Memory 3

Memory 3

1. Ebbinghaus (1985)

   • Procedure
     • Learned random "nonsense syllables"
     • Used savings to avoid bias & measure implicit memory
     • Measured how many times a day he had to re-learn them
   • Findings
     • Day 1 = 10 times, day 2 = 5 times
       • Memory 50% better on the second day
     • "Forgetting curve" shows memory worsens quickly then levels out
     • Some info is retained over a long period

2. Duration of Long Term Memories

   • Wixted (1990, 1997)
     • Described as a power function over time
       • f(t) = at (-b)
     • Memory is never completely degraded

3. Bahrick (1984)

   • Procedure
     • Tested 733 pps on Spanish vocab at delays up to 50 years
     • Recall tests
     • Almost none ever used Spanish again
   • Findings
     • Decayed rapidly over the first few years
     • Levelled off and was way above the chance level 50 years later

4. Standing (1973)

   • Procedure
     • Tested long-term capacity
     • Pps watched slides for 5 seconds each (10,000 items)
     • Recognition test 2 days later
   • Findings
     • Performance was at 83% on subsequent recognition test
     • Performance was better for vivid pictures
     • Slightly worse for words

5. Horowitz & Wolfe (1998)

   • Findings
     • More "L" shapes = longer to find "T"
     • Search slope unchanged
       • Even when the stimuli are randomly interchanged every 83.33 ms
     • We dont encode all visual info
   • Procedure
     • Pps asked to spot "T" hidden among "L" shapes

6. Konkle, Brady, Alvare & Aude (2010)

   • Procedure
     • 2AFC recognition to explain why our memory depends on which subset of items we have learned
     • Presented pps with pics that come from certain categories
   • Findings
     • Pps find it difficult to identity which item from a category they've seen
     • Studying one category = 93% performance
     • Performance gradually declines the more items within a category you learn
     • Memory test is easy if pps learned something distinctive

7. Konkle, Brady, Alvare & Aude (2010)

   • Proposed 3 different dimensions, gathered for all 200 objects
     • Conceptual Distinctiveness
       • Are there few or many different kinds of this object?
     • Shape Distinctiveness
       • How similar or distinctive are the three-dimensional shapes of these objects?
     • Colour Distinctiveness
       • How similar or distinctive are these items in colour?

8. Bahrick (1984)

   • Procedure
     • Tested the ability of college teachers to recognise and identify previous students
     • Pps given photos and had to name the student in the photo
   • Findings
     • After 11 days = performance below 50%
     • After a year = performance below 10%
     • After 8 years = barely any recognition of names

9. Young, Hay & Ellis (1995)

   • Procedure
     • Errors in everyday face processing
     • 22 pps keep a diary for 8 weeks
     • Noted down all the errors they make in face recognition and identification
   • Findings
     • 1008 errors made in total = 6 per day
     • 114 failures to recognise a person
     • 314 mistakenly identifying a person
     • 233 recognising but failing to identify
     • 190 failing to recall someone's name

10. Schooler & Engstler - Schooler (1990)

    • Procedure
      • Conducted a facial recognition test to see if memory of a face can improve by describing it
    • Findings
      • Trying to describe a face makes your memory even worse

11. Melcher & Schooler (1996)

    • Procedure
      • Demonstrated verbal overshadowing for memory
      • Pps asked to taste wine and then describe it
      • Did a recognition test
    • Findings
      • Novice = describing enhances memory
      • Intermediate = describing hugely impaires
      • True expert = no impairement