ZeePedia

Memory:Interference, Historical Memories, Recall versus Recognition

<< Memory:Interference, The Critical Assumption, Limited capacity
Memory:Are forgotten memories lost forever? >>
img
Cognitive Psychology ­ PSY 504
VU
Lesson 31
Memory
Interference
The fan effect is the name given to this increase in reaction time related to an increase in the
number of facts associated with a concept. It is so named because the increase in reaction time
is related to an increase in the fan of facts emanating from the network representation of the
concept. The term conveys the fact that additional information about a concept interferes with
memory for a particular piece of information. Interference affects a wider range of measures than
just recognition time. Fan effect is reserved for interference effects as measured by reaction time.
Historical Memories
Lewis & Anderson (1976) investigated whether he fan effect could be obtained with material the
subject knew before the experiment. They had subjects learned fantasy figures for example,
Napoleon Bonaparte was from India. Subjects studied 0-4 fantasy facts about each public figure.
After learning these facts they proceeded to a recognition-test phase. In this phase they saw
three types of sentences:
Fantasy world statements, true statements, and false statements like
1) Statements they had studied in the experiment
2) True facts about the public figurers (such as napoleon bonapartae was an emperor);
3) Statements about the public figure that was false both in the experimental fantasy world
and in the real world.
Subjects had to respond to the first two types of facts as true and to the last type as false.
Results
Subjects responded much faster to actual truths than to experimental truths. The advantage of
the actual truths can be explained, because these true facts would be much more strongly
encoded in memory than the fantasy facts because of greater prior exposure. The more fantasy
facts one learned about a person, the longer it took them to recognize something they already
knew about the person; Napoleon was an emperor.
Interference and Retention
Now we will consider what happens as these interfering effects get more extreme-either because
the to-be-recalled fact is very weak or because the interference is very strong.
There is evidence that the subject simply fails to remember the information under both conditions.
Results showing such failures of memory have traditionally been obtained with paired-associate
material, although similar results have been obtained with other material.
Experiment
In a typical interference experiment, two critical groups were defined.
The A-D experimental group learns two lists of paired associates,
The first list is List A-B: cat-43 and house-61
And second list is List A-D: cat-82 and house-37
The C-D control group also first studies the A-B list, but then studies a different second list,
List C-D is bone-82 and cup-37, which does not contain the same stimuli as the first list.
After learning their respective second lists, both groups are rested for their memory of their first
list, in both cases the A-B list.
92
img
Cognitive Psychology ­ PSY 504
VU
Results
In general, the A-D group does not do as well as the C-D group with respect to both rate of
learning of the second list and retention of the original A-B list.
The results are presented in following figure.
Implications
The implication is that failure to recall is the extreme case of a long retrieval time. Thus, it is not
the case that the forgotten information is not in memory, but rather that it is in memory but is too
weak to be activated in the face of interference from other associations. Paired associate memory
is too weak to recall.
Forgetting is not actual loss of information but rather loss of ability to activate that information.
Recall versus Recognition
Consistent with the hypothesis that there exists in memory information that we can not recall is
the fact that we can recognize many things we cannot recall. This phenomenon suggests that
information can be in memory even though it cannot be activated in the recall test situation. The
memory network analysis makes clear the reason that recognition often works even when recall
fails. So, recognition is generally better than recall. For example if there is a question
Who invented the lenses we use in spectacles?
Then a huge fan of information networks becomes active. We recall a lot of information that is
related to glasses or spectacles.
For example someone mention Ibn-al Haitham invented the lenses we use in spectacles. If we
have listened this before now, then we can recall this answer because of strong enough
information. So, Joint activation helps the second statement.
There are many other possibilities. If with this question (Who invented the lenses we use in
spectacles? we have some options like, Michael, Ibne Batota, Albaroni and Ibn Al Haitham. Now
these options interfere with our information. And we become confuse. But because of our links or
network we can recall correct information. Like spectacles were invented by Muslim scientist so,
Michael could not be answer.
So, recognition is typically better than recall because a recognition test typically provides more
sources for activating memory. Recognition test is better than recall test. Tip of the tongue is
happened in recall not in recognition.
