Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Retrieval induced forgertting plan
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Retrieval induced forgertting plan

99
views

Published on

Presentation of my Study design

Presentation of my Study design

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
99
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 15 min might skip next two.
  • Mention Cue independence
  • Transcript

    • 1. Inhibiting irrelevant information BENEFITS & COSTS OF HIGH WORKING MEMORY CAPACITY BY JONATHAN MALL
    • 2. Structure Why? Earlier work. Individual differences  Inhibition Retrieval induced forgetting Retrieval induced facilitation
    • 3. C ross-domain interference between verbal & spatial serial order working memory tasks B y C and ice C . M orey & Jonathan T. M all Thanks to my promoter Addie Johnson Introduction ResultsThe question whether verbal and spatial memory is independent Cross-domain dual retention significantly decreases memoryfrom each other has previously resulted in conflicting findings. We performance. However, verbal memory exhibited a more pronouncedaim to reconcile the evidence and together with our results shed doubt on the recency effect which might be explained by supposing that the final item in apopular model of working memory (WM) featuring strictly independent stores. list is maintained in a short-term store, protected from subsequent interference.A domain-general store for both verbal and spatial information is suggested The reduction in performance in the uncued conditions, especially for theand individual differences are considered. spatial task for which this decrement is present even at the shortest list length (3), suggests that verbal and spatial serial memory share some resource.Earlier studies found little or no interference between concurrent visuo-spatialand verbal working memory tests but strong interference between simultaneoustasks involving only one domain [1-3], supporting a modular WM model [4]. Individual DifferencesHowever, a general capacity limit [5], an unpredicted strong effect of irrelevant High working memory capacity individuals seemed better able tospeech [6] and the common use of unequaled tasks might have prevented clear ignore irrelevant information. Using single task performance as ainterpretations. measure of Working memory capacity, a median split resulted in two groups (high-WM & low-WM). Comparing their performance on Cued and UncuedWe constructed tasks that were as equivalent as possible to test for cross- trials we found a robust difference. High-WM individuals seem better able todomain interference in order to fairly claim that interference between a verbal use the cue to guide their behavior.and spatial memory task reflects competition for a domain-general resource. MethodSimilar to Guérard & Tremblay’s [7] serial verbal and spatial reconstructiontask, subjects had to report the correct order of spoken words or locations ofvisually presented squares. Words and locations were alternately shown, one ata time. They were either cued with the domain that would be tested (cuedcondition), saw a question mark (uncued) or received the correct cue but wereonly presented with one domain (single). The test screen always required orderreconstruction of one domain. N=64 university students. Conclusion time We found clear cross-domain interference between the verbal and spatial serial memory tasks, which contradicts a strict modular account of working memory. Concurrently holding verbal and spatial information in working memory negatively affected the recall of either, to a similar extent in each task. References [1] Cocchini, Logie, Della Sala, MacPherson & Baddeley (2002). [2] Farmer, Berman & Fletcher (1986). [3] Logie, Zucco & Baddeley (1990). [4] Baddeley (2007). [5] Saults & Cowan (2007). [6] Jones, Farrand, Stuart & Morris (1995). [7] Guérard & Tremblay (2008). For more information or a copy of this poster, please contact J.T. Mall (j.t.mall@rug.nl) or visit http://www.rug.nl/staff/c.c.morey/research
