Download Echoic Memory and Primary Memory - Lecture Slides | PSY 373 and more Exams Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
Echoic Memory and Primary
Memory
PSY 373, Human Memory September 12, 2007
Housekeeping
Should have completed Brown-Peterson Experiment • already. today from week one due report Experiment • (September 19). First exam will be October 1. • Will try to have a review session Sept. 26. •
Review of last time
The serial position curve in serial recall • The modality effect • The suffix effect • What makes a suffix effect? •
Overview of today’s material
Primary/secondary memory •
- Miller (1956) and the James/Broadbent model
- The Brown-Peterson Task.
- The Waugh-Norman task. What’s in an experiment report? •
The Modal Model
we’re things of set The Memory: Primary • currently aware of, including the recent past. The set of things we could Secondary Memory: • remember if we wanted to.
James’ (1890) Primary memory
past intuited directly this in feel we objects The “ An object which differ from properly recollected objects. is recollected, in the proper sense of the term, is one which now and altogether, consciousness from absent been has revives anew... But an object of primary memory is not thus brought back; it never was lost; its date was never cut off in consciousness from that of the immediately present moment. In fact, it comes to us as belonging to the rearward portion ” of the present space of time, and not to the genuine past.
Early work on memory “span”
Span of apprehension: number of objects we could • reliably count with tachistoscopic presentation Number of items we can recite Memory span: • back perfectly without error. Forward and backward memory span are still used • as a neuropsychological measure.
Miller (1956), The magical number
Noted memory span was approx • items. 2 ± 7 absolute of limits that Noted • the about were identification same.
Absolute Identification
Name a unidimensional stimulus. • , this 2 ± 7 When the number of stimuli is about • becomes impossible to do perfectly. Doesn’t depend on the range of the stimuli! • An example. •
The central thesis of Miller (1956)
Do memory span and absolute identification have Most authors anything to do with each other? would say no (e.g. Nosofsky, 1993). Others are not so sure (Brown, Neath, and Chater, in press).
Chunking
“absence, list Learn experiment: Thought • get You’ll. letters the recall then hollow...”,
. 2 ± 7 way more than This is possible because you’ve recoded the letters • into chunks called “words.” Amazing feats of memorization. •
Other contributions of Miller (1956)
Introduced notion of “chunk.” • Popularized information theory for the study of • memory.
Broadbent’s (1958) model
S-system: like iconic and echoic memory • P-system: conscious awareness • secondary memory: long-term storage. • S+P are primary, or immediate memory (limited • capacity) necessary to maintain information in Rehearsal • immediate memory.
The Brown-Peterson Task
Brown (1958) • Peterson and Peterson (1959) • Recall trigrams after a delay. •
Brown-Peterson task, Methods
No shocking! • Present consonant trigram. • Count backwards by threes. • Variable delay to recall. •
Definition: Retroactive Interference
in decrement a is interference Retroactive • performance attributable to subsequent learning. Often shows up as a decrease in memory as a • function of recency.
Definition: Proactive Interference
in decrement a is interference Proactive • performance attributable to prior learning. Often shown as a decrement in performance with • practice. How can you distinguish from fatigue? •
Brown-Peterson and PI from
long-term memory
No forgetting with delay for one trial. • Release from PI. • (Graphics from Delosh and Merritt, • http://lamar.colostate.edu/ bclegg/PY453/STM.pdf)
Keppel and Underwood (1962)
Perfect performance on first trial, even with long delay. (see also figure in Greene book!) 5 0. 55 0. 6 0. 65 0. 7 0. 75 0. 8 0. 85 0. 9 0. 95 0. 1 3 2 1 al Tri Proportion (^) Correct 3 S econd s 9 S econd s 18 S econd s
Release from PI paradigm
Word trigrams from a category. • car bike ship E.g. • Some Ss get a category shift after a few trials. • shift from “methods of transportation” to E.g. • “vegetables”
Release from PI results
0 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 0. 1 4 3 2 1 al T ri P roport ion C orrect rol C ont alim entExper
Summary
Primary/secondary distinction • interference vs Decay • Proactive and retroactive interference • Waugh-Norman task and implications •
Things to know about the
Brown-Peterson task
- Procedure
- Basic finding and interpretation
- Keppel and Underwood
- Release from PI
Assignments
Should have read through Chs 1-3 already. • week due report Experiment Brown-Peterson: • from today. Note date for first exam has been set. • Optional reading Miller (1956). •
Experiment reports
Max 10 points— About 2-4 typewritten pages. completing the experiment gets you six points (late reports get 6 points). Empirical description • Methodological concerns • Theoretical interpretation •
Sperling’s results
Fig 2.2 • Whole report estimates “size” of memory at 4.5 • items. Subjects reported seeing more than they could • say Varied delay between offset of array • Fig 2.3 •
PSY 400 Fall ’03’s results
(28 Ss) % Correct Delay (ms)
Three components of an Experiment A Graph of Fall ’03’s Data
Report
Empirical description. • Methodological concerns. • Theoretical discussion. •
Empirical Description
How did these data look? for shortest delay. 6. ) =R( P • at longest delay. 5. Gradual decrease to about • to similar was decrease a of existence The • Sperling’s results. How would we estimate “Letters available” from • percent correct? Lower overall performance than Sperling? •
