The document summarizes three memory span experiments conducted by Amanda, Noah, and Paulo. Amanda found a significant correlation between perceived stress and memory span. Noah found no significant difference in memory span between high and low GPA groups. Paulo found no significant impact of proactive interference on memory span. The conclusion discusses limitations and need for further research.

1. Memory Span
Test
Amanda Recker
Noah Feaster
Paulo Davila

2. Introduction
 Amanda
 Problem:Does perceived stress impact
memory span?
 Noah
 Problem: Does memory span correlate with
intelligence levels measured through GPA?
 Paulo
 Problem:
Does proactive interference impact
memory pan?

3. Amanda
 Problem:
 Does perceived stress impact memory span?
 Purpose:
 To measure memory span and perceived stress
and identify if perceived stress assessment scores
are related to memory span performance.
 Hypothesis:
 It was hypothesized that individuals with high
stress levels, as defined by the Perceived Stress
Assessment, will demonstrate less memory span
ability as opposed to individuals with low stress
levels.

4. Noah
 Problem:
 Does memory span correlate with intelligence
levels measured through GPA?
 Purpose:
 Tomeasure memory span on lists with
numbers and letters that sound different and
to identify if GPA levels have an effect on
memory span.

5. Noah
 Hypothesis:
 Students with higher GPA’s would perform better on
the memory span test in both numbers and letters that
sound different in contrast to students with lower
GPA’s
 Literature:
 Intelligence has an effect on memory and verbal
span tasks.
 Learning disorders can effect memory span tasks.
 Did not find evidence that GPA has a direct effect.
 Age differences impact memory span.

6. Paulo
 Problem:
 Doesproactive interference affect memory
span ?
 Purpose:
 To measure memory span on lists with short
words and long words and to identify if
proactive interference will have an effect on
memory span.

7. Paulo
 Hypothesis: The group with proactive
interference would perform poorly in
comparison to the opposing group.
 Literature:
 Proactive Interference affects memory
span.
 Age difference impacts the role of PI on
memory span.
 Proactive Interference Creates False
memories.

8. Method – Materials-
 MicrosoftXP based personal computer
 Memory span test software
 Mouse, keyboard
 Perceived Stress Assessment (PSA)
 Short demographics questionnaire
 Consent form
 Proactive Interference Word List

9. Method -Procedure-
 Signed consent form
 Completed demographics questionnaire
 Completed PSA
 Proactive Interference
 2 groups of 10 participants
 Started Memory Span Test
 25 trials (up to 9 items, 1 sec intervals)
 Numbers, letters that sound similar, letters that
sound different, short words, long words

10. Amanda - Results -
 Bivariate Correlations
 The participants each received an average memory
span capability score taken from their performance
on the memory span test in categories including
numbers, letters that sound similar, letters that sound
different, short words, long words.
 That average memory span capability, paired with
their perceived stress assessment score was used to
determine whether a correlation existed.
 The correlation between Perceived Stress
Assessment scores (M=21.35, SD=7.82220) and
average memory span score (M=5.22, SD=.49375)
was significant at the .05 level (r = -.463, p = 0.04).

11. Noah – Results -
 Independent-sample T-test
 Low GPA group (≤ 3.19)
 High GPA group (≥ 3.20)
 Mean memory span for numbers list high
GPA group (M= 6.8, SD= .63) did not differ
significantly from the low GPA group (M =
6.6, SD = 1.26), t(18) = -.447, p = .66

12. Noah – Results -
 Mean memory span for the letters that
sound different list for high GPA group (M
= 5.4, SD = .84) did not differ significantly
from the low GPA group (M = 5.8, SD =
1.03), t(18) = .849, p = .355
 Mean GPA scores for high and low groups
was 3.45 and 2.91 respectively
 Only difference of .54

13. Paulo – Results -
 Independent Sample T- test
 Mean List Length
 Non-Proactive Interference Group
 ShortWords : 4.00 (SD=1.06)
 Long Words : 4.00 (SD=1.06)
 Proactive Interference Group
 ShortWords : 5.75 (SD=1.03)
 Long Words : 4.25 (SD=1.48)
 Significance
 Short Words : t(14)= 3.26, p=.506
 Long Words : t(14)=.386, p=0.298

14. Conclusion
 Perceived stress was significantly
correlated to memory span performance.
 GPA level did not show a significant effect
on memory span performance.
 Proactive Interference did not impact
memory span.

15. Discussion
 Perceived Stress:
 Limitations:
Individual differences
 Are there other performance decrements
associated with high stress?
 GPA:
 Lackof variation in high and low GPA scores.
 GPA may not be a direct indicator of intelligence.
 Proactive Interference:
 Proactive Interference method may not be valid.
 Individual participant may have unique form of
studying
 Participant may have not placed proper effort.

16. Application of Results
 Perceived Stress:
 It
is important to decrease stress in order to
maintain memory span ability.
 GPA:
 Intelligence
measured through different
means (IQ) may show a significant effect on
memory span performance although GPA did
not.
 Interference:
A different method of proactive interference
may show a greater impact on memory
performance.