Forgetting

Question 1

STRESS/WM

Answer 1

• worrying (occupied w/negative thoughts) = secondary resource competitor (ie. exam situation)
  RAMIREZ & BEILOCK (2011)
• whether reducing/eliminating worrying = lower freezing under pressure effect
• 2pp groups; pre/post test of high pressure maths; control = sat quietly 10mins between tests; expressive writing group asked to write feelings after test
• similar performance pre-test; more accurate performance in writing group post
• writing about worries before test = free up WM resources necessary for test

Question 2

MEASURING FORGETTING

Answer 2

• learning to memorising = retention interval
• recall test = events/story; free recall of nameable items; cued recall (ie. paired associates); serial recall
• recognition test; discrimination between old/new
  EBBINGHAUS (1885)
• learned many lists of 13 nonsense syllables to criterion then relearned each after variable intervals

Question 3

FORGETTING

Answer 3

• appropriate measurement = simple mathematical function of retention internal
  WICKELGREN et al (1975)
• data from word-list recognition experiment

Question 4

FORGETTING CAUSES

Answer 4

• forgetting orderliness = inevitable decay processes
• info not recalled now may come later
• prompts/cues succeed in eliciting recall; may be due to retrieval failure not loss
• some show no loss over time at all

Question 5

INCREASING FORGETTING

Answer 5

BAHRICK et al (1975)

• no forgetting of school-mates over 30y assessed via yearbooks
• flashbulb memories (ie. 9/11)
• forgetting former students via teachers increases w/interval as teachers encounter +students
• forgetting attributable to interference from other similar memories

Question 6

TESTING INTERFERENCE VS DECAY THEORIES

Answer 6

• under normal circumstances, retention interval (time in storage) confounded w/number of other experiences accumulated during interval
• control the interval = alter intervening experiences
  1. encoding -> (more new learning of similarity) retrieval
  VS
  2. encoding -> (less new learning of similarity) retrieval
• if forgetting is via interference, recall should decrease w/more exposure to similar stuff w/time held constant

Question 7

FORGETTING ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTERFERENCE

Answer 7

• “paired associate” learning (1940s/1950s); pp learns 10 arbitrary paintings via stimulus/response; List 1 to criterion; List 2 to criterion; test on either
• later recall of 1 worse when 2 was learned afterwards (retroactive interference)
• later recall of 2 worse when 1 has been learned before (proactive interference)
• implication = retrieval difficulty increases when other similar material has been learned, holding retention interval constant

Question 8

TIME VS INTERVENING EXPERIENCES AS PREDICTORS OF EVENT FORGETTING

Answer 8

BADDELEY & HITCH (1977)

• end of rugby season; 2 teams recalled games; clear forgetting (though some games more memorable); each missed some games
• if time controlled, number of games played in interval = significant predictor of forgetting
• ample evidence that retrieval failure ^ via interference from similar material

Question 9

FACTORS INFLUENCING RETRIEVAL

Answer 9

• encoding consolidation -> storage -> retrieval
• processing at encoding/acquisition
• consolidation after encoding
• interference from other memory traces at retrieval
• similarity of encoding/retrieval contexts
• memory is associative system NOT container

Question 10

ORGANISATION AT ACQUISITION

Answer 10

• deliberate rote rehearsal does increase later recall
• hence primary effect in free recall; first few items gets more rehearsals
• mere rote rehearsal is relatively ineffective learning strategy
  MANDLER (1967)
• incidental memory experiments show processing meaning/actively organising; material = effective learning strategies
• groups sort into 2-7 categories of own devising; 1 = try to learn new words; no dif in later recall test despite 1 specifically asked to learn
• g3 (control) remembered less than both
• organising material is what produces effective acquisition, not effort to learn by itself

Question 11

DEPTH OF PROCESSING AT ACQUISITION

Answer 11

CRAIK & TULVING (1975)

• showed series of unrelated words and gave 1/3 orienting tasks (upper/lower-case; rhymes w/X; sentence fits)
• processing the meaning is better than processing surface form

Question 12

MNEMONICS X ACQUISITION

Answer 12

ONE-IS-A-BUN FOR SEQUENCE LEARNING
1. learn rhyme
2. form vivid image representing rhyme item for position X in interaction w/what you want to remember
METHOD OF LOCI (IE. LEARNING SPEECH)
1. memorise route around familiar building/garden so you can walk there w/minds eye
2. learn speech; form striking image at each route point representing idea of the point

Question 13

MNEMONICS

Answer 13

• they work binding ideas to pre-established framework which organises them (ie. serial order (method of loci))
• imagery encourages formation of rich nexus of associations between frame hook/concept attached
• effectiveness of learning involves forming associations among representations already existing including: elements of the new fact/context/prior knowledge

