (1932) – War of the Ghosts - subjects tested for memory of this story : One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals and while they were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war- cries, and they thought: "Maybe this is a war-party". They escaped to the shore, and hid behind a log. Now canoes came up, and they heard the noise of paddles, and saw one canoe coming up to them. There were five men in the canoe, and they said: "What do you think? We wish to take you along. We are going up the river to make war on the people." One of the young men said, "I have no arrows." "Arrows are in the canoe," they said. "I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not know where I have gone. But you," he said, turning to the other, "may go with them." So one of the young men went, but the other returned home. And the warriors went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people came down to the water and they began to fight, and many were killed. But presently the young man heard one of the warriors say, "Quick, let us go home: that Indian has been hit." Now he thought: "Oh, they are ghosts." He did not feel sick, but they said he had been shot.

12. ©2004 Prentice Hall 12 Retrieval and Prior Knowledge - Continued Bartlett (1932) – War of the Ghosts - Continued So the canoes went back to Egulac and the young man went ashore to his house and made a fire. And he told everybody and said: "Behold I accompanied the ghosts, and we went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed, and many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit, and I did not feel sick." He told it all, and then he became quiet. When the sun rose he fell down. Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people jumped up and cried. He was dead.Bartlett (1932) – War of the Ghosts - Continued So the canoes went back to Egulac and the young man went ashore to his house and made a fire. And he told everybody and said: "Behold I accompanied the ghosts, and we went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed, and many of those who attacked us were killed. They said I was hit, and I did not feel sick." He told it all, and then he became quiet. When the sun rose he fell down. Something black came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people jumped up and cried. He was dead. Finding: On recall details were altered to make the story more coherent (process of reconstruction) Bower, Black and Turnstone (1979) as seen in Table 6.2 supports Bartlett’s conceptualizationBower, Black and Turnstone (1979) as seen in Table 6.2 supports Bartlett’s conceptualization Dooling and Christianson (1977) – demonstrated reconstruction at retrievalDooling and Christianson (1977) – demonstrated reconstruction at retrieval Important Terms:Important Terms: Reconstruction The idea that memories are not simply pulled out of the storehouse; rather, they are interpreted in terms of prior knowledge to reconstruct what probably happened.Reconstruction The idea that memories are not simply pulled out of the storehouse; rather, they are interpreted in terms of prior knowledge to reconstruct what probably happened.

13. ©2004 Prentice Hall 13 Functional Imaging Studies of the Frontal Lobe Important Studies/Theories:Important Studies/Theories:  Wagner, et al. (1968), Brewer, et al. (1998) – frontal activity at encoding predicted whether a memory would be retrieved Buckner, et al. (1999)Buckner, et al. (1999)  Frontal lobe damage may cause more widespread memory deficits than appreciated  Researchers over interpreting imaging results, some seen activation may be minor Fletcher and Henson (2001) – supports Buckner’s second conjectureFletcher and Henson (2001) – supports Buckner’s second conjecture

14. ©2004 Prentice Hall 14 Why Do Forget? Occlusion, Unlearning, DecayOcclusion, Unlearning, DecayOcclusion, Unlearning, DecayOcclusion, Unlearning, Decay Changes to Target MemoriesChanges to Target MemoriesChanges to Target MemoriesChanges to Target Memories RepressionRepressionRepression The Permanence of MemoryThe Permanence of MemoryThe Permanence of MemoryThe Permanence of Memory

15. ©2004 Prentice Hall 15 Occlusion, Unlearning, Decay Important TermsImportant Terms Occlusion A source of forgetting. There is a stronger link from a cue to some undesired memory than to the target, and the cue therefore always calls up the undesired memory. Not thought to by a major contributor to forgettingOcclusion A source of forgetting. There is a stronger link from a cue to some undesired memory than to the target, and the cue therefore always calls up the undesired memory. Not thought to by a major contributor to forgetting  Tip of the Tongue Phenomenon An effect in which you are certain you know a concept, but cannot think of the proper term for it  Important Studies/Theories  Brown and McNeil (1966)  Burke, et al. (1991) Unlearning A source of forgetting - Practicing a new association between a cue and a target memory weakens the associative link between the cue and another memoryUnlearning A source of forgetting - Practicing a new association between a cue and a target memory weakens the associative link between the cue and another memory  Important Study/Theory  Melton and Irwin (1940) as seen in Fig. 6.5 – first proposed unlearning and investigated the role of intrusions (an answer right in another context). They tended to drop where not seen as a major factor

