Docstoc

kreps car accident injury claim

Document Sample
kreps car accident injury claim Powered By Docstoc
					Other Memory Distinctions
and Phenomena
Other Memory distinctions and
phenomena
 Voluntary/Involuntary retention
 Prospective/Retrospective memory
 Flashbulb memories and memory for
  traumatic events
 The reconstructive nature of memory
 Remembering the source
 False memories
 Metamemory
Voluntary/Involuntary retention
 Covers much of the same ground as
  conscious/nonconscious memory
 Some memories are actively ‘searched’ for
 Other times there is recollection without effort
Voluntary/Involuntary retention
 Voluntary
      Deliberate willful retention
      May reflect automatic processes
           Trying to remember some event but doing so because of some
            priming from the environment
               Example trying to remember the name of the candy store you
                used to go to as a kid, but doing so because you passed by a
                similar looking one walking down the street (though wasn’t
                consciously aware of doing so)
 Involuntary
    May have conscious recollection of automatically retrieved
     information
    Unaware of source (though may determine later)
 Example:
    Stupid 80s song gets stuck in your head seemingly out of
     nowhere
Retrospective/Prospective memory
 Retrospective memory
    Memory for the past
    Everything we’ve been talking about up until this point

 Prospective memory
    Memory for future events, or how we remember to do
     things at a later time
    Memory for the execution of delayed intentions
    Everyday memory
        Example: Pick up groceries on the way home after

         work
Prospective memory
 Basic lab paradigm (Einstein & McDaniel,
  1990)
     When one sees a target word displayed in
      some task (e.g. pleasantness rating) perform
      some action
          Press a key
 Event-based vs. Time-based cues
The cue and action
 How reminders can help
 Guynn, McDaniel, Einstein (1998)
     Reminded of cue
     Reminded of action to be performed
     Reminded of both
          Best performance
 Suggests binding the cue to the action may
  be most important part of PM process
  (Guynn, McDaniel, Einstein 2001)
Retrospective/Prospective memory
 Is the distinction necessary?
 Descriptively, the distinction denotes two very
  different memory experiences
 Remains to be seen if it involves different
  processes
Flashbulb Memories
 Highly vivid memory for the details of an
  event and the setting
 Evolutionarily adaptive
     Good to remember important events that could
      ensure survival later
 Is it a special type of memory?
 How accurate?
Flashbulb Memories
 Special mechanism
     Seem so much better than other memories
          Brown & Kulik (1977)
             JFK
             Vivid and detailed recall 13 years later
          Lead to a now-print order and permanent
           registration
 No special mechanism
     Distinctiveness, rehearsal, relevance can
      explain special status in memory
Flashbulb Memories
 Compromise
    Conway et al. (1994)
    Affective intensity &
     perceived importance will
     contribute to the
     flashbulb effect
 But are they accurate?
    Not really
    Neisser & Harsch (1992)
          Challenger explosion
          25% provided outright
           inconsistencies the     Schmolck, Buffalo, Squire 2000
           next day vs. ~3 years   O.J. verdict

           later
Memory for traumatic events
 Accurate for the most part but not immune to
  forgetting

 Two questions:
 Can they be forgotten completely?
 Can they be recovered?
Memory for traumatic events
 Retrospective survey studies
    Questionnaires given to those who’ve
     experienced some traumatic event
    A number of respondents claim a time period
     when they did not remember their trauma
 ’Nuff said?
 Problem
    No independent corroboration of the trauma
    People can unknowingly exaggerate their prior
     degree of forgetting
Memory for traumatic events
 Retrospective case studies
 Similar evidence (and easier to corroborate),
  but also similar problem of exaggerated
  forgetting
 Schooler
     Individuals reported they’d forgotten it at a
      time when they’d reported it to others
     Forgot-it-all-along effect
          Underestimate prior knowledge
Memory for traumatic events
 Prospective studies
    Identify individuals on the basis of known trauma
     histories (so no false memories) and test current
     recollections of abuse
    Again some individuals report no memory of event

