Third Unit Terms

From MerrimackWiki

The comments are valid as of the time/date stamp on my signature... since I made these remarks at different points during the weekend. Note that several terms have been modified since I made my original remarks -- I won't be able to catch up and comment on all of them, but if you find that my comments don't seem to make sense, or that the term seems to conform to my comments, that's why!

Levels of processing This is good. The 1st point in the definition is a little weak, only because it doesn't mention anything other than meaning-based processing. The significance is not impressive (partly b/c I'm a big fan, but...) partly because of the impact of LoP on memory theory -- previously all structure, subsequently both structure and process are considered important because of LoP. The def'n is also pretty long for the test... --Ray 17:58, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

memory trace Definition is fine; significance could use some work. The significance as written is an explanation of causes of the levels of processing effect. An alternative perspective on the significance of the term is that previously, "memories" were understood to be more or less veridical representations of an event, encoded as such. Under the LoP perspective, memory traces were records of the processing that took place during encoding, setting the stage for later theories like encoding specificity. --Ray 17:58, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

"memory" from the levels of processing perspective The significance section as written is more definition. I would consider the significance of this view in terms of its difference from previous views, perhaps as I commented above. Post Craik & Lockhart, memory is seen in terms of processing rather than as a collection of "records" of events. --Ray 18:02, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

elaborative vs. maintenance rehearsal This isn't really correct. Maintenance rehearsal can technically be at any level of processing, but the point is that it maintains information at that level. It is usually phonological, and usually doesn't get to meaning per se. Elaborative rehearsal, likewise, isn't necessarily semantic. Elaborative rehearsal moves the information into deeper and deeper processing, usually getting to semantic, but it can become more semantic in a sense, too. The disinction is the point of this item, by the way. Craik & Lockhart were the first to make this distinction, and they made it in contrast to the traditional way of thinking about rehearsal in the Atkinson/Shiffrin view of the modal model of memory, that it was just the mindless repetition of information. Craik & Lockhart pointed out that one had to be aware of the fact that rehearsal wasn't always the same thing... a new idea in thinking about memory and cognition... --Ray 23:46, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

orienting task This item is ok, but not great. The significance contains some incorrect information. It isn't elaborative rehearsal; in some sense, the orienting task stops people from doing any processing other than what is directed by the researcher. The point of elaboratie rehearsal is that it increasingly deepens the processing. The orienting task was used to explore the nature of level of processing, and it (theoretically) depends on incidental encoding, where the subject is going to be unaware that a memory test is forthcoming. The significance is about its relation to demonstrating that the LoP perspective was important/useful. --Ray 23:46, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

incidental vs. intentional encoding The definition isn't exactly correct. Incidental encoding can lead to very deep processing (or not, as the experimenter wishes). Intentional encoding may lead to deep processing (or not, if the subject isn't very knowledgeable or motivated). The point is nicely stated in the significance section. However, it should be punched up a bit -- why is it important for the researcher? The point: what can a researcher say about memory if the subject is in control of the encoding processes? --Ray 00:05, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

elaboration The "yes" / "no" distinction is only one type of variation in elaboration; there are others that are more compelling, in fact, as described in the lectures. In terms of significance, it provides an explanation of a variety of memory findings besides those in LoP studies, but the information written here is ok, too. --Ray 00:05, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

distinctiveness The latter half of the definition is actually part of the term that follows this (ESP), and isn't about distinctiveness. The significance section is really more definition material. The last sentence might work as significance, but it's kind of weak for the exam. The preceding term (elaboration) has a section on significance that would more or less work as well here. For both, these are concepts that account for LoP effects and other memory phenomena as well. --Ray 00:05, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Encoding Specificity Principle The definition is a bit scattered... I'd like to see at least a paraphrase of the principle as Tulving elucidated it in his statement (which is actually provided in the definition of the preceding term although it doesn't really work there). The significance statement is good; I'd punch it up a bit by noting that the ESP made the link between encoding and retrieval central to understanding memory phenomena; it's the idea that one cannot understand memory performance fully without paying attention to both encoding and retrieval. The principle also has a number of interesting assumptions about memory behind it as well, dealing with the issue of accessibility of memories. --Ray 00:14, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Recognition failure Nicely done, except that there is no mention of a recognition test. The details aside, subjects failed to recognize some words that they could produce in cued recall. The significance is dead on -- it supports the encoding specificity principle. --Ray 00:36, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

misleading post-event information Pretty much to the point. One of the things that's missing, however, is that the MPI can change what people remember, without their awareness that their memory has been altered. That's a major part of what makes this significant. The significance statement here is really definition. MPI shows that eyewitnesses can have their memory changed by the way questions are asked, and by being asked questions (as in the Red Datsun study) that modify their memory by being about something else, and providing false information about some aspect of their experience. --Ray 00:36, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

flashbulb memory The definition statement is the old view; new research shows that it is false, there is no special storage mechanism, but researchers used to think so. The significance statement is really definitional. The last part of the last sentence, though, is kind of about significance -- that flashbulb memory research shows that confidence is unrelated to accuracy; that although people are confident about memories related to flashbulb incidents, they tend to be wrong. --Ray 00:42, 3 May 2009 (EDT) Note: This item has since been modified and is much more along the lines of what I would expect to see. --Ray 12:35, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

false memory The definition presents the scope of the methodology, but needs a little more detail -- just having the word "nap" on a list is unlikely to lead to the false memory that "sleep" appeared, as the term implies given what it currently says. The significance statement is excellent (although I'm not sure about the connection to eyewitness testimony). --Ray 00:42, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