16. ©2004 Prentice Hall 16 Occlusion, Unlearning, Decay - Continued Decay: Refers to the hypothesis that forgetting results (at least in part) from the spontaneous decomposition of memories over timeDecay: Refers to the hypothesis that forgetting results (at least in part) from the spontaneous decomposition of memories over time  Important Studies/Theories  Thorndike (1911) – proposed a simple version of decay theory  McGeogh (1932) – argued against decay as time is not an explanation in and of itself. We need to specify what makes things decay in a manner analogous to understanding why metal rusts  Serious problem – to test decay, one would have to be sure subjects were doing nothing over a long period of time and this is impossible. Most studies would be confounded by interference

17. ©2004 Prentice Hall 17 Changes to Target Memories Inhibition Mechanism that suppresses unwanted memories triggered by a cue. Suppression takes place to keep competitors from being retrieved instead of target memory.Inhibition Mechanism that suppresses unwanted memories triggered by a cue. Suppression takes place to keep competitors from being retrieved instead of target memory. Can produced retrieval induced forgetting: When retrieving a memory dampens related memories that the cue also activates but that are not retrieved Important study – Anderson, Bjork and Bjork (1994) demonstrated such as seen in Fig. 6.6, Anderson and Spellman (1995) supportive of concept as compared to selective retrievalImportant study – Anderson, Bjork and Bjork (1994) demonstrated such as seen in Fig. 6.6, Anderson and Spellman (1995) supportive of concept as compared to selective retrieval Controlled RetrievalControlled Retrieval Definition: When a particular cue leads to a memory that you would rather not think about, trying to suppress that memoryDefinition: When a particular cue leads to a memory that you would rather not think about, trying to suppress that memory Important Study: Anderson and Green (2001) as seen in Fig. 6.7 – demonstrated memory is inhibited, not association between cue and memoryImportant Study: Anderson and Green (2001) as seen in Fig. 6.7 – demonstrated memory is inhibited, not association between cue and memory Summary:Summary: Cues can be ineffective if interpreted differently from when encodedCues can be ineffective if interpreted differently from when encoded Associative links can decay, unlearned or lead to an incorrect memory due to a stronger associationAssociative links can decay, unlearned or lead to an incorrect memory due to a stronger association Repression of memory can be dampened by inhibition or active stoppage of retrievalRepression of memory can be dampened by inhibition or active stoppage of retrieval

18. ©2004 Prentice Hall 18 Repression Important Term/Questions:Important Term/Questions:  Repression The active forgetting of an episode that would be too painful or threatening to the self to be remembered  Three Questions:  Did the event happen?  Did the person fail to remember from the time it happened to much later?  Did the forgetting result from repression, not some other process Important Studies:Important Studies:  Schooler (1994) – report of a recovered memory of sexual abuse many years ago. Subject “remembered’ after seeing a movie. The question is how can this be confirmed  Schooler, et al. (1997), Schooler (2001) – demonstrates that claims of forgetting cannot be taken at face value  Williams (1995) – studied why abuse may not be remembered separate from repression claims  Femina, et al. (1990) – demonstrated that sometimes abuse is not reported even though remembered  Lepold & Dillon (1963); Pynoos & Nader (1989) – demonstrated that most memories of childhood abuse are vivid although details can be wrong Conclusion: Little Evidence of RepressionConclusion: Little Evidence of Repression  Repression is rare compared to vivid reports of abuse  It is difficult to find airtight evidence of the past abuse which is necessary for experimental tests

19. ©2004 Prentice Hall 19 The Permanence of Memory Important Concepts (Loftus and Loftus, 1980):Important Concepts (Loftus and Loftus, 1980):  Spontaneous Recovery: The sudden uncovering a memory that was thought to be forgotten.  Memory and Hypnosis  Important Study: Dinges, et al. (1992) – hypnosis aids little in memory  Penfield’s (1959) Experiments – reports under brain stimulation indicated amazing recall of long forgotten memories but were really few in number and subjects said the experience was not really like a memory. Best explain is that the experiences were:  Constructions - similar to the idea of reconstruction. Reconstruction is the process by which memories are recalled. Construction is a particular memory that feels to the participant like a real memory but has no basis in fact.

20. ©2004 Prentice Hall 20 The Permanence of Memory - Continued Permastore A hypothetical state of memory from which memories are not forgotten.Permastore A hypothetical state of memory from which memories are not forgotten. Enough practice can make information immune to forgettingEnough practice can make information immune to forgetting Important Study:Important Study:  Bahrick (2000) as seen in Fig. 6.8, 6.9 – tested Spanish language vocabulary many years after study  Forgetting is rapid after 3 to 6 years and then levels off  Little additional forgetting for 30 more years  Second gradual drop off until about 50 years  Bahrick referred to this last set of long lasting items that seem that they will not be forgotten as permastore  Neisser argues permastore is just a set of secondary memories so well represented that they will not be forgotten