 Limitations
    Asked to report on individual instances of abuse,
     however one of many repeated instances may be
     forgotten
    May forget one but remember other instances of abuse
Memory for traumatic events
 Can traumatic memories that have been ‘recovered’ be
  authentic?
    Some suggest the term ‘discovered’ memories to remain
     neutral whether memory is true/false or event occurred
 Studies have shown that:
    Individuals can remember, even with great detail, things that
     did not happen (alien abductions, satanic ritual)
    Participants can be induced to recall things that never
     happened to them (e.g. lost in the mall [Loftus & Pickrell])
    A variety of psychotherapeutic techniques can produce false
     memories (repeated retrieval attempts, hypnosis, dream
     interpretation)
    Therapists that use such techniques are more likely to
     induce ‘discovered’ memories and have patients that
     ultimately retract
Memory for traumatic events
 Despite all that, some memories have
  seemingly been discovered, and then
  corroborated independently in some fashion
     Ross Cheit (molested by choir counselor,
      taped confession of counselor)
     Frank Fitzpatrick (abused by priest,
      corroborated by others)
 So how might it happen?
Repressed memories
 Anderson & Green 2001
 Paired-associate task
 Presented cue, told to respond with its associate, or
  suppress all thought of it
      Ordeal - Roach
      Ordeal - _____
      Respond roach
      Don’t respond roach (suppression pair)
 Phase 2
    Recall given cue (or independent probe, or various
     other conditions)
 Will attempted suppression hinder later recall?
Repressed memories
 With more suppression
  practice, later recall suffered
 The findings show a
  controllable inhibition
  process that can be
  flexibly targeted to a
  specific memory
 Does not support the
  popular idea that
  attempting to suppress an
  unwanted thought makes it
  hyperaccessible
Reconstructive Nature of Memory
 Memory is reconstructive
   Influenced by retrieval context and purpose of retrieval.
   Decision based on available information
           Allows for “filling-in”
           Leads to distortions

 Meaning is a function of both the input and activated
  knowledge
 Understanding consists of constructing an integrated
  representation
      Understand when the pieces of info come together and
       make sense.
 How might meaning and understanding come about?
Use of Background Knowledge
 So far, memory has had little organization
     Some relations among concepts
          A network model
 Concepts themselves are structured
     We know a lot about events
     How is that knowledge organized?
A knowledge structure
 Schema
    General knowledge structure that organizes objects,
     attributes, and actions into a cohesive representation.
    Allows for interpretation
    Guides retrieval
 Script
    A knowledge structure (type of schema) containing
     information about the sequence of events in routine or
     stereotypical situations.
    Headers
        Phrases or words that activate a script.

    Frames
        Details about specific events within the script.

    Default Value
        The common, typical value that occupies a frame.
Using a script
 A frame with causal
  information
 Each component also
  needs a representation           Grocery_Shopping
                                    eventType: Shopping
 Example                           purpose: GettingGroceries
                                    location: GroceryStore
      John went to the store,      actors: buyer, manager, checkout person
                                    subEvents: gettingCart (A), selectingItems (B),
       picked up some pasta                     paying (C)
                                    temporalRelations: precedes(A,B), precedes(B,C)
       and went home.
          Did he pay?

           Did he pay before or
            after selecting the
            pasta?
Interpretation
 Jane heard the jingling of the ice cream truck
  and she ran to get her piggy bank and started
  to shake it. Finally, some money came out.

     How old is Jane?
     Why did she get the money?
     Did she turn the piggy bank upside down?
     Was the money coins or bills?
     How big was the bank?
     What time of the year was it?
Guiding Retrieval
 Bransford & Johnson
      Ambiguous passages
      Title of the passage allowed people to interpret the
       ambiguous sentences.
      “The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things
       into different groups. Of course one pile may be sufficient
       depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go
       somewhere else, due to lack of facilities, that is the next step;
       otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo
       things…”
           Washing Clothes
      Schematic knowledge helps generate retrieval cues.
 Using a script
 Memory
   We use scripts/schemas to organize memories
   We tend to fit events into our existing schemas
   Allow us to have expectations and therefore
    predict events.
   Allow us to assume unstated (shared) details.
   No need to store multiple examples of similar
    events.
Bartlett (1932)
                                       The War of the Ghosts
One night two young men from Egulac went down to the river to hunt seals, and while they
    were there it became foggy and calm. Then they heard war-cries, and they thought:
    "Maybe this is a war-party." They escaped to the shore, and hid behind a log. Now
    canoes came up, and they heard the noise of paddles, and saw one canoe coming up to
    them. There were five men in the canoe, and they said: "What do you think? We wish to
    take you along. We are going up the river to make war on the people."
One of the young men said, "I have no arrows."
"Arrows are in the canoe," they said.
"I will not go along. I might be killed. My relatives do not know where I have gone. But you,"
    he said turning to the other, "may go with them."
So one of the young men went, but the other returned home.
And the warriors went on up the river to a town on the other side of Kalama. The people
    came down to the water, and they began to fight, and many were killed. But presently
    the young man heard one of the warriors say: "Quick, let us go home: that Indian has
    been hit." Now he thought: "Oh, they are ghosts." He did not feel sick, but they said he
    had been shot.
So the canoes went back to Egulac, and the young man went ashore to his house, and
    made a fire. And he told everybody and said "Behold I accompanied the ghosts, and we
    went to fight. Many of our fellows were killed, and many of those who attacked us were
    killed. They said I was hit, and I did not feel sick."
He told it all, and then he became quiet. When the sun rose he fell down. Something black
    came out of his mouth. His face became contorted. The people jumped up and cried.
He was dead.
Bartlett (1932)
 This story would be perfectly reasonable to
  the people from whom it was taken.
         It was part of the oral literary tradition of Native
          Americans on the west cost of Canada more than
          a century ago.
 It fit in very well with their schemas for how
  the world worked.
 It does not fit in well with most of today’s
  cultural schemas nor with those of Bartlett's
  subjects (English) in those days.
Bartlett (1932)
Representative version given 20 hours after hearing the story:   Another version