Question 14

CONSOLIDATION

Answer 14

• post TBI (ie. concussion)/ECT; often retrograde memory loss spanning minutes/hours beyond WM duration
  -> disruption of process of consolidation of memory trace in hippocampal/medial temporal cortex system
  WIXTED (2004)
• consolidation of novel traces suffers interference from consolidation of further novel traces
• sleep improves memory for material learned in last hours
• alcohol/barbiturates impair learning (disrupt consolidation); improve memory for material learned just before (retrograde facilitation)

Question 15

CONSOLIDATION X LTM

Answer 15

• over longer timescale, recent LTM traces = vulnerable to hippocampal damage than older traces
  RIBOT’S LAW (1882)
• amnesiac patients w/damage to hippocampus/medial temporal cortex shows gradient of retrograde amnesia over years; older memories preserved/robust
• re-activation of traces = more robust; stored elsewhere in cortex no longer dependent on hippo

Question 16

ASSOCIATIVE INTERFERENCE AT RETRIEVAL

Answer 16

• paired associate experiments; vary similarity of stimulus/response terms
• interference maximal when same stimuli used for each list; competition between 2 associative links from same retrieval cue

Question 17

FAN EFFECT

Answer 17

LEWIS & ANDERSON (1976)

• retrieval as example of associative interference
• pp learns 0-4 new facts about each celebrity set
• later true/false RT measured for test statements (ie. actual/experimental true/false)

Question 18

MITIGATING ASSOCIATVE INTERFERENCE

Answer 18

• fan effect = paradoxical (ie. the more you know you about Napoleon = the harder it is to retrieve one fact)
• example is unrelated; if thematically related = fan effect eliminated (ie. princess christened/broke champagne etc.); thematic relationship enables learner to form associations between separate facts via pre-existing knowledge schemas providing multiple retrieval paths
• when studying, try to create multiple links among facts you are learning; prior knowledge

Question 19

REMEMBERING = RECONSTRUCTION

Answer 19

BARTLETT’S “WAR OF THE GHOSTS” (1932)

• story experiment; we interpret iconic/audio via learned schemas/scripts; typical pattern/sequence knowledge:
• episode -> schema -> interpretation -> fragments retrieved -> schema -> reconstruction
• remembering trials = fragmentary associations recovered; reconstruct event/fact while filling gaps
• general knowledge schemas (semantics)
• fragments remembered from other episodic sources

Question 20

FALSE MEMORIES

Answer 20

“RECOVERED MEMORIES” CONTROVERSY (1995)

• complete/partial memory loss = frequently reported psychological trauma/CSA consequence; sometimes fully/partially recovered after many years within/alone of therapy; clear memories likely accurate BUT may have statsig errors; authoritative pressure/persuasion = retrieval/elaboration of fake memories
• easy to make (recognition/recall/recollection of what never happened) as:
• source amnesia (info retrieval + inability to remember source) = common
• recall = reconstructive; actual recovered experience fragments mixed w/other info w/lost source (ie. implicit/explicit therapist/interrogator suggestions)

Question 21

EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY STUDIES

Answer 21

LOFTUS & PALMER (1974)

• 100pps see car crash film; answer qs (ie. how fast cars crashed into themselves); 1 = “smashed”; 2 = “hit”
• week later asked qs ie. “did you see any broken glass?”; 1 = 16/50; 2 = 7/50; mis-info implied by interrogation after event incorporated to reconstruction

Question 22

REALISTIC/EMOTIONALLY SALIENT MATERIAL FALSE MEMORIES

Answer 22

• “trauma sets up new rules for memory”
  CROMBAG, WAGENAAR, VAN KOPPEN (1996)
• 1992 EL AI Amsterdam crash; 10m; “did you see TV film of when plane hit building; >50% = yes
  LOFTUS & PICKRELL (1995)
• “lost in mall”; -25% pps “remembered” being lost post probing interviews

Question 23

CONTEXT EFFECTS/ENCODING SPECIFICITY

Answer 23

GODDEN & BADDELEY (1975)

• rule = info more easily retrieved if tested in same context as acquired
• environmental context; divers learned word lists either on land/water; moved environment then tested
• more easily/correctly recalled in home environment

Question 24

RETRIEVAL SENSITIVITY

Answer 24

EICH, WEINGARTNER, STILLMAN & GILLIN (1975)

• sensitivity of retrieval congruence w/internal context as learning time = state-dependent learning
• similar effects found in induced sad/euphoric moods
• encoding-specificity = causal in depression maintenance aka. negative memories more accessible in depressive state; retrieval reinforces depression

Question 25

SUMMARY

Answer 25

encoding -> consolidation -> retrieval PROCESSING ENCODING/ACQUISITION - elaboration/organisation - depth of processing 2-STAGE CONSOLIDATION PROCESS INTERFERENCE FROM MEMORY TRACES AT RETRIEVAL - associative interference - false memories/source amnesia; remembering as reconstruction vulnerable to associative intrusions ENCODING/RETRIEVAL INTERACTION - encoding-specificity effect due to contextual cue similarity