The document summarizes a research study that investigated how context impacts cognitive memory recall. The study was inspired by past research that found providing context before reading a text improved recall of ideas compared to providing context after or no context. In the current study, participants read an abstract text about a dishwasher either with or without a contextual image. Those provided context recalled a mean of 27.5 words, while those without context recalled 21.3 words on average. Statistical analysis found this difference was significant, supporting the idea that context facilitates memory recall by reducing needed inferences. The results provide insight into how context and prior knowledge impact language comprehension and memory.

1. Psychology of
Language and
Communication
Presentation on Cognitive Memory Ability

2. Our Research Question
• Our research was designed to investigate “how cognitive memory recall functions when given
context” and how it functions when the context is “absent”.
• This will challenge the idea that “context and background information is a recurring theme in
addressing how we understand and remember text” (Harley, 2003, p. 365)
• The general scope of research that we have focused on concerns the ability of comprehension
and the retention of memory recall.
• Our hypothesis for the experiment is that participants who were provided with context will be
able to recall more words correctly than the participants who had no context.

3. Current Research: Bransford and
Johnson (1973)
• Bransford & Johnson: Balloon story
• After the participants read the text, they asked them to recall any mentioned
ideas.
• Three groups: “No Context”, “Context Before” and “Context After”
• Context was only useful if it was presented before participants read the text as
this group was able to recall an average of 8 ideas whereas the other two
groups could only recall 3.6.
• They then investigated if this applies to familiar contexts, and designed a new
text which described a washing machine and then repeated the experiment.
• In the second experiment, participants provided with context remembered an
average of 5.8 ideas, whereas the other two groups could only remember an
average of 2.7 or 2.8 ideas.
• Our experiment has been loosely based on and inspired by the second part of
Bransford & Johnson’s experiment.

4. Current Research: The Top-Down
Approach (Smith & Swinney)
• Smith & Swinney investigated how when readers are given an abstract
story/description, they use “whatever information (they) have garnered
from the text to generate or guess a schema.” (Smith & Swinney, 1992,
p. 305).
• They highlighted that readers tend to use a Top-Down Approach when it
comes to vague texts, which is where the reader creates a pre-existent
structure and tries to fit the text proposition into it.
• When a reader uses the Top-Down Approach, they are constantly
attempting to make inferences and guess the schema of the text. As
they work their way through the text, it is very likely that they will have
to surrender their original hypotheses and attempt to guess other basic-
level schemas.
• This causes extra computation in the brain, which is evidenced to place
an extra load onto working memory. This means that a working-
memory load will likely incur when a reader moves through a
continuously vague story/description.

5. The Top-Down Approach: What
are Inferences?
• Inferences are when we use facts that we already know to try and obtain additional
knowledge, going beyond the literal meaning of the text.
• Inferences do not always lead to the right conclusion.
• There are three types of inferences: logical, bridging and elaborative
• Our participants used bridging and elaborative inferences.
• Bridging inferences involve going back to previous information, whereas forward inferences
allow us to predict the future.
• The group that was given context would used bridging inferences to connect the context to
the text, and this would allow them to reach the correct conclusion.
• The participants who were not given context would have also been using bridging
inferences, but they would have to make more inferences as they attempt to reach the
correct conclusion. They will be attempting to connect features mentioned in the text with
objects in their knowledge that share those same features in an attempt to reach the correct
conclusion.
Adapted from Harley, 2013, p. 367-368

6. Data Collection: Ethics and
Consent
• An ethics form was completed and sent to the ethics committee. This form was completed
before any form of data collection took place. This form explained what our experiment was
and what we were hoping to achieve from it, along with any of the risks involved and our steps
to minimalise them.
• A written consent form was created for participants to sign. This consent form ensured that the
participants knew that their data was anonymous and confidential, what the research was for,
and also explained that they could opt out of the experiment at any time without having to give
a reason.
• Participants were also provided with an information sheet which explained how we were going
to protect their data, the steps we were going to take to ensure their confidentiality and
anonymity, and provided contact details for each researcher if they thought of any further
questions.

7. Data Collection: Experiment
Preparation
• To conduct our experiment, we needed to create an abstract text similar
to the one that Bransford and Johnson (1973) used.
• We decided to base our text on the description of a dishwasher.
• Images of a dishwasher were printed out to act as context for the first
group of participants, who would read the abstract text alongside this
contextual image.
• We arranged for two members of our team to collect data from
participants who had the contextual image with the text, whereas the
other two members collected data from participants who did not have the
contextual image.

8. Data Collection: The Experiment
• Participants were given a maximum of five minutes to read the abstract
text.
• After the five minutes were complete, the text was taken away and replaced
by a task.
• The task required the participant to list as many words/phrases that they
could remember.
• The task also asked the participant to state if they were left or right handed.

9. Data Collection: Data Analysis
• To analyse the data, we counted the amount of words that were
in the paragraph and then analysed how many words each
participant got correct. We also calculated a percentage number
to determine each participant’s accuracy.
• In order to analyse the data, we identified that there were a total
of 49 words in the text and analysed how many of these words
each participant successfully remembered.
• We then calculated the mean number of words that each group
remembered, and discovered that Group 1 (those who were given
context) were able to recall a mean of 27.5 words (56.1%),
whereas Group 2 (those who were not given context) recalled a
mean of 21.3 words (43.4%).
• After obtaining these mean numbers, we conducted the Mann
Whitney test in order to expand on our analysis.

10. Data Collection: The Mann
Whitney Test
H0= There is no difference
H1= There is a difference between the two
groups

11. Data Collection: The Mann
Whitney Test
U1= 15 + 15 + 15(15+1) - 313.5
U1= 225 + 240 - 313.5
2
U1= 225 + 120 - 313.5
0.05% - Level of Significance
U2= 15 + 15 + 15 (15+1) - 198.5
U2 = 225 + 240 - 198.5
2
U2 = 225 + 120 - 198.5
U2 = 146.5
U1= 31.5 ≤64
We can therefore reject the null hypothesis
U1= 31.5
2

12. What Do These Results Mean in
Context/Current Research?
• Our research provides a more detailed insight on the
lexical elements of cognitive memory
• It can be applied to the education system. Using
effective contextual images alongside information
for exams, students will be able to better recall the
material.

13. Conclusion
• Our experiment further proves that context and
background information is important when it comes to
remembering texts.
• Prior knowledge has a large effect on our ability to
understand and remember language. The more
information we have about a topic, the better we can
recall material.
• When it comes to vague texts, readers utilise a top-down
approach and this causes them to frequently make
inferences and guess schemas.
• This causes extra computation in the brain, which suggests
a reason as to why Group 2 in our experiment remembered
fewer words.

14. Any Questions?