521 likes | 676 Vues
This chapter delves into the complexities of memory, highlighting the differences between working and reference memory. Working memory deals with short-term retention necessary for immediate tasks, while reference memory deals with long-term storage of specific information for future recall. It also discusses the role of forgetting, the effects of time intervals on memory retention, and various methods for measuring memory, such as free recall, cued recall, relearning, and recognition. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping how memory functions and deteriorates over time.
E N D
Chapter 11 Forgetting
Memory • Internal record or representation of past experience • Not necessarily the same as the original experience • History & metaphors • Slate Filing cabinet Computer
Types of Memory • Many different types of memory • 2 are important for our purposes: • Working memory: short-term, no need to store each instance for future reference • e.g. matching to sample: need to remember what the sample was only until you make the choice • Samples change from trial to trial • Reference memory: long-term, remember specific information for future reference • e.g. maze training: remember lay-out of the maze, doesn’t change across trials
Working Memory Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 Sample: Remember “red” Retention Interval: Remember “green” Remember “red” Choice:
Reference Memory Goal is always in the same place… remember over time! Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 Start Food Food Start Food Start
Behaviorist View of Memory • No need to discuss “representation” • No focus on storage & retrieval • Experience’s ability to change an organism’s behaviour under certain conditions • Stimulus control
Forgetting • Deterioration in learned behaviour following a period without practice • Defined behaviourally • Performance vs Description • Note: extinction is not the same as forgetting
Measuring Forgetting • Working memory • Sample (training) • Retention interval (usually short… seconds/minutes/hours) • Test • Next sample is different • Reference memory • Training • Retention interval (can be much longer… days/weeks) • Test • Samples (training) are always the same
Free Recall Method • Train, wait, test • See how much deterioration in performance • “All-or-nothing” test of behaviour • May not be appropriate for complex tasks • Some elements remembered, others not
Free Recall • Learn: • Banana • Interesting • Annoy • Book • Computer • Recall: • _______________ • _______________ • _______________ • _______________ • _______________
Prompted (Cued) Recall • Give prompts to increase likelihood of behaviour • Measure number of prompts needed to produce behaviour
Cued Recall: • Recall: • Ba_________ • In_________ • An_________ • Bo_________ • Co_________ • Learn: • Banana • Interesting • Annoy • Book • Computer
Relearning Method • Reinstall original training procedure after retention period • How many trials (or time) needed compared to original training to return to initial level of proficiency? • Reacquisition
Relearning Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 • Learn : • Banana • Interesting • Annoy • Book • Computer • Recall: • Banana • __________ • Annoy • __________ • __________ • Recall: • Banana • __________ • Annoy • Book • __________ • Recall: • Banana • Interesting • Annoy • Book • Computer Score = 2/5 Total Trials on Initial Learning = 3 Score = 3/5 Score = 5/5 How many trials to relearn after a break (retention interval)? Difference = amount of forgetting
Recognition Method • Subject only has to identify material previously learned • E.g., distinguish between original stimulus and a number of distracter stimuli
Recognition • Which words were on the list? • Banana • Orange • Interesting • Annoy • Ugly • Computer • Table • Apple • Learn: • Banana • Interesting • Annoy • Book • Computer
Delayed Matching to Sample • Show S+ • Wait (Delay = Retention Interval) • Choose from S+ and S- • Working memory only Sample Delay Matching
Extinction Method • Train two subjects • Put both on extinction, but one has delay between training and extinction and the other doesn’t • Compare rate of extinction for two subjects
Extinction methods Group 1 & 2 Learning Phase Group 1 Extinction Group 2 Extinction break Compare amount of time
Gradient Degradation Method • Establish stimulus control (discrimination training) • Measure generalization gradient • Repeated measure gen. grad. over time • If generalization gradient flattens, forgetting
Gradient degradation No Forgetting Training: Establish gradient Forgetting
Is time a variable? • Retention interval = Time between learning and testing • Greater the interval, less retained (i.e., more forgetting) • But, time is not an event (time doesn’t account for forgetting) • Need causal factors
Variables are: • Degree of learning (overlearning) • Prior Learning • Facilitation • Interference • Subsequent Learning • Context
Overlearning • Learn to asymptote, then keep training • Learning list perfectly, then practice a few more times • Better recall for longer • Point of diminishing return • Not a linear relationship between overlearning and retention • i.e. 100% overlearning is twice as good as 50% overlearning
Krueger (1929) • Adults learn 3 lists of 12 one-syllable nouns • List 1: go through list until they remember all 12 • List 2: learn list perfectly, then go through again for half as many trials as it took to learn • i.e. if they took 10 trials to learn perfectly, they go through list another 5 times • Group 3: learn list perfectly, then go through again as many times as it took to learn • i.e. another 10 times • Relearn after various intervals
Results • Greater amount of overlearning, less forgetting • 100% overlearning better than 50% overlearning • 50% overlearning way better than 0% overlearning • i.e. difference between 100% & 50% was LESS THAN difference between 50% & 0%
Facilitation of Prior Learning • Previous experience makes something easier to remember • Meaningful material easier to retain than random material • e.g. Easier to learn a complete sentence than 12 random words • Prior experience important in determining what is meaningful (e.g., words in known or unknown language)
DeGroot (1966) • Arranged chess pieces on board as if in the middle of a game • Chess masters and novices; 5 seconds to observe • Masters reproduced arrangement 90% of time, novices only 40% • Is this prior experience, or do chess masters forget less than other people?
