Lecture 10 – Psyco 350, B1 Fall, 2011

Psyco 350 Lec #10– Slide 1

Lecture 10 – Psyco 350, B1Fall, 2011

N. R. Brown


Outline

• Interference In the Real-World– Hindsight Bias

– Misinformation Effect

• Implicit Memory– Introduction

– Dissociating Implicit & Explicit Memory

– Transfer Appropriate Processing

• Implicit Learning


Testing Biased Guessing Hypothesis

• Introduce modified recognition test.• Predictions for recognition accuracy:

– Biased Guessing: Modified Misleading = control

– Memory Change: Modified Misleading < control• misleading info should memory for original info regardless of

test

Initial Event Post-Event Reco Test

Control “Stop” --- “Stop” or “Yield

Standard – Accurate “Stop” “Stop” “Stop” or “Yield”

Standard -- Misleading “Stop” “Yield” “Stop” or “Yield”

Modified – Misleading “Stop” “Yield” “Stop” or “Detour”


Rationale for Biased Guessing Prediction

Control Condition: “S” no “Y”; test: “S” or “Y”

“S,” no “Y”no “S,” no “Y”

“S,” no “Y”

no “S,” no “Y”

“S,” “Y”

no “S,” “Y”

Standard Test: “S” “Y”; test: “S” or “Y”

Modified Test: “S” “Y”; test: “S” or “Z”

“S,” no “Z”no “S,” no “Z”


McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985): Method

Stims:– 79 slides of an office theft– 4 s / slide– 4 critical items: coffee jar, magazine, pop can, tool– Post-slide narrative

• 735-words long

• misinformation for 2 items; neutral for 2 items



Procedure:

• view slides

• 10 minute filler

• read narrative


• 36-item 2IFC recognition test:

“The man slide the calculator beneath the ___ in his tool box”

standard test: hammer vs screwdrivermodified test: hammer vs wrench



Procedure:

• view slides


• read narrative


• 36-item 2IFC recognition test:

“The man slide the calculator beneath the ___ in his tool box”

standard test: hammer vs screwdrivermodified test: hammer vs wrench

On Slide

In Narrative

Never encountered


McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985): Results

• Standard Test: – replicates Misinformation effect: Misled << Control

• Modified Test:– consistent w/ Biased Guessing: Misled Control

• access to original info unimpaired by post-event info.• Consistent w/ Coexistence & Source Monitoring Accounts

Misled Control

Standardhammer vs screwdriver

37% 72%

Modifiedhammer vs wrench

72% 75%


Misinformation w/ Modified Procedure: Belli (1992)

Materials:– 44 slides (mother & child arguing)– 4 crit slides (coffeemaker, blender, toaster)– 500 word narrative w/ 2 misleading statements

• 2IFC modified reco test

Slide Narrative Test

Control toaster --- toaster vs blender

Mod Misinfo

toaster coffemaker toaster vs blender


Misinformation w/ Modified Procedure: Belli (1992)

view slides

Exp1 5-min delay Exp3 5-day delay

read narrative

10 min delay

reco test

Design – manipulates timing of misinformation


Belli (1992): Results

• W/ 5-min delay: Mod Misled = Control• consistent w/ Biased Guessing

• W/ 5-day delay: Mod Misled < Control • (at lease) consistent w/ Coexistence & RI

Control Mod Mis

Exp 1ns: 5-min delay 95% 95%

Exp 3*: 5-day delay 80% 70%


Blocking Hypothesis: Belli’s Explanation

Post-event information impairs access to original traces when:

• original trace is weak• post-event information is strong

Original trace

Trace for misinfomation

Effect of mis-info on modified test

strong strong no M&Z

weak weak no?? ??

weak strong yes Belli


Misinformation Effect: My TakeMemory impairment, coexistence, & source monitoring errors are

not mutually exclusive• As the work on Hindsight bias indicates, new information can:

– modify existing information– coexist w/ existing information– block access to existing information

• Biased guessing is a problem in 2IFC situation – particularly when target & misinformation are of equal strength

• Nonetheless, bias to select foil in standard condition, indicates that post-event information is (some times) accepted as true & incorporated into event representation.


Inhibitory ProcessesInhibition – well established at neural level.

increased activation of one unit, decreases activation in others.

Inhibition also observed in visual attention/object perceptions

Inhibition Processes in Memory Performance:

retrieval of ITEMI decreases the likelihood that ITEMJ will be retrieved.

Assumption: Inhibition is an active process

Has the flavor of repression/suppression, but functions to increase memory efficient not to “protect the self.”


Retrieval Induced Forgetting

Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork (1994)

Aim: Demonstrate that retrieval can produce forgetting

Materials:

• category-instance pairs COLOR-red; PET-dog; FRUIT-apple

• 6 pairs/category:


Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork (1994): Procedure

3-Phase Procedure:• Study – each pair presented once for 5 s• Retrieval Practice

– complete category-stem w/ list instanceFRUIT– ap__

– Each category-stem presented 3 times

20 minute delay• Test Phase

– given each category name recall all instances


Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork (1994): Results

• Practice Effect: PIPC >> UIUC• UIUC > UIPC

– if not rehearsed, being an instance of a practiced category hinders recall.