Two men from Edulac went fishing. While                          Two men hunt seals at Egulack.
     thus occupied by the river they heard a                            They hear shots at a distance
     noise in the distance.                                             and hide behind a rock. A
"It sounds like a cry," said one, and presently                         canoe comes by the river. A
     there appeared some in canoes who                                  man in the canoe says "Come
     invited them to join the party on their
     adventure. One of the young men refused                            with us we are fighting a
     to go, on the ground of family ties but the                        battle."
     other offered to go.                                        "I cannot come because my family
"But there are not arrows," he said.                                    does not know where I am.
"The arrows are in the boat," was the reply.                            But you can go." He told the
He thereupon took his place, while his friend                           other.
     returned home. The party paddled up the                     At the battle they shouted, "The
     river to Kalama, and began to land on the                          Indian is wounded we must
     banks of the river. The enemy came                                 return."
     rushing upon them, and some sharp                           At home the Indian said "We fought
     fighting ensued. Presently someone was                             a battle many on our side
     injured, and the cry was raised that the                           perished, many on their side
     enemy were ghosts.
                                                                        perished. I was wounded
The party returned down the stream, and the                             but did not feel the pain.'
     young man arrived home feeling none the
     worse for his experience. The next                          When the sun went down, he fell
     morning at dawn he endeavoured to                                  back. Something black came
     recount his adventures. While he was                               out of his mouth. He was
     talking something black issued from his                            dead.
     mouth. Suddenly he uttered a cry and fell
     down. His friends gathered around him.
Bartlett (1932)
 What did participants do?
   omitted parts of the story
   changed facts
   imported new information
   distorted the story to fit with their own cultural
    stereotypes (e.g. hunting seals vs. fishing)
   omitted the hard to interpret aspects of the
    battle
   role of the ghosts incorrect
 People use schemas to aid their inferential
  recall of studied material.
         Reconstructive Memory
          Bartlett distinguished between reproductive and
               reconstructive memory
              Reproductive memory: A highly accurate, verbatim
               recording of an event
              Reconstructive Memory: Remembering by combining
               elements of experience with existing knowledge
              Bartlett used the concept of schemas to explain
               subject alterations when re-telling the War of the
               Ghosts story
              In Bartlett’s study participants normalized and
               rationalized occurrences across several retellings

Interesting aside: Ost & Costall (2002). Misremembering Bartlett.
Problems with schemas
 Not exactly clear on how schemas would be
  implemented computationally/physically
     Perhaps PDP models will have more to say
 Relevance
     Some situations may involve a mixture of
      schemas
          Meeting doctor at a restaurant (don’t stick out
           tongue, disrobe)
 Please study these words carefully.


                 HAYSTACK
                 INJECTION
                 KNITTING
                  THIMBLE
                  SYRINGE
                  THREAD
                  SEWING
                   THORN
                   CLOTH
                   SHARP
                   POINT
                   PRICK
                    HURT
                    EYE
                     PIN
Memory Distortions
 Interpolation of information may lead to
  memory distortions.
     Consequence of organization and congruity
     Cognitive economy
 Can arise from misuse of information that is
  consistent with retrieval plan (purpose of
  retrieval).
     General (categorical) Knowledge.
     Secondary (contextual) sources.
Distortions Based on General Knowledge

