Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
70 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
proactive interference
|
older learning interferes with new learning
can't learn new info |
|
retroactive interference
|
later learning interferes with earlier learning
can't remember old info |
|
Keppel and Underwood (1962)
|
proactive interference build up
Study Spanish; study French; French test OR sleep; study French; French test Spanish learning interfered with French learning; more forgetting with each trial (95% -> 70% -> 55% -> 40%) |
|
Brown-Peterson paradigm
|
distraction task
3 consonants, then 3 digits and have to count back in 3's, then remember consonants |
|
Reitman (1971)
|
retroactive interference
more interference when items are similar (baseball stats and football stats) than when different (stats and dance steps) distraction task: words cause more interference than humming |
|
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) modal model
|
info through senses
if pay attention, then goes to STM if rehearsed, then goes to LTM If info from senses not attended to, then will forget |
|
sensory store
|
info from senses
|
|
Sperling (1960)
|
sensory information is susceptible to the effects of decay
Participants shown 12 items in 3 rows for 50 ms, then arrow pointed to row for recall; since didn't know which row in advance, what remembered for that row would remember for others (75%). seeing (sensing 75% but not retained or encoded) |
|
introspection
|
method of study that follows own thought processes to understand how we process information (qualitative)
|
|
goal of introspection
|
tried to explain how thought worked
|
|
techniques for introspection
|
trainer would instruct subject on how to report thought process; subject listened to metronome and described experience
|
|
problems with introspection
|
required training; there was a "right" way to listen; trainer influenced subject's experience
only conscious process could be reported didn't add the understanding of cognition |
|
useful results of introspection studies
|
The beginning of scientific study in psychology; Germany 1879
|
|
Wilhem Wundt
|
German structionalist; father of psychology
wanted to quantify things in psychology similar to chemistry taught first course in psychology |
|
problem with visual perception
|
inverse projection on retina - how does brain handle that?
|
|
how visual perception problem is solved
|
make unconscious assumptions about:
shape and orientation light (source, shadow, reflection) size and distance |
|
what do we do/think when solving visual perception problem
|
we aren't consciously aware of this, so we don't actually do anything or think about it, so it's not really a problem
|
|
primary vs secondary depth cues
|
primary cues are in the visual system
secondary cues are in the environment predators need depth perception to stalk and pounce so eyes are on front of head; prey need 360 field of vision so eyes on sides of head |
|
primary depth cues
|
accommodation - for things within 1 meter, lens changes shape in order to focus the image on the retina
convergence - eyes adduct as object becomes closer stereopsis - retinal disparity; each eye sees a slightly different image |
|
secondary depth cues
|
perspective - linear (lines converge), texture (more detailed when close), relative height (same real size objects are larger when close)
familiarity - know size of object occlusion - object that blocks view of another will be closer atmospheric - darker and clearer is closer than lighter and hazier |
|
Epstein (1965)
|
photos of different coins, made same size and hung evenly, subjects thought smaller coins were closer
|
|
template model of object recognition
|
compare with known object in memory
|
|
cons of template model of object recognition
|
imperfect lineup
different size/orientation similar but not exact lock and key approach |
|
feature model of object recognition
|
match critical parts with object in memory; doesn't have to be exact match of angles or colors
|
|
pros of feature model of object recognition
|
more efficient than template model
process consistent with what we now know about neurophysiology (brain cells respond to lines at different orientations) |
|
potential problem with feature model of object recognition
|
doesn't account for perception of natural objects; shouldn't be able to recognize rotated objects
|
|
Selfridge and Neisser (1960)
|
tip-of-the-tongue
Pandemonium model - layers of detectors for object recognition (demons) feature demons - basic aspects; lines, angles cognitive demons - responds to particular configurations of lines, angles decision demon - selects output of above that is dominant |
|
early filter model of attention
|
sensory characteristics are processed, then filtered to decide if will be processed at deeper level (for meaning)
|
|
late filter model of attention
|
physical and semantic processing occurs, then filtered to decide if will be processed at deeper level
|
|
Cherry (1953)
|
dichotic listening
listening to different thing on each side shadow one side, but then has to report on the other side didn't notice: language change, played in reverse did notice: change to pure tone, change in gender Conclusion: unattended speech is not analyzed for semantics |
|
first Moray (1959)
|
dichotic listening
something different in each ear, shadow one side, must report on other even when same words are repeated 35 times, could not recall |
|
second Moray (1959)
|
dichotic listening
something different in each ear, shadow one side, must report on other 1/3 heard own name "cocktail party effect" |
|
Corteen and Wood (1972)
|
shock was paired with certain city names
then dichotic listening (but no shock) something different in each ear, shadow one side, must report on other GSR used to measure response to special city names (without shock) Result: couldn't report, but 38% showed GSR with special city names, 23% with any city name, 10% with irrelavent nouns |