    • 4. Procedure time
    • 5. Results Cross-domain dual retention significantly decreases memory performance.  For verbal  For spatial information
    • 6. Individual differences Domain specificity  There could be separate working memory systems for different modalities or types of representations (e.g. verbal vs. spatial) An individual with verbal processing expertise should have fewer attentional resources available for the storage components involved in a spatial task & vice versa.  But our data shows that performance covaries across domainsIf you are good, you are good in both the verbal & spatial task
    • 7. Definition Working memory capacity:  number of items that can be recalled during a complex working memory task.  Measured by: a memory span test that is embedded within a secondary processing task We use single task performance (STM)  Sum of all correct items  Median split of participants -> high & low wmc
    • 8. Procedure time
    • 9. Individual differences N=64 * *
    • 10. Earlier studies Dichotic listening procedure (Conway, Cowan, & Bunting, 2001) Ant Mug Bar Car Two TimWMC difference Ant . Bar . Two Bottom-up attentional capture
    • 11. Individual differences Cocktail Party effect: Stroop: (Kane & Engle, 2003). Congruent: Blue, Green, Red,  high WMC make fewer word- Incongruent : Blue, Green, Red naming errors on incongruent trials when they were relatively rare It seems, that WMC modulates the active suppression or inhibition of “automatic” processes. (Brewin & Beaton, 2002; Rosen & Engle, 1998)
    • 12. New Study Is the proposed inhibition effect the same as proposed for long term memory retrieval? Subjects: Dutch students who completed a battery of Working Memory tasks (Operation Span, Symmetry Span & Raven) Experiment: Retrieval induced forgetting
    • 13. Retrieval induced forgetting LOUD – bus Learning: (all items) LOUD – song LOUD –  10 categories + 6 exemplars SHARP – nail SHARP – knife WEAPON – machete SHARP – WEAPON – glas WEAPON – Study: (half the exemplars from half the categories) SHARP – n____ SHARP – k____ 20 min filler  Retrieve exemplar SHARP – LOUD – b____  Retrieval Practice (RP) LOUD – s____ LOUD – Test: (all items) WEAPON – m____  Report all exemplars WEAPON – g_____ WEAPON –
    • 14. Retrieval induced forgetting LOUD – bus Learning: LOUD – song LOUD – SHARP – nail SHARP – knife WEAPON – machete SHARP – WEAPON – glas WEAPON – Study (retrieval): SHARP – n____ RP+ SHARP – k____  RP+ 20 min filler NRP SHARP – WEAPON – machete  RP- WEAPON – glas LOUD – b____ WEAPON – LOUD – s____  NRP WEAPON – LOUD – WEAPON – WEAPON – RP- LOUD – street LOUD – applause LOUD – Test: WEAPON – m____ WEAPON – g_____ WEAPON –
    • 15. Stimuli RP+ Category 6 – Exemplar 1 Category 1 – Exemplar 1 Category 1 – Exemplar 2 Category 6 – Exemplar 2 RP- Category 1 – Exemplar 3 Category 1 – Exemplar 4 Category 1 – Exemplar 5 Category 6 – Exemplar 3 Category 6 – Exemplar 4 Category 6 – Exemplar 5 Category 1 – Exemplar 6 Category 6 – Exemplar 6 NRP Category 2 – Exemplar 1 Category 2 – Exemplar 2 Category 7 – Exemplar 1 Category 7 – Exemplar 2 Category 2 – Exemplar 3 Category 7 – Exemplar 3 Category 2 – Exemplar 4 Category 7 – Exemplar 4 Category 2 – Exemplar 5 Category 7 – Exemplar 5 Category 2 – Exemplar 6 Category 7 – Exemplar 6 Category 3 – Exemplar 1 Category 8 – Exemplar 1 Category 8 – Exemplar 2 20 min filler Category 3 – Exemplar 2 Category 3 – Exemplar 3 Category 8 – Exemplar 3 Category 3 – Exemplar 4 Category 8 – Exemplar 4 RIF Category 3 – Exemplar 5 Category 8 – Exemplar 5 Category 8 – Exemplar 6 Category 3 – Exemplar 6 Category 4 – Exemplar 1 Category 9 – Exemplar 1 Category 4 – Exemplar 2 Category 9 – Exemplar 2 Category 4 – Exemplar 3 Category 9 – Exemplar 3 Category 4 – Exemplar 4 Category 9 – Exemplar 4 Category 4 – Exemplar 5 Category 9 – Exemplar 5 Category 4 – Exemplar 6 Category 9 – Exemplar 6 Category 5 – Exemplar 1 Category 10 – Exemplar 1 Category 5 – Exemplar 2 Category 10 – Exemplar 2 Category 5 – Exemplar 3 Category 10 – Exemplar 3 Category 5 – Exemplar 4 Category 10 – Exemplar 4 Category 5 – Exemplar 5 Category 10 – Exemplar 5 Category 5 – Exemplar 6 Category 10 – Exemplar 6
    • 16. Hypothesis If high WMC modulates inhibition during retrieval practice, a stronger RIF effect should be observed.  However, many subjects required
    • 17. Stimuli RP+ RP- Category 1 – Exempla 1 Category 6 – Exemplar 1 Sharp - Weapon Category 1 – Exemplar 2 Category 6 – Exemplar 2 NRP Category 1 – Exemplar 3 Category 6 – Exemplar 3 Category 1 – Exemplar 4 Category 6 – Exemplar 4 Category 1 – Exemplar 5 Category 6 – Exemplar 5 Shared feature Category 1 – Exemplar 6 Category 2 – Exemplar 1 Category 6 – Exemplar 6 Category 7 – Exemplar 1 Category 2 – Exemplar 2 Category 7 – Exemplar 2 Category 2 – Exemplar 3 Category 7 – Exemplar 3 Category 2 – Exemplar 4 Category 7 – Exemplar 4 Category 2 – Exemplar 5 Category 7 – Exemplar 5 Category 2 – Exemplar 6 Category 7 – Exemplar 6 Category 3 – Exemplar 1 Category 8 – Exemplar 1 Category 8 – Exemplar 2 20 min filler Category 3 – Exemplar 2 Category 3 – Exemplar 3 Category 8 – Exemplar 3 Category 3 – Exemplar 4 Category 8 – Exemplar 4 Category 3 – Exemplar 5 Category 8 – Exemplar 5 Category 3 – Exemplar 6 Category 8 – Exemplar 6 Category 4 – Exemplar 1 Category 9 – Exemplar 1 Category 4 – Exemplar 2 Category 9 – Exemplar 2 Category 4 – Exemplar 3 Category 9 – Exemplar 3 Category 4 – Exemplar 4 Category 9 – Exemplar 4 Category 4 – Exemplar 5 Category 9 – Exemplar 5 Category 4 – Exemplar 6 Category 9 – Exemplar 6 Category 5 – Exemplar 1 Category 10 – Exemplar 1 Category 5 – Exemplar 2 Category 10 – Exemplar 2 Category 5 – Exemplar 3 Category 10 – Exemplar 3 Category 5 – Exemplar 4 Category 10 – Exemplar 4 Category 5 – Exemplar 5 Category 10 – Exemplar 5 Category 5 – Exemplar 6 Category 10 – Exemplar 6
    • 18. Shared feature RP+ Sharp Weapon RP- NRP SCHERP - zaag WAPEN - kris SCHERP - vork WAPEN - baret SCHERP - spies WAPEN - glas SCHERP - floret WAPEN - hakmes SCHERP - degen WAPEN - machete SCHERP - ijspriem WAPEN - werpster Study (retrieval):  longer RT due to bigger search-set  More inhibition required to retrieve target item Test:  Bigger RIF effect  Individual differences: RIF stronger for low WMC
    • 19. Hypotheses If high WMC modulates inhibition during retrieval practice, a stronger RIF effect should be observed. If a larger search set requires more inhibition during retrieval, a stronger RIF effect should be observed for shared feature items.  RT should increase with search set size  Individual differences might exist (low WMC more RIF)
    • 20. Long term effect Long term effects of testing. (Chan, 2010)  Facilitation of tested and non-tested items after longer delays
    • 21. Options for delayed test Only present the recall test Redo the task Redo the task but switch RP+ & RP- items
    • 22. Hypotheses WMC modulates inhibition during retrieval practice leading to a stronger RIF effect. A larger search set requires more inhibition during retrieval leading to a stronger RIF effect. Former item inhibition facilitates relearning after a 24h+ retention interval.
    • 23.  Questions, suggestions, criticism…
    • 24. FIN