 Deese/ Roediger & McDermott (DRM)
  paradigm
 List learning task
      Study a list of items for short-term recall
      Mental arithmetic (distractor)
      Recall
Read 1996
 Example of how powerful the effect is
 Exp. 1 Method
     12 word list
     5 minute interval
     Free recall
     Also report confidence ratings, remember-
      know judgment, anything unusual, position of
      each word recalled (1-12)
Read 1996
   Results
      7.68/12 recalled (64%)
      Though not presented, 66% recalled the word “sleep” (intrusion)
             In other words, sleep as likely to be called as any particular item word
        Experiment 2: 62.5% assigned it to an earlier position
             It was ‘activated’ with initial words and continued to be elicited with
              subsequent presentations, thus making it seem as though it was with other
              words (earlier ones) on the list that would have received the same sort of
              repeated activation
Now…
 Recall!
 As you do so give a confidence rating each
 Do so for the following also plus remember/know
  judgments (specifically remember or just know it was
  in there somewhere):
      THREAD
      NEEDLE
      POINT
      THIMBLE
      THORN
“False” Memory
 What causes the intrusions?
     Encoding
          Implicit-Associative Response
          Spreading Activation
     Retrieval
          Selection effect
Distortion Based on Secondary
Sources
 Loftus and Palmer
     Showed a film of a car accident
Loftus and Palmer
 How fast were the cars moving when they X into
  each other?
    Participants rated speed.
 Rated speed depended on the verb used for (X)

   Smashed = 41 m.p.h.
   Collided into = 39 m.p.h.
   Bumped = 37 m.p.h.
   Hit = 34 m.p.h.
   Contacted = 32 m.p.h.

 Actual Speed = 30 m.p.h.
Loftus and Palmer
 Also
     On a retest 1 wk later, those Ss who received
      the verb ‘smashed’ were more likely to say
      "yes" to the question, "Did you see any broken
      glass?", even though broken glass was not
      present in the film
 The retrieval context influences the
  reconstruction of memory
     Information from the retrieval context can be
      included in the “memory.”
Misinformation Effect
 People include (erroneous) information that
  originates from secondary sources in their
  descriptions of episodes.
     Eyewitness Testimony & Police and/or lawyers
 Three phases
     Encounter information
     Elaborate on event
          Retelling/remembering
          Additional information from a secondary source
     Remember event
Misinformation Effect
 Possible explanations
 Overwriting
   Memory ‘trace’ is altered with misleading information

 Source confusion
    Original memory not impaired, but competing
     information may lead to a lack of knowledge about
     where original memory came from
 Not a memory problem
    Just assume the misleading information is true
    Misinformation acceptance
Fuzzy Trace Theory
 Another explanation for false memory
 Brainerd & Reyna
 Subjects develop two separate memory
  representations:
      Verbatim memory:
         Trace that supports accurate recall of studied material.

      Gist representation:
         Stores the semantic content of the material.

 Recall may be based on an attempt to recover the
  general theme or gist of material studied. Items
  consistent with this theme will be recalled, and some
  of these items will be false recalls.
   Fuzzy Trace Theory
 Common theme:
    Inaccurate recall
     related to maintaining
     the ‘gist’
Fuzzy Trace Theory
 FTT
       Parallel storage of verbatim and gist traces
            V: episodically instantiated representations of the surface forms of
             experienced items
            G: episodic interpretations of concepts (meanings, relations, patterns) that
             have been retrieved as a result of encoding items’ surface forms.
       Dissociated retrieval of verbatim and gist traces
            Recall is mixture of verbatim and gist retrieval
            Both aid in true memory recall
            Regarding false memory: specifically experienced cues call on verbatim
             trace and make false recall less likely, nonexperienced that preserve the
             meaning call on gist and false recall is more likely
 Brainerd and Reyna suggest FTT can account for a number of
   phenomena such as the dissociation and association of true and false
   memory, phantom recollection, mere testing (simply asking can alter
   memory) etc.
Source Monitoring
 Paradigm
     Present items from different modalities
          Visual or auditory
          Incidental memory task
     Test with a forced-choice recognition test
          Picture           Heard     Not Presented
Source Monitoring
 Compare memory for the different sources.
 Analyses of mean responses using an Origin X
  Response contingency table.
      3x3…with 2 original sources
                                    Origin
                           P          H          N

                           Hit       Source     False
                    P               Confusion   Alarm
         Response




                         Source                 False
                    H                  Hit
                                                Alarm
                        Confusion


                    N     Miss         Miss     Hit
Source Monitoring
 Factors that affect accuracy and misattributions
 Distinctiveness of sources
    The farther “apart” sources are the less likely there will
     be confusions
        Male vs Female voice

        Seen vs Heard

 Order of presentation
   Blocked vs Intermixed

 Test Modality
    Like TAP, overlap in test modality increases accuracy
    Additional retrieval cues
Source Misattributions
 Memory fails in systematic ways
 Patterns of misattributions indicate decision
  process.

