Memory and what affects it



What affects our memory and aids or prevents recollection:

How does the way materials are presented affect the ability or inability to remember the material once it is no longer visually available.

Victoria Hawkins Marina Bondarenko

Laura Prieto Stephanie Cronshaw

Cal State University of Northridge

ABSTRACT

This work tested the following hypothesis - The simplest way to recall a list of words would be to visually see what you are expected to retain rather than just hearing it. Experiment 1 tested the ability to recall a list of words that the participants were able to visually see and read for themselves. Findings revealed that the participants that read the list to themselves came up with methods to help them remember the words (i.e. tapping on the table, closing their eyes to see how many words they can remember then looking at the list to check for accuracy). After being allowed to study the list for 5 minutes they were asked to write down as many as they could recall. In Experiment 2, participants had the list of words verbally read out loud to them and then were asked to write down the words they could remember after hearing the list over a period of 5 minutes. The results found that the participants that were able to physically view the list themselves were able to recall a greater more accurate amount of words that those who received the list verbally.

What affects our memory and aids or prevents recollection:

What affects does presentation have on our ability or inability to memorize or recall information? If often appears to be easier to recall something that an individual has visualized himself or herself rather than something that has been heard. Reason being is that we can be deceived by accents or the way that we interpret what is being said. Meanwhile, if we visually see it and translate in into our own basic understanding it is often impossible to misinterpret what we are looking at (with the exception of language barriers). To understand this we first need to understand what memory is and what aids it.

Memory can often be defined as the process by which we grasp, encode, save, and recall information and in order to have memories we must have experiences to call to mind. Some individuals have preconceived preference on how new material will be presented to them some prefer auditory and some prefer visual presentation.

If something is read out loud one could often confuse certain sounds, which in turn would result in a false memory or experience because they have learned the wrong word or phrase. A common occurrence is the similarity between the letter “s” and the letter “z” when they are read out loud they can often be confused with one another but if you are looking at the letter it is evident that they are dissimilar. Current theories presume that word recognition systems rely on both word-level (lexical) representations as well as smaller sub lexical units like phonemes and syllables. For instance when a listener hears the word “beef” theories state that the activation of both lexical (beef) and sub lexical (b/i/f) representation.

Let’s not give the impression that we remember everything that we see just because it is visual and therefore easier to understand. A study showed that the immediate memorization and recall of words were affected by how long they were. (Coltheart, Mondy, Dux & Stephenson, et al. 2004). The two determiners were phonological length (the sound) and orthographic length (syllables) and both contribute to the level of difficulty people have in short-term memory recall of words that are visually presented when the words are long. A partnering factor is when words have many syllables and the sound is longer because it takes a longer amount of time to articulate which increases the probability of forgetting the word.

So would it be a catch 22 to say that if we visually see it we are more likely to remember it at a latter time as apposed to hearing it? It seems apparent that when a person sees something (ex: a list of words) he/she will be more likely to recall the list at a later time reason being that when we see something we have the advantage of storing that into our memory any way we like (ex: mnemonic devises) but if it is something that is read out loud to us we have to take into account the accent of the person speaking and if he/she is pronouncing it in a clear concise manner. There isn’t really a technique one can use to help store the data that is verbally heard without some sort of memorization. In order to use the mnemonic devise we would have to first memorize the words. Based upon these beliefs the hypotheses would stand that the simplest way to recall would be to visually see what you are expected to retain rather than just hear it.

Literature Review

A specific constraint on the visual system and on the way we perceive the world around us has to do with oculomotor behavior. High-resolution vision is confined to the central, fovea portion of the retinal image, and to sample a particular location in the scene we must direct our eyes toward it. Eye movements are accomplished by rapid jerks, called saccades, to minimize visual disruption (Dodge, et al. 1990). It is during saccades that vision is actively suppressed and can maintain a relatively stable retinal image. It is also easier to remember if we already know what the subject is going to be about and try to focus on that. It was thought that the visual system might construct a faithful copy of the external scene. However, evidence against this suggestion of Tran saccadic integration has been available for some time and it found that observers were not able to detect a displacement of a visual scene if the displacement occurred during a saccade (Bridgeman, & Stark, et al. 1975).