For example, if you see a man you say you have seen him before. So you can recognize him. But
you are not recalling his name.
In our daily life, in our exams, in any test or in other situation we think recognition is our friend and
recall is not much friendly.
93
img
Cognitive Psychology ­ PSY 504
VU
Another example is if someone asks you when Baber came in Hindustan and invaded Hindustan.
The chances are we could not recall. If someone gives us some options like, 712, 789, 1566 and
1020 with question. Then it becomes easy to recognize when Baber invaded India.
So the conclusion of all that is recognition is a better and easiest task than recall.
94
Table of Contents:
  1. INTRODUCTION:Historical Background
  2. THE INFORMATION PROCESSING APPROACH
  3. COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY:Brains of Dead People, The Neuron
  4. COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY (CONTINUED):The Eye, The visual pathway
  5. COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY (CONTINUED):Hubel & Wiesel, Sensory Memory
  6. VISUAL SENSORY MEMORY EXPERIMENTS (CONTINUED):Psychological Time
  7. ATTENTION:Single-mindedness, In Shadowing Paradigm, Attention and meaning
  8. ATTENTION (continued):Implications, Treisman’s Model, Norman’s Model
  9. ATTENTION (continued):Capacity Models, Arousal, Multimode Theory
  10. ATTENTION:Subsidiary Task, Capacity Theory, Reaction Time & Accuracy, Implications
  11. RECAP OF LAST LESSONS:AUTOMATICITY, Automatic Processing
  12. AUTOMATICITY (continued):Experiment, Implications, Task interference
  13. AUTOMATICITY (continued):Predicting flight performance, Thought suppression
  14. PATTERN RECOGNITION:Template Matching Models, Human flexibility
  15. PATTERN RECOGNITION:Implications, Phonemes, Voicing, Place of articulation
  16. PATTERN RECOGNITION (continued):Adaptation paradigm
  17. PATTERN RECOGNITION (continued):Gestalt Theory of Perception
  18. PATTERN RECOGNITION (continued):Queen Elizabeth’s vase, Palmer (1977)
  19. OBJECT PERCEPTION (continued):Segmentation, Recognition of object
  20. ATTENTION & PATTERN RECOGNITION:Word Superiority Effect
  21. PATTERN RECOGNITION (CONTINUED):Neural Networks, Patterns of connections
  22. PATTERN RECOGNITION (CONTINUED):Effects of Sentence Context
  23. MEMORY:Short Term Working Memory, Atkinson & Shiffrin Model
  24. MEMORY:Rate of forgetting, Size of memory set
  25. Memory:Activation in a network, Magic number 7, Chunking
  26. Memory:Chunking, Individual differences in chunking
  27. MEMORY:THE NATURE OF FORGETTING, Release from PI, Central Executive
  28. Memory:Atkinson & Shiffrin Model, Long Term Memory, Different kinds of LTM
  29. Memory:Spread of Activation, Associative Priming, Implications, More Priming
  30. Memory:Interference, The Critical Assumption, Limited capacity
  31. Memory:Interference, Historical Memories, Recall versus Recognition
  32. Memory:Are forgotten memories lost forever?
  33. Memory:Recognition of lost memories, Representation of knowledge
  34. Memory:Benefits of Categorization, Levels of Categories
  35. Memory:Prototype, Rosch and Colleagues, Experiments of Stephen Read
  36. Memory:Schema Theory, A European Solution, Generalization hierarchies
  37. Memory:Superset Schemas, Part hierarchy, Slots Have More Schemas
  38. MEMORY:Representation of knowledge (continued), Memory for stories
  39. Memory:Representation of knowledge, PQ4R Method, Elaboration
  40. Memory:Study Methods, Analyze Story Structure, Use Multiple Modalities
  41. Memory:Mental Imagery, More evidence, Kosslyn yet again, Image Comparison
  42. Mental Imagery:Eidetic Imagery, Eidetic Psychotherapy, Hot and cold imagery
  43. Language and thought:Productivity & Regularity, Linguistic Intuition
  44. Cognitive development:Assimilation, Accommodation, Stage Theory
  45. Cognitive Development:Gender Identity, Learning Mathematics, Sensory Memory