• Interpretation: UIPC inhibited during practice in order to make retrieval of practiced items easer.

% Correctly Recalled Instances

81.0% 40.3% 56.0%Practiced Instance from Practiced

Categories

Unpracticed Instances from Practiced Categories

Unpracticed Instances from Unpracticed Categories


Inhibitory Processes• Inhibitory Processing still not well studied. • Parameters still being explored

– range– strength – duration

• Alternative accounts of retrieval-inducted forgetting being explored.

– Retroactive Interference– Associative Inference (deferential spreading

activation)


(Episodic) Memory Basic: Implications for Forgetting

• Probability of recall decreases, as # of ERs linked to a cued concept increases. [interference]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Other possible mechanisms:

• decay

• knowledge revision & biased reconstruction

• inhibition

Second Half Material Begins Here



Implicit Memory

“Any form of memory that does not require consciousness and can operate without a person being aware that he is using his memory.” – Radvansky, p. 112

People “show evidence of memories for experiences that they cannot consciously retrieve.” Anderson, p. 298

“Memory without awareness” – Neath & Supernant, p 139


Implicit Memory

• Strategy for studying implicit memory:

– Demonstrate that prior experience affects performance on tasks that do not require retrieval or recognition of those prior experiences.

Such test are called Indirect tests.


Types of Memory Tests

Test

Direct (explicit) Indirect (implicit)

recall, cued recallrecognition, recency

frequency Word-related Test Judgments fragment completion fame

word-stem completion truth perceptual ID liking lexical decision r-w estimation

word-association general-knowledge category-instance generation


Common Indirect Tests

Fragment Completion• _e_e_c_• recency

Stem Completion• fre_ _ _ _ _ _• frequency

Anagrams:

• ticilipm• implicit

Lexical Decision• word/non-word? TREB

Perceptual Identification

read word (identify object) presented VERY briefly (e.g., 25 ms)


Evidence for Implicit Memory on Indirect Tests

• Indirect tests typically use improved performance as the measure of implicit memory

• Priming = the improvement in performance on a subsequent occasion due to processing on a previous occasion


Priming Effects

Exp condition = a prior exposure to stimControl = “no” prior exposure to stim

Priming:• fragment, stem, anagram:

dv – % complete: exp > control• Perceptional Identification:

dv -- % correct: exp > control• Lexical Decision:

dv – RT: exp < control


Dissociating Implicit & Explicit Memory

Dissociation: One variable affects one task differently than it affects another

_______________________________________

Tulving, Schacter, & Stark (1982)

Design:

Delay X Test Type .

1 hr fragment completion (indirect)

1 week recognition (direct)



Phase 1 Intentional Study (96 words)

1 hr delay

Phase 2 Recognition48 words

Frag Completion

48 words1 week delay

Phase 3 Frag Completion

48 words Recognition

48 words



Results:• Reco w/ dealy• frag unaffected by delay

Delay causes a dissociation between reco & frag tests.

Implication:

Test tap different “forms” of memory.


(Double) Dissociating Implicit & Explicit Memory

Jacoby (1983)

Aims: Using same materials demonstrate:

• explicit memory w/ depth of processing

• implicit memory w/ perceptual similarity

Materials selected so that:• as depth of processing , perceptual similarity


Jacoby (1983)

Design: Encoding Task X Test .

(Antonym) Generation recognition

Read (antonym in context) perceptual ID (40 ms)

Read (target alone)


Jacoby(1983): Two perspective on Encoding Tasks

Predictions:• Recognition: deeper processing should produce

better performance.• Percp ID: priming should become stronger as study

and test materials become more similar.

Task example LOP perc similarity

Generate hot deep low

Read in context hot – COLD mid mid

Read no context COLD shallow high


Jacoby (1983): Results• w/out prior exposure

(control): perc ID = 60%• In all conditions:

– Perc ID > 60% – priming

_________________________

• Reco with Depth of Processing

• Perc ID perc similarity (Perc ID LoP)Evidence for 2 types of

memory


Jacoby (1983): Results• w/out prior exposure

(control): perc ID = 60%• In all conditions:

– Perc ID > 60% – priming

_________________________

• Reco with Depth of Processing

• Perc ID perc similarity (Perc ID LoP)Evidence for 2 types of

memory


Transfer Appropriate Process: Theory

Assumes:

• Performance depends of match between processing at study and processing at test.

Analogous to encoding specificity.

• Two-types of Processes– Data-driven (perceptual) – processing of

physical features.

– Conceptually-driven (semantic) – processing for meaning


Transfer Appropriate Processing: Two Types of Indirect Test

Data-driven

(Perceptual):• fragment completion• stem completion• anagram completion• lexical decision• perceptual

identification

Conceptually-driven

(Semantic):• word association

doctor ??• category-instance

generation“name a mammal”

• general knowledge“The capital of the US is

…?”

Lecture 10 – Psyco 350, B1 Fall, 2011

Documents

s y test

misled psyco

ymodified test

resultsstandard test

ystandard test

ifc recognition test

tool boxstandard test

mccloskey zaragoza