Given the complexity and variability of spoken language, the ability of a listener to understand a speaker is quiet impressive. Most current theories in this domain assume that the word recognition system relies on both word-level (lexical) representations and some kind of smaller (sub lexical) units, such as phonemes or syllables. When a listener hears a word (beef), current theories of spoken word recognition posit the activation of both lexical (beef) and sub lexical (b/i/f) representations. Because of the way the word could be heard, recognition responses can be delayed if a similar word had been heard earlier. In the recent study (Summer & Samuel, et al. 2005) intriguing result was obtained: in a long-term study, hearing a real word inhibited a listener’s ability to reject a similar pseudo word. In addition to studies examining real word effects on pseudo word processing, there is a large repetition priming literature. Virtually all of the repetition priming literature is based on visual, rather than auditory presentation. A number of researchers have examined lexical decision performance as a function of prior presentation. These studies have consistently shown that priming a real word decreased both reaction times and error rated for later presentations of that word (Ratcliff & McKoon, 1985; Wagenmakers, et al. 2004).

Research on the monitoring of memory has clearly demonstrated that recall produces very effective memory monitoring (Pressley, Levin, & Ghatala, et al. 1984). If it’s a given a list – learning task, than the poor prediction of as yet unrecalled information may reflect the restrictions that commonly found in that situation. Most list-learning studies use standardized items that make it very difficult for subjects to decide which items are likely to be remembered. The presentation – presentation - recall procedure (i.e., presenting the entire list twice before recall) also makes it possible to infer whether the subjects are monitoring memory during presentation.

Memory is commonly defined as the process by which individuals grasp, encode, save and recall information. Memory enables us to acquire new skills and form behaviors and habits to aid us in our daily lives. In order to have memories, one must have experiences to call upon. Learning is brought forth by these experiences. Learning involves changed in an individual's behavior as a result of an experience.

            Ever since the importance of learning came into play centuries ago, people have been experimenting with ways to improve memory ability and performance. Early studies, such as those performed by German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus, focused on memory in regards to a number of different aspects. Ebbinghaus memorized a list of nonsense words and tested his ability to recall them based on the length of the list, the time elapsed between the memorization and recall, as well as the order in which the words were presented (Mazur, et al. 2006). In addition to Ebbinghaus' studies, others have shown that when recalling an item, that item has to compete with all of the remaining items that have not yet been recalled. Items early on in the list have little trouble winning this competition (Henson, Norris, Page, & Baddeley, et al. 1996).

            More recent studies have focused on how the material is presented to subjects. Studies often rely on a list of words presented to the subjects either through visual stimuli or auditory stimuli. Visual stimuli are often presented as a list of written words, either on paper or a computer screen. Auditory stimuli are presented as a list of words read out loud to the subject by the experimenter or by a computer program. The type of memory being studied in these experiments is generally episodic memory, that is, memory of a list or images presented to the subject by an experimenter. Memory performance is influenced by the modality in which the stimuli are presented and the type of encoding activity that is employed (De Haan, Appels, Aleman, Postma, et al. 2000). Encoding is the ability to perceive information and bringing it into an individual's memory. Auditorially presented words are processed in a different or more distinct manner than visually presented words (De Haan, et al. 2000). In addition, we often recode information to have it make more sense to us so that we may remember it later if necessary.

Other studies have used visual and auditory stimuli such as music to test certain memory theories. One of these theories is a chaining mechanism that is hypothesized to aid an individual when recalling a list of items. The theory states that learning a sequence involves the formation or strengthening of associations between representations of successive items (Henson, et al. 1996). That is, one word may serve as the queue for the next word in the list and words that are may be easily confused with others in the same list may have an affect on recall. However, there is evidence that this theory is not correct, as shown by Henson’s experiment regarding chaining patterns and error in recall. Basically, confusable items seem to have little effect on real of non-confusable items in the same list (Henson, et al. 1996).

We use our memory so many times in one day that we don’t even take notice how often we look into our experiences to help us make everyday decisions. The way those experiences were presented to us has an effect on how well we remember them. Only by being able to recall upon those experiences will learning take place.

Centuries ago, philosophers were all ready questioning how a complex object that comprised multiple properties was learned. John Locke for example, wrote about what we know today as the classical association theory, in which one takes a whole and breaks it up into smaller pieces. Through repetition one will come to memorize those smaller pieces and then assemble them into a whole. Another concept that explains how objects are learned is reintegration – the idea that an entity is learned and retrieved as a whole. The unit concept of Gestalt psychology proposes that object properties are directly integrated by their inclusion within a more comprehensive structure that represents the object (Ceraso, Kourtzi, Suchismita, et al. 2002).

Sometimes, one has easier time remembering lists of things when they’re short and simple. One study showed that the immediate memorization and recall of words is affected by their length. However, various researchers have different opinions on whether the rate of recall is influenced by phonological length (how long is the sound) or orthographical length (how many syllables). Through experimentation, test results indicate that both orthographic length and phonological length contribute to the difficulty people have in short-term memory recall of visually presented word lists when the words are long. (Coltheart, Mondy, Dux, & Stephenson, et al. 2004).

