Transcript elaboration and relational encoding

BUILDING MEMORIES II:
Elaborative Encoding
• Themes
– Elaboration adds potential retrieval
paths
– May be item-specific or relational
– May be intentional or not
– Effective elaboration boosts
“distinctiveness” of memory
• Cue strongly elicits target and not other
competitors
ITEM-SPECIFIC ELABORATION
(% )
• The levels-of-processing tradition
R e c o g n it io n
– “depth” and memory (Craik & Tulving,
1975)
100
80
pos target
neg target
60
40
Sensory
Phonemic
Semantic
Level of Processing
– POS vs. NEG at study only matters for
semantic decisions. Why?
– Further elaboration helps only
“positive” targets. Why?
• Depth or Distinctiveness?
– Reducing semantic distinctiveness:
Moscovitch & Morris (1976):
“semantic” questions
free recall of target words:
varied questions
.85
constant question
.50
– Increasing phonemic distinctiveness:
Eyesenck (1979):
48 semantic questions
P(recog)
.43
24 pronounce normally
(e.g., comb like home)
.34
24 mispronounce
(e.g., glove like home)
.42
• Transfer-appropriate processing
– Encoding that’s distinctive for one kind
of cue may not be for another
Morris, Bransford & Franks (1977):
Cue Type
item
rhyme
semantic questions
.85
.24
phonemic questions
.60
.45
– Roediger’s work on conceptuallyversus data-driven processing
• Memory best when operations at test match
those at study
• Sound familiar?
RELATIONAL ELABORATION
• The list-organization tradition
(Bousfield, 1953)
–
–
–
–
“organized” lists are recalled better
Blocking by category increases recall
Categories “cluster” in recall
Clustering increases over trials
PEACH
SAND
HORSE
EAR
GRAPE
LEG
RAIN
SONG
NOSE
CAT
MATCHFOX
FIG
COW
GLUE
PLUM
BIRD
KNEE
DATE
FOOT
recall!
PEACH
SAND
HORSE
EAR
GRAPE
LEG
RAIN
SONG
NOSE
CAT
MATCHFOX
FIG
COW
GLUE
PLUM
BIRD
KNEE
DATE
FOOT
– Cuing with category names
(Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966)
long categorized list of words
(e.g., 12 categories, 4 items in each)
free recall
cued recall
20
29
difference is in unrecalled categories
– Subjective organization
(Tulving, 1962)
lists of unrelated words
multiple-trial free recall
“clustering” increases over trials
• Relational encoding in text
– Thorndike (1977)
“importance” effect and overall recall
reduced as text is “disorganized”
• “Material-appropriate” processing
(McDaniel, et al., 1996)
Text Type
Strategy
Questions
Outline
Narrative
+31%
+13%
Expository
+28%
+64%
MNEMONICS AND
MEMORY SKILL
• Deliberate strategies to make
encoding distinctive
• Utilize prior knowledge in learning
• May be item-specific or relational
• Effective mnemonics have:
– Associability (cue is rich in potential
associative “hooks”)
– Bidirectionality (from target to cue at
study, from cue to target at test)
– Constructability (cue is accessible at
time of study and test)
– Discriminability (cue won’t be confused
with others being used) (Bellezza, 1996)
• So, what does scurrilous mean?
• A sampler of classic mnemonics
– Mindtools’ mnemonics
• Memory as a skill
– Tradition of study of “memory experts”
• Luria’s S
• Hunt’s VP
• Ericcson’s SF and JC
• Thompson’s Rajan
– The bottom line(s)
• years of specific practice
• Encoding as where it’s at
• Expertise as highly domain-specific
• The debate about “talent”
– An extraordinary memory for one’s life
•
•
•
•
McGaugh’s AJ
Some of her abilities
Neuropsychological profile
Encoding, or retrieval?