 Source confusions
   Based on source “strength”
   Based on beliefs about “diagnosticity” of source
    information.
   Asymmetry in false alarms as a function of source
    strength, diagnosticity, or decision process.
Judgments of Memory Ability
 Metacognition
   Monitor and control of the processes of memory.
   ‘Metacogito ergo sum’
 Metacognitive Model
      Nelson
      Multiple levels of cognitive processing
      Some processes operate on the task at hand directly (Object
       Level)
      Some processes monitor the processing of Object Level
       (Meta Level)
           Has access to the processes of the Object Level
      Meta Level also controls what Object Level processes are
       used.
  Metacognitive Model

                                                            Metalevel


    Control                                          Monitoring



                                                          Object level


 Object level includes basic cognitive operations
 Metalevel represents schema-like knowledge
       Contains degraded model of object level
       Makes assessments based on information it gets from object
        level, and returns control signals (strategies) that may
        influence the object level operations
Measuring Metamemory
 Prospective judgments
     Made prior to attempts to retrieve information
     Based on knowledge of “problem” and
      assessment of encoding context
     Rate (on a response scale) the degree to
      which items are learned.
          Judgment-of-Learning (JOL)
             Assess the difficulty of encoding




                                                  Metacognitive Model
Measuring Metamemory
 Three-phase paradigm
 Prospective
     Present-Judge-Recall
     Blocked or individual trials



                   DOG    Jol?


           JOL?   GLASS   Jol?
                                        RECALL
                                 JOL?
                  SPOON   Jol?

                  HOUSE   Jol?
Measuring Metamemory
 Retrospective Judgments
   Made after retrieval attempt.
   Based on “availability” of information at
    retrieval.

 Confidence Ratings
    After successful retrieval
 Feeling-of-Knowing
    For retrieval failures
    How well do you think you could recognize…

Metacognitive Model
  Metamemory Paradigms
        Retrospective
             Recall-Judge-Recognize (RJR)
                General knowledge questions
             Confidence
                Rate for each response (recognition)
             FOK
  The First person to walk on the the moon?
Who was the first person to walk onmoon was _____.
             What -> FOK
         Answer -> is your Feeling of Knowing?
         No Answerconfidence rating
          a) Aldrin
                   1 2 3 4 5 6 7
          b) Glenn
              c) Armstrong
              d) Jamison
Relation of Metamemory
Judgments and Performance
 Correlate Metamemory judgment with performance.
    Pearson’s r or Gamma coefficient (ordinal data)
 Prospective judgments and memory performance
    Higher FOK/JOL does not necessarily yield better recall
    Dissociation between information used to make judgment and process used
      to retrieve
         Presence of distractors

         Question familiarity

 Retrospective judgments and memory performance
    Confidence ratings usually correlate positively
         Again, not always

         Overconfidence

 Correlation between prospective judgments and study/retrieval time.
    High negative
         The lower the JOL the more time used studying the item

         The lower the FOK the longer time spent in retrieval attempt




Metacognitive Model
Metamemory
 Theories
     Target Retrievability hypothesis
     Cue Familiarity hypothesis
     Accessibility Account
Target Retrievability
 If and when people are able to make accurate judgments about
  their future knowledge (FOK), they are able to because even
  though accessible knowledge is insufficient to allow articulation,
  people nevertheless know some answer or part of it
 Hart (1965)
    Suggested that recall better than recognition as it takes more
      to reach threshold (FOK threshold hits somewhere in
      between recall and recognition)
    But we now know that’s not the case so it’s not just a simple
      threshold difference
 Burke, Mackay, Worthley & Wade
    Semantic knowledge may be there but some breakdown
      may occur at the articulatory level
    Tip of the Tongue
Cue Familiarity hypothesis
 FOK judgments based on familiarity of cue present at
  time judgment is made
 Reder
      Fast assessment of existence in memory  FOK
       judgment
      High cue familiarity: probably in memory
      Low cue familiarity: probably not
 Metcalfe (CHARM)
   A monitor assesses familiarity of info being processed
    and sends feedback signal that controls weighting of
    info coming into memory
   FOK based on info available, which in RJR situations
    only the cue is present
Accessibility Account
 Koriat
 Accessibility heuristic
      FOK based on all retrieved info, not just
       familiarity of cue
      Do not know whether info is correct or not, but
       info may be weighted by strength and speed
       of access
      Quantity of information retrieved  FOK
Memory Egg


                 Cognitive Operations

                             Contextual
        Perceptual Detail
                             Detail
Metacognitive Model


                             Metalevel


 Control              Monitoring



                           Object level

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:6/18/2012
language:
pages:64