In a similar study, longer words are assumed to take more time to articulate, hence allowing a greater degree of forgetting, either from trace decay or from interference. Experiments were conducted in which word sequences were repeated exactly, or with one pair of words reversed. Two experiments using auditory presentation showed clear word length effects for both recall and serial recognition, although the magnitude of the effect tended to be less for recognition. A third experiment using visual presentation studied the effect of articulatory suppression during the recognition test; a clear word length effect was found. It is concluded that the word length effect can influence retention through both rehearsal and output factors, as proposed by the phonological loop hypothesis. The phonological loop, made up of an inner ear and an inner voice, is the part of working memory that rehearses verbal information (Baddley, Chincotta, Stafford, & Turk et al. 2002).

Method

Participants

Forty students from California State University Northridge, participated in the study. They were divided to two groups that contained twenty people in each group. The participants took part in the study and received credit for their participation.

Material

The experiment took place in a four walled room with a table, four chairs, and one door. Participants were presented with a list of 10 words (see appendix for actual word list) either printed on a white 8 1⁄2 by 11 piece of printer paper or read the same list by an experimenter, with a typical American accent. The list included words such as ambitious, politician, sufficient, and anticipate. They were then asked to recall as many words as they could and were provided with an 8 1⁄2 by 11 piece of lined notebook paper and a pencil to write upon.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Randomization was done by assigning every person a 1 or a 2, group 1 represented the visually group, and group 2 represented the auditory list group. Randomization was done by having each participant pick one slip of paper from a small cardboard box, which contained 40 slips of paper, 20 with a 1 typed on it, and 20 with a 2 typed on it. Hence, those participants that picked the 1 were assigned to that group, and those that picked a 2 were assigned to group number 2. Group 1 would be receiving the list of 10 words as a typed list from which to study, group 2 received the words given orally by the researcher. The participants, four at the time, were taken into a small research room upon the start of the experiment. They were asked to sit at the table located in the room. Here, depending on which group they were assigned to, they were given a list of 10 words. Participants in the auditory group were seated and had the list of words read to them by the researcher, over and over for a period of 5 minutes. The researcher read the words standing on the opposite side of the table from where the participants were seated. After the 5 minutes was up, the researcher presented the participant with a piece of lined notebook paper and a pencil and asked the participant to write down as many words as they could remember from the list. They were allowed three minutes for this recall, then they were dismissed. The visually group had the same exact set up, except they received the list of words typed upon a piece of computer paper, and were allowed 5 minutes to memorize it. During this time, the researcher simply sat on a chair in the room. After the five minutes was up, the list was taken away and the researcher gave the participant a piece of lined paper and a pencil and asked them to write down as many words as they could remember, in the allowed 3 minutes. At the end of the 15 minute study, the participants were handed a typed copy of a debriefing statement, which is located in the appendix for reference.

Results

Our sample consisted of two groups of twenty people. We calculated the mean, median, mode and standard deviation of the two groups. The visual group’s recall mean was 9.15, the median was 10, the mode 10, and the standard deviation was 1.46. The auditory group’s recall mean was 7.3, with a median of 7, a mode of 8.5, and a standard deviation of 1.95.

The statistical test we used for our data was an independent sample t test. The independent variable was the way in which the word list was presented. The dependent variable was how many words the participants were able to recall successfully. Our hypotheses states that the simplest way to recall the list of words would be to visually see what you are expected to retain rather than just hear it.

An independent sample t test was preformed to see if there was a difference between the auditory group’s results and those from the visual group. We had a statistical significance of .002 on a two-tailed test and our degrees of freedom were 38 with our t-value being 3.396 and p=.002 [t(38)+3.396, p=.002]. Our SPSS outputs are included in the appendix.

Conclusion

Memory is commonly defined as the process by which individuals grasp, encode, save and recall information. Memory enables us to acquire new skills and form behaviors and habits to aid us in our daily lives. Ever since the importance of learning came into play centuries ago, people have been experimenting with ways to improve memory ability and performance (Henson, Norris, Page, & Baddeley et al. 1996). Our study’s goal was to find out if the way we are presented information affects how well we memorize it.

As some evidence suggests, it would seem clear that visual presentation results in better recall. Although some subjects were able to successfully recall all words presented verbally; overall, most were not so successful. Overall, the subjects that received the words visually did significantly better than the subjects who heard the words. This is further supported by a study (Summer and Sammuel et al. 2005) that demonstrated the obstacles people face when attempting to remember or recall words presented verbally. If a person hears a word and then is presented a word that sounds similar to it, they are more likely to forget it. People hear thousand’s of words a day, which is why it’s more difficult to remember words you hear over words you read. Also, virtually all repetition priming literature is based on visual, rather than auditory presentation.

