Over the years, several models have been proposed to explain the nature of memory processes (e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Estes & Maddox, 1995; Raajimakers & Shiffrin, 1981). One of those models, level of processing, proposed that the duration that information can be held in the memory depends on the depth at which it is processed, not the stage of memory in which it is held. A study by Smith, Theodore, and Franklin (1983) examined this hypothesis by investigating how depth of processing affect the amount of processing obtained in the processing of a target item in a lexical detection task (LDT) by college students. The study asked 100 college students to make lexical decisions about target after making decision about prime. The result of the unexpected post-session recall test indicated that superior recall for words was dependent on the way in which the prime was processed, with semantic decision (deep processing) resulting in greater facilitation over words whose processing focused on visual or phonemic features (shallow processing).
Other studies (e.g., Gordon & Debus, 2002; Irwin & Lupker, 1983; Kearian, 1986) have also found that the deeper the coding of information, the more durable the memory. For example, Gordon and Debus have demonstrated that contextual modification in teaching, task requirements, and assessment processes can increase college students’ use of deep processing approaches to learning. They argued that deep processing approach help students’ problem solving abilities, while the use of shallow processing approaches results in study behaviours that led to low quality learning outcomes. This was in support of earlier findings by Craik & Lockhart (1972) which posits that deep proc...
... middle of paper ...
... Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
Irwin, D., & Lupker, S. (1983). Semantic priming of pictures and words: A level of processing approach. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 245-260.
Kearians, J. (1986). Visual spatial memory in aboriginal and white Australian children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 203-214.
Raajimakers, J., & Shiffrin, R. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93-134.
Smith, S., Glenberg, A., & Bjork, R. (1978). Environmental context and human memory. Memory & Cognition, 6, 342-353.
Smith, M., Theodore, L., & Franklin, P. (1983). The relationship between contextual facilitation and depth of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 9 (4), 697-712.
Schulman, A. I. (1971). Recognition memory for targets from a scanned word list. British Journal of Psychology, 62, 335-346.
Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I., & Hicks, J. L. (2006). The effect of context variability on source memory. Memory & Cognition (Pre-2011), 34(8), 1578-86.
Harvey et al (2000) also used the word list learning and delayed recall, pranix drawing, modified Boston Naming test and CERAD to assess cognitive function of both their control and experimental populations. The word list learning and delayed recall is a ten item list of words that is presented to the subject during three separate trials. After each trial the subject is asked to freely recall the words from the list. After a delay, which is filled with the pranix drawing task, the participants are asked to recall the list of words once again. The dependent variable in this task is the number of words recalled over the three trials and the number of words that were recalled after the delay. The scores ranged from 0 to 20 based the...
The Effects of Levels of Processing on Memory PB1: Identify the aim of the research and state the experimental/alternative hypothesis/es. (credited in the report mark scheme) To show how different levels of processing affects the memory. “People who process information deeply (i.e. semantic processing) tend to remember more than those who process information shallowly (i.e. visual processing). ” PB2: Explain why a directional or non-directional experimental/alternative hypothesis/es has been selected. (I mark) I have used a directional experimental hypothesis because past research, such as that by Craik and Tulving (1975) has proved this. PB3:
Young, R. K. (1985). Ebbinghaus: Some consequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 491-495. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.3.491
...Baddeley (1966) study of encoding in the short term memory and long term memory supports the MSM model on the mode of processing such that words are processed on recall and both models share the same opinion that processing does influence recall. Finally, the MSM model of memory states that all information is stored in the long term memory, however, this interpretation contrasts with that of Baddeley (1974) who argue that we store different types of memories and it is unlikely that they occur only in the LTM store. Additionally, other theories have recognised different types of memories that we experience, therefore it is debatable that all these different memories occur only in the long-term memory as presumed by the multi-store model which states the long term memory store as with unlimited capacity, in addition it also fails to explain how we recall information.
Human memory is flexible and prone to suggestion. “Human memory, while remarkable in many ways, does not operate like a video camera” (Walker, 2013). In fact, human memory is quite the opposite of a video camera; it can be greatly influenced and even often distorted by interactions with its surroundings (Walker, 2013). Memory is separated into three different phases. The first phase is acquisition, which is when information is first entered into memory or the perception of an event (Samaha, 2011). The next phase is retention. Retention is the process of storing information during the period of time between the event and the recollection of a piece of information from that event (Samaha, 2011). The last stage is retrieval. Retrieval is recalling stored information about an event with the purpose of making an identification of a person in that event (Samaha, 2011).
McNamara, T. P. and Holbrook, J. B. 2003. Semantic Memory and Priming. Handbook of Psychology. 445–474.
Furthermore this article expands upon this subcategory of memory by describing the two types of tasks involved with it: verbal-production ta...
The serial position effect has been studied extensively for many years. Researchers have designed a variety of different studies in order to analyze and explain both, the primacy and the recency effect. The primacy effect is the tendency for the first items presented in a series of words to be recalled more easily, or to be more influential than those presented at the end of the list. On the other end, there is also the recency effect. The recency effect is the tendency to recall the items located at the end of the list. Many studies have been designed to analyze how the primacy effect works and its accuracy. For instance, research compared the primacy and the recency effect (Jahnke, 1965). Forty-eight college students read lists of 6, 10, and 15 English words in a counterbalanced order. Twenty-four of the students were given instructions for the immediate serial recall of the list; while the other half of students were not aware that they would need to recall words from a list. Both groups received a total of 12 different lists. The words were read at a rate of one word per sec without any emphasis on specific word. In addition to that, the participants’ responses were recorded in an interval of 30 seconds. Results showed that the recency effect is stronger for free serial recall and for a longer interval than primacy effect (Jahnke, 1965). When instructions were given for a serial recall, primacy effects were stronger and recency effect weaker than when instructions were given for free recall. As the length of lists increased, the recency effect became stronger and more accurate.
Roediger, H. L. III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803-814
Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control process.
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers
In the field of cognitive neuroscience a memory study usually involves a combination of behavioral tasks and a machine that permits t...
In 2013, The Journal of Memory and Language published a research-backed cognitive psychology article titled “How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects in masked priming” by Kenneth I. Forster. Forster, a professor of Psychology at the University of Arizona, assesses that “when a masked word intervenes between the prime (L1 (native language)) and the target (L2 (second language), three words must be processed simultaneously, and that under these conditions, form priming is eliminated altogether and identity priming is reduced, suggesting that the capacity of the lexical processor does not extend to three words”. It is argued that the differential effect of the intervenor on identity and form priming can be explained using the assumption that priming takes place at the level of form as well as the level of meaning. Forster, through this research, generalizes the information collected from all the higher degree seeking individuals as if to say that since this is true for college freshman it must be true for all grade levels. Even though I understand his questions and his motives in not only the questions he asks but also his experiments and the objectives he was trying to achieve by stating that “each time we read a word, we must recover the stored information about the phonology, syntax, and semantics of that word. Moreover, this information must be retrieved extremely rapidly and because so much processing has to be done, it seems obvious that the processing of one word must overlap to some degree with the processing of the next word” (1). Though Forster offers many valid points pertaining to the amount of words we can read at once, he fails to acknowledge those who do not fall into this category by only testing U...
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological review, 88(5), 375.