|
more correct filter model of attention
|
early filter seems more correct
Dawson & Schell (1982) showed subjects were actually shifting attention |
|
Strayer and Drews (2007)
|
driving while on cell phone caused inattentional blindness
|
|
evidence provided in Strayer and Drews (2007)
|
incidental-recognition-memory paradigm
when on cell phone: less likely to recognize signs they had looked at, regardless of how long; brain activity reduced 50% when on cell phone task success 88% to 50%, conversing in car, conversing hands-free |
|
which resources model is supported by Strayer and Drews (2007)
|
does not support multiple-resource model; apparent central processing bottleneck
|
|
components of Baddeley's working memory model
|
central executive
visuospatial sketchpad phonological loop episodic buffer |
|
central executive component
|
Baddeley's working memory model
directs activities of visuospatial sketchpad, phonological loop, and episodic buffer does not process |
|
visuospatial sketchpad component
|
Baddeley's working memory model
processes visual input fluid; unchanged by learning |
|
phonological loop component
|
Baddeley's working memory model
processes auditory input fluid - doesn't change with learning |
|
episodic buffer component
|
processes on multimodal level
meaning episodic language crystallized - capable of accumulating long term knowledge |
|
working memory and math anxeity/performance
|
processing efficiency theory - general anxiety disrupts working memory process because attention shifts to intrusive thoughts and worries
|
|
Ashcraft (2002)
|
study on math anxiety and working memory
|
|
anxiety vs competence issue for math anxiety
|
able to score higher on untimed paper and pencil test
|
|
proposed qualities of flashbulb memories
|
resulting memory is:
complete accurate immune to forgetting |
|
Brown and Kulik (1977)
|
flashbulb memories are very accurate
"Where were you when JFK was assassinated?" |
|
Talarico and Rubin (2003)
|
9/11 questionnaire at 3 days
asked again at 1, 6, or 32 weeks not accurate same level of forgetting as for everyday details |
|
Schmolch et al (2000)
|
OJ Simpson verdict at 3 days
asked again at 15 or 32 months not accurate same level of forgetting as for everyday details. |
|
Craik and Lockhart (1972)
|
memory theory for levels of processing framework rather than stages for sensory, working, and long-term memory
|
|
levels of processing theory of memory
|
shallow processing - surface, information only
deep processing - semantic, meaning attached |
|
Troyer et al (2006)
|
study of levels of processing theory of memory and name and face recognition
semantic and intentional learning was highest recall physical features and phonemic was lowest recall |
|
Craik and Tulvig (1975)
|
study of level of processing theory of memory
word recognition study structural - features of letters (20%) phonemic - sound of word (75%) category - put in group (90%) sentence - use in sentence (95%) |
|
reasons for forgetting
|
occlusion
unlearning decay changes to target memories regression |
|
Brown and McNeill (1966)
|
occlusion (forgetting)
tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon know learned something, but can't remember agitation relieved by remembering |
|
Melton and Irwin (1940)
|
Unlearning (forgetting)
Learn word list 1; 30 min with magazine OR word list 2; retest on list 1 learning list 2 causes weakening of learning of list 1 |
|
Minami and Dallenbach (1946)
|
decay (forgetting)
cockroach study - learn to stay in lit area; then active OR inactive; inactive remembered better activity interfered with learning |
|
Anderson, Bjork, and Bjork (1994)
|
changes to target (forgetting)
words in category; practice half; didn't remember unpracticed words in practiced category recall not good if something changed (context, different meaning) |
|
Schooler, Bendiksen, and Ambador (1997)
|
repression (forgetting) - active forgetting for self preservation (too painful)
WB raped at knifepoint; forgotten until triggered by male coworker |
|
Karpicke and Roediger (2008)
|
memory study using testing effect
|
|
Karpicke and Roediger (2008) method
|
English-Swahili word pairs
ST (all), SnT (all), S(all)Tn, SnTn (n=nonlearned) |
|
Karpicke and Roediger (2008) retention test results
|
All conditions learned all word pairs on initial phase
SnT and STn - similar # of trials during learning but SnT 80% vs STn 35% retention T(all) conditions similar retention regardless of Sn or S(all) |
|
Karpicke and Roediger (2008) student perceptions
|
all conditions thought they would remember about 50% after 1 week
|
|
Karpicke and Roediger (2008) implications for learning and recommendations
|
practice retrieval of learned, do not need to re-encode
Restudy what don't know, retest on everything every time |
|
encoding specificity principle
|
encode context along with target, so better retrieval if context is present
|
|
Light and Carter-Sobell (1970)
|
study about encoding specificity principle
strawberry JAM used in sentence then tested on recognition of JAM using cues of strawberry (70%), raspberry (43%), and traffic (28%) |
|
influence of prior knowledge on memory
|
reduces amount of new encoding (chunking)
guides interpretation (put into a schema, give default value) unusual things stand out (check against what we expect, our script) Example: expected activities at a restaurant include being seated, looking at menu, ordering meal, eating food, paying bill, leaving. If something doesn't happen, we will remember |
|
iconic memory
|
type of sensory memory with:
large capacity spontaneous delay/potential to be erased brief duration (500ms) representation (physical) |
|
echoic memory
|
type of sensory memory auditory version of iconic memory
|
|
Di Lollo (1980)
|
iconic memory study
starts to fade when stimulus appeared, not when it went away |