Our hypothesis stated that the simplest way to recall the list of words would be to visually see what one is expected to retain rather than just hearing it. After analyzing our data we found our hypothesis to be true. A possible explanation for the subjects in the auditory group who successfully recalled all the words is because auditorially presented words are processed in a different or more distinct manner than visually presented words (De Haan et al. 2000). Despite this, we were able to see that the way information is presented has a significant effect on how well we memorize it.

References

Akyürek, E., & Hommel, B. (2006). Memory operations in rapid serial visual presentation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 520-536. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database

Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., Stafford, L., & Turk, D. (2002). Is the word length effect in STM entirely attributable to output delay? Evidence from serial recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 55(2), 353-369. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Bridgeman, B., & Stark, L. (1975). Ocular Proprioception and efference copy in registering visual direction. Vision Research, 16(7)

Ceraso, J., Kourtzi, Z., & Suchismita R., (1998). The integration of object properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology / Learning, Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 1152. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Coltheart, V., Mondy, S., Dux, P.E., & Stephenson, L. (2004). Effects of Orthographic and Phonological Word Length on Memory for Lists Shown at RSVP and STM Rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology / Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 815-826. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

De Haan, E., Appels, B., Aleman, A., & Postma, A. (2000). INTER- AND INTRAMODAL ENCODING OF AUDITORY AND VISUAL PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL: EFFECTS OF MEMORY PERFORMANCE. Psychological Record, 50(3), 577. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Dodge, R. (1990). Visual perception during eye movement. Psychological Review, 7(5), 454-465. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from PsycINFO database.

Henson, R.N., Norris, D.G., Page, M.P.A., & Baddeley, A.D., (1996). Unchained Memory: Error Patterns Rule out Chaining Models of Immediate Serial Recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 49(1), 80-115. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Korenman, L., & Peynircioglu, Z. (2007). Individual Differences in Learning and Remembering Music: Auditory versus Visual Presentation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(1), 48-64. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database

Mazur, J. (2006). Learning and Behavior. In Simple Ideas, Simple Associations, and Simple Cells (pp. 23-27). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Pressley, M., Levin, J., & Ghatala, E. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 270-288. Retrieved October 4, 2007, from PsycINFO database.

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1985). A retrieval theory priming in memory.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114,435–450.

Sumner, M., & Samuel, A. G. (2005). The perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final /t/. Journal of Memory and Language,52, 322–338.

Sumner, M., & Samuel, A.G. (2007). Lexical Inhibition and Sublexical Facilitation Are Surprisingly Long Lasting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 769. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ768638) Retrieved September 23, 2007, from ERIC database.

Tatler, B.W., Gilchrist, I.D., & Land, M.F., (2005). Visual memory for objects in natural scenes: From fixations to object files. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 58(5), 931-960. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Thompson, C., & Barnett, C. (1985). Review, Recitation, and Memory Monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 533. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ324700) Retrieved September 23, 2007, from ERIC database.

Wagenmakers, E.J., Steyvers, M., Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Shiffrin, R. M., van Rijn, H.,

& Zeelenberg, R. (2004). A model for evidence accumulation in the lexical decision task. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 332–367.

Appendix

Word List

Taken from…

Chall, Roswell, Curtis, Strucher (2003). Quick Adult Reading Inventory. Elizabethtown, PA: Continental Press, inc.

Ambitious

Politician

Duration

Enthusiastic

Sufficient

Economical

Comprehension

Interruption

Anticipate

Productivity

SPSS OUTPUT

Group Statistics

| |Group Number |N |Mean |Std. Deviation |Std. Error Mean|

|Total Words Recalled |Visual |20 |9.15 |1.461 |.327 |

| |Auditory |20 |7.30 |1.949 |.436 |

Independent Samples Test

| | |Levene's Test for|t-test for Equality of Means |

| | |Equality of | |

| | |Variances | |

| |F |Sig. |t |df |Sig. (2-tailed) |Mean Difference |Std. Error Difference |95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | | | |Lower |Upper |Lower |Upper |Lower |Upper |Lower |Upper |Lower | |Total Words Recalled |Equal variances assumed |1.455 |.235 |3.396 |38 |.002 |1.850 |.545 |.747 |2.953 | | |Equal variances not assumed | | |3.396 |35.224 |.002 |1.850 |.545 |.744 |2.956 | |

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download