Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions...

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)

EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings

Materials

EncodingTasks

Retrieval Tasks/Conditions

Subjects/Participants

Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards

Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition

Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding

Attention – Full vs. Divided

Response Deadline/Response Signal DelayShort to Long

Retrieval Tasks – Recall, Serial Recall, Backwards

Recall, Cued Recall, Recognition

Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding

Attention – Full vs. Divided

Response Deadline/Response Signal DelayShort to Long

Instructions – any part old vs. old only if exact match of study word

Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968)

Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs;

e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ?

Criterion: perfect twice consecutively

RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words) (

Retrieval Cues – Similar / dissimilar to encoding Tulving (1968)

Learn (MTFR) 48 word pairs;

e.g., watch - dog, check - mate watch - ?, check - ? RGN Test: watch, dog, check, mate, house, tooth (50% old words, 50% new words)

Immediate RGN (89%) worse than recall (100%) (

Recognition memory

Feature-conjunction paradigm(Underwood & Zimmerman, 1973;Reinitz, Lammers, & Cochran, 1992)

try to recognise exact matches

rearrange components of studied itemsto form tricky lures on the test

Feature-conjunction paradigm rearrange components of studied itemsto form tricky lures

Feature lures: part old, part new

Examples

Study: pardon OR vodka tealeaf OR buttercup


Feature lures: part old, part new

Examples

Study: pardon OR vodka tealeaf OR buttercup

Test: parka teacup


Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged

Examples

Study: pardon & vodka tealeaf & buttercup


Conjunction lures: both parts old, but rearranged

Examples


Test: parka teacup

Feature-conjunction paradigm

Typical pattern of “old” responses

old > conjunction > feature > new

Hits False Alarms (incorrect)

Conjunction effectConjunction error rate – new error rate

Feature effectFeature error rate – new error rate

Dual-process theories of recognition

Familiarity – fast process (automatic)

Recollection – relatively slow process (consciously controlled)


Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection


Feature and conjunction errors have been argued to reflect the influence of familiarity in the absence of recollection

Familiarity pushes one toward an error

Successful recollection (i.e. of a parent word) can allow one to avoid an error


Test: parka teacup

Recollection of parent words:

par in pardon, not parka ka in vodka, not parka

tea in tealeaf, not teacup cup in buttercup, not teacup


Recollection of parent compound words can be difficult but recollection-based rejections occur

(Jones & Jacoby, 2001; Lampinen, Odegard, & Neuschatz, 2004)


Get feature and conjunction effects with nonverbal materials, too

face drawings, Reinitz et al. (1992) face photographs, Searcy et al. (1998) abstract drawings, Kroll et al. (1996)


Hit – accomplished by familiarity or recollection

Miss – happens because of a lack of familiarity and a lack of recollection

False alarm – occurs due to influence of familiarity without recollection

Correct rejection – either lack of familiarity or recollecting that something similar (but different) was shown earlier

Feature-conjunction paradigm Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation

Divided attention (at encoding): identify number sequences while studying words recognise test words under full attention

Divided attention (at retrieval): process study words under full attention identify number sequences while recognising words

Full attention process study words under full attention recognise test words under full attention


Full vs. Divided Attention Manipulation

Reasoning: Dividing attention should take up resources, making it more difficult to use a controlled process

Predition: Dividing attention should lower hit rates.

Group

Full Div.-Study Div.-Test

Mea

n C

orre

cted

Pro

por

tion

of

"O

ld"

Res

pon

ses

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

1.0

OldConjunctionFeature


Response signal delay (or response deadline) manipulation: Short vs. Long

Short – must respond quickly (under time pressure)

Long – have more time to respond

Reasoning: Less time to use the slower controlled process (recollection) in the recognition decisions

Prediction: Should lower hit rates

Table 2 Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type

Deadline GroupItem Type Long ShortOld .55 (.20) .34 (.21)Conjunction .23 (.18) .23 (.17)Feature .12 (.15) .14 (.11)

Table 2

Mean Corrected Recognition Rates for Each Group by Item Type

Deadline Group

Item Type Long Short

Old .55 (.20) .34 (.21)

Conjunction .23 (.18) .23 (.17)

Feature .12 (.15) .14 (.11)


Conclusion from divided attention and response signal delay manipulations

These manipulations hurt recollection but not familiarity

Deficit in recollection shown as a decrease in hits (in increase in feature and conjunction errors would provide even stronger evidence)

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes)

EncodingRetrievalEncoding x Retrieval interactionsAmnesia/Implicit memoryMemory for natural settings

Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions...

Documents

Transcript of Episodic Memory (memory for episodes) Encoding Retrieval Encoding x Retrieval interactions...