Chase & Simon (1973) • Chess pieces placed randomly on board • Masters no better than novices at recall • Past learning of “legal” arrangements is what increased masters’ performance in deGroot (1966) study
Interference of Prior Learning • Proactive interference • Previous learning interferes with recall of newer learning
Studying proactive interference • Paired Associate Learning (PAL) technique • Subjects learn paired lists, tested with 1 item and must recall second • All learn A-C list, but some previously learned A-B list • In testing, give A and ask to recall C • Those with A-B learning have more difficulty recalling C when given A
PAL example • 1 group first learns: • Red-Apple • Cloud-Shoe • Cat-Shelf • Plate-Spoon • Carpet-Tent • Both groups then learn: • Red-Book • Cloud-Paper • Cat-Fence • Plate-Notebook • Carpet-Window • Both groups then RECALL: • Red- ________ • Cloud- ________ • Cat- ________ • Plate- ________ • Carpet- ________
Levine & Murphy (1943) • Proactive interference with attitudes • Determine initial attitude towards communism • Likert Scale • Read pro- and anti-communism passages • Students who had prior pro-communist attitudes forgot anti-communist elements of passages but remembered pro-elements (and vice versa) • Proactive interference because attitudes are not innate; effect of prior learning
Subsequent Learning (Interference) • Inactivity during retention interval leads to less forgetting than activity • Implies forgetting partly based on learning new material • Jenkins & Dallenbach (1924) 100 50 sleep Recall (%) awake 0 2 4 6 8 Hours after learning tested
Retroactive Interference • New learning interferes with ability to recall earlier learning • PAL technique (opposite order) • Subjects learn A-C, but some then learn A-B • Test by giving A and recalling C • Subjects who learned A-B have worse recall for C • e.g. forgetting old phone numbers, license plates, passwords
PAL example • BOTH groups first learns: • Red-Apple • Cloud-Shoe • Cat-Shelf • Plate-Spoon • Carpet-Tent • 1 group then learns: • Red-Book • Cloud-Paper • Cat-Fence • Plate-Notebook • Carpet-Window • Both groups then RECALL: • Red- ________ • Cloud- ________ • Cat- ________ • Plate- ________ • Carpet- ________ Order is just “switched” from last example
Context • Learning occurs in a context • Various stimuli around the learner • These stimuli serve as cues to evoke a behaviour • If stimuli absent, may have cue-dependent forgetting • Stimulus control • e.g. forgetting names when in a different context
Context Cue set, set of SD’s, has changed! Less cues to signal correct response. SD Colour, size, shape, etc…
Perkins & Weyant (1958) • Train two groups of rats in two mazes, one black, one white • 1 minute retention interval • Half of each group tested in original maze, half in maze of opposite colour • Opposite colour rats did poorly compared to original maze tested rats
100 50 Avoidance (%) 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Retention Interval (hr) Kamin (1957) • Gave rats avoidance learning, tested at various retention intervals. • Time of day, internal clock • Internal physiological state cues recall • “internal” context
State-Dependent Learning • Train under a particular physiological state (e.g., drug condition) and test under various states • Recall best when in the same state as training • Drug conditions: alcohol, caffeine, etc. • Internal State: tired, level of stress, emotions, etc.
Application: Foraging • Food Caching • Cache: food store • Retrieval of food later • Spatial memory • Wide variety of species • Accuracy can be quite high for very long times
Application: Eyewitness Testimony • Notoriously poor • Basic issue of retention interval and forgetting • Also the nature of the question used to retrieve information
Loftus & Zanni (1975) • Subjects watched film of car accident • Asked “Did you see <the>/<a> broken headlight?” • “the” subjects twice as likely as “a” subjects to say “yes” • Actually, no broken headlight shown • Reinforcement history • Previous conditioning: “the” (definite article) implies presence; “a” implies possible presence
Loftus & Palmer (1974) • Watch film of car accident • “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” • Underlined word replaced with smashed, collided, bumped, contacted • Speed estimates varied based on wording of question • Reports of broken glass varied based on wording
Learning to Remember • In essence, improving learning • Practice increases retention • Techniques: • Overlearning • Mnemonics • Context cues • Prompts
Overlearning • Practice beyond learning • e.g. Tiger Woods putting practice • e.g. Flash Cards (SAFMEDS)
Mnemonics • Rhymes, First Letters • HOMES, Roy G. Biv • Method of Loci • Associate learned items with locations on a well-known route • Peg Word System • 1 = “bun”, 2 = “shoe”, 3 = “tree”… • Also works with visual • 1 looks like a pencil, 2 looks like a swan, 3 is a tricycle…