gist A bit scattered. The significance section has two sentences. The first is really definitional. The second is signficance, but not very informative... and the brain doesn't remember, people do. The significance I would present is that it supports schema theories; that people abstract the gist of what they experience rather than the details, the gist is the central "message" of what they experience. --Ray 01:04, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

abstractive, integrative, constructive The first sentence of the definition is the significance. These are three properties of memory. It is critical to note, however, that they are only three properties of memory according to schema theory; other researchers would disagree. The last sentence of the definition is incorrect, that's not what the integrative property is about. I'm not completely comfortable with the statements in the significance section. Also the quotation marks in the significance section aren't necessary. The fact that remembering can be shown to be abstractive, constructive, and integrative are elements of how schemas are involved in the everyday processes of remembering. It doesn't always make us remember falsely, either... --Ray 01:16, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

schema All the material presented is pretty much definitional. The significance of this concept has to do with the extent to which it challenges the idea of memory as being merely a record of experience, that "memories" don't really exist separate from the act of remembering. This perspective on memory is very different from all the other ones we talked about during the semester. --Ray 01:16, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Egulac Again, all the material here is more definitional. The significance of this term is about how people's recall of the story supported the argument that memory is reconstructed, and that it supported the notion of schemas in memory. The point about how people can't really relate to the place and story is excellent. --Ray 01:16, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

repeated reproduction The material here is good (although mostly just definitional). A couple of things: Bartlett was the first to use repeated reproduction as a technique for studying memory; he conducted multiple studies using it; and the intervals between reproductions aren't necessarily increasingly longer. The material under significance here is mostly definitional. I would add to the definition part that the material Bartlett used was foreign and unusual to his subjects, and then characterize the significance as being that the results from using this technique with that material were the basis for concluding that remembering (not memory) is reconstructive, and that reconstruction is based on schemas. --Ray 10:39, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Total Time Hypothesis Okay, the comments here are pretty basic. They are certainly correct, but I would like to see a bit more. Rather than saying that the amount learned is "linked to" time spent, I would say the hypothesis says that the amount is determined by the amount of time spent. For significance, the statement there is true, but from the perspective of theory, the TTH was dominant in the late 1960s and early 70s (although some researchers carried it on for long after that), and was the major competitor for Levels of Processing. Some would argue that LoP research showed that the TTH was inadequate for understanding memory. --Ray 10:46, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

CCVVC This is excellent. Some minor points: rather than saying that it was the structural condition in Craik & Tulving's experiment, I would say that it was used in the structural condition of one of C&T's experiments. I would also mention the sentence condition (e.g., it was contrasted with a sentence condition [and explain what that was]). Also, in the significance section, it says that this experiment rebutted their earlier experiment. Actually, it was one of many experiments all reported together, including the ones that could be interpreted as consistent with the TTH. But C&T devised this to show that the TTH didn't always hold for LoP experiments... But I'm being nitpicky. The significance is all significance material, and well written. --Ray 10:53, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Transfer-Appropriate Processing The significance section kind of repeats the definition section, and doesn't add any information that I would consider to be "significance." (And I don't quite follow the statement about sound enhancing recall.) The definition section is excellent. I would flesh out the first sentence a bit; I might change the word task in that sentence to "processing", because the task would differ (one is study, the other is test), but it's okay as written. For significance, the second sentence in definition speaks well to the significance, actually. I would note (for significance) that TAP was a theory that some consider to be a competition for Levels of Processing, and a refinement of Encoding Specificity Theory. --Ray 11:00, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Red Datsun Excellent. Wouldn't change a word. (Could comment on confidence vs. accuracy, but why gild a lily?) --Ray 11:06, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Olof Palme Someone did some serious research for this one! :-) I would add to the definition section that the assassination of Olof Palme was the basis for a study of flashbulb memory. For significance, the material there is excellent, but I would just add that the study on Palme's assassination added to the growing evidence against the original interpretation of flashbulb memory data (that is, that flashbulb memories are not different in accuracy from regular ones). --Ray 11:06, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Naïve Realism The only thing I would say about this is that the first sentence of the significance is a restatement of the definition; the remainder of the significance section is spot-on. (As written, it does seem to imply misleadingly that Loftus is responsible for research on all those things; I would just take out "by Elizabeth Loftus"). --Ray 11:09, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Remember vs. Know Remember the "vs." ... when "vs." is part of a term, then the explanation of the term should focus on the distinction as much as on the definition of the individual terms. Often, that can serve as the significance. The significance section here is definitional material in my view. For the significance, I would expect something about the distinction between R & K: The two terms refer to two different ways in which we recognize previously experienced material, and the distinction has been a useful tool in exploring various memory phenomena (including false memory). --Ray 11:17, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

Recollection vs. Familiarity This item has all the elements needed. Again, the "vs." is important; it's covered in a statement of significance that the distinction is an important one in a theory of the subjective experience of recognition; that the theory claims that recognition judgments are the result of one kind of experience or the other. The false memory information in the description here isn't a central aspect of this term, but it adds a nice bit of detail. --Ray 12:05, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

DRM This is very well done. I would only change the significance statement a little bit by labeling the idea already expressed. That is, the idea that people fill in their memory for something with what makes sense, or what should have happened, or what they think they should have experienced is an example of the constructive nature of remembering, or it could be seen as supporting the schema theory of memory... --Ray 12:32, 3 May 2009 (EDT)