Memory and what affects it - California State University ...lap79155/FINAL PAPER.doc · Web viewCurrent theories presume that word recognition systems rely on both word-level (lexical)

Memory and Presentation 1

What affects our memory and aids or prevents recollection:

How does the way materials are presented affect the ability or inability to remember

the material once it is no longer visually available.

Victoria Hawkins Marina Bondarenko

Laura Prieto Stephanie Cronshaw

Cal State University of Northridge


ABSTRACT

This work tested the following hypothesis - The simplest way to recall a list of

words would be to visually see what you are expected to retain rather than just hearing it.

Experiment 1 tested the ability to recall a list of words that the participants were able to

visually see and read for themselves. Findings revealed that the participants that read the

list to themselves came up with methods to help them remember the words (i.e. tapping

on the table, closing their eyes to see how many words they can remember then looking

at the list to check for accuracy). After being allowed to study the list for 5 minutes they

were asked to write down as many as they could recall. In Experiment 2, participants had

the list of words verbally read out loud to them and then were asked to write down the

words they could remember after hearing the list over a period of 5 minutes. The results

found that the participants that were able to physically view the list themselves were able

to recall a greater more accurate amount of words that those who received the list

verbally.


What affects our memory and aids or prevents recollection:

What affects does presentation have on our ability or inability to memorize or

recall information? If often appears to be easier to recall something that an individual has

visualized himself or herself rather than something that has been heard. Reason being is

that we can be deceived by accents or the way that we interpret what is being said.

Meanwhile, if we visually see it and translate in into our own basic understanding it is

often impossible to misinterpret what we are looking at (with the exception of language

barriers). To understand this we first need to understand what memory is and what aids

it.

Memory can often be defined as the process by which we grasp, encode, save, and

recall information and in order to have memories we must have experiences to call to

mind. Some individuals have preconceived preference on how new material will be

presented to them some prefer auditory and some prefer visual presentation.

If something is read out loud one could often confuse certain sounds, which in

turn would result in a false memory or experience because they have learned the wrong

word or phrase. A common occurrence is the similarity between the letter “s” and the

letter “z” when they are read out loud they can often be confused with one another but if

you are looking at the letter it is evident that they are dissimilar. Current theories

presume that word recognition systems rely on both word-level (lexical) representations

as well as smaller sub lexical units like phonemes and syllables. For instance when a

listener hears the word “beef” theories state that the activation of both lexical (beef) and

sub lexical (b/i/f) representation.


Let’s not give the impression that we remember everything that we see just

because it is visual and therefore easier to understand. A study showed that the

immediate memorization and recall of words were affected by how long they were.

(Coltheart, Mondy, Dux & Stephenson, et al. 2004). The two determiners were

phonological length (the sound) and orthographic length (syllables) and both contribute

to the level of difficulty people have in short-term memory recall of words that are

visually presented when the words are long. A partnering factor is when words have

many syllables and the sound is longer because it takes a longer amount of time to

articulate which increases the probability of forgetting the word.

So would it be a catch 22 to say that if we visually see it we are more likely to

remember it at a latter time as apposed to hearing it? It seems apparent that when a

person sees something (ex: a list of words) he/she will be more likely to recall the list at a

later time reason being that when we see something we have the advantage of storing that

into our memory any way we like (ex: mnemonic devises) but if it is something that is

read out loud to us we have to take into account the accent of the person speaking and if

he/she is pronouncing it in a clear concise manner. There isn’t really a technique one can

use to help store the data that is verbally heard without some sort of memorization. In

order to use the mnemonic devise we would have to first memorize the words. Based

upon these beliefs the hypotheses would stand that the simplest way to recall would be to

visually see what you are expected to retain rather than just hear it.

Literature Review

A specific constraint on the visual system and on the way we perceive the world

around us has to do with oculomotor behavior. High-resolution vision is confined to the


central, fovea portion of the retinal image, and to sample a particular location in the scene

we must direct our eyes toward it. Eye movements are accomplished by rapid jerks,

called saccades, to minimize visual disruption (Dodge, et al. 1990). It is during saccades

that vision is actively suppressed and can maintain a relatively stable retinal image. It is

also easier to remember if we already know what the subject is going to be about and try

to focus on that. It was thought that the visual system might construct a faithful copy of

the external scene. However, evidence against this suggestion of Tran saccadic

integration has been available for some time and it found that observers were not able to

detect a displacement of a visual scene if the displacement occurred during a saccade

(Bridgeman, & Stark, et al. 1975).

Given the complexity and variability of spoken language, the ability of a listener

to understand a speaker is quiet impressive. Most current theories in this domain assume

that the word recognition system relies on both word-level (lexical) representations and

some kind of smaller (sub lexical) units, such as phonemes or syllables. When a listener

hears a word (beef), current theories of spoken word recognition posit the activation of

both lexical (beef) and sub lexical (b/i/f) representations. Because of the way the word

could be heard, recognition responses can be delayed if a similar word had been heard

earlier. In the recent study (Summer & Samuel, et al. 2005) intriguing result was

obtained: in a long-term study, hearing a real word inhibited a listener’s ability to reject a

similar pseudo word. In addition to studies examining real word effects on pseudo word

processing, there is a large repetition priming literature. Virtually all of the repetition

priming literature is based on visual, rather than auditory presentation. A number of

researchers have examined lexical decision performance as a function of prior


presentation. These studies have consistently shown that priming a real word decreased

both reaction times and error rated for later presentations of that word (Ratcliff &

McKoon, 1985; Wagenmakers, et al. 2004).

Research on the monitoring of memory has clearly demonstrated that recall

produces very effective memory monitoring (Pressley, Levin, & Ghatala, et al. 1984). If

it’s a given a list – learning task, than the poor prediction of as yet unrecalled information

may reflect the restrictions that commonly found in that situation. Most list-learning

studies use standardized items that make it very difficult for subjects to decide which

items are likely to be remembered. The presentation – presentation - recall procedure

(i.e., presenting the entire list twice before recall) also makes it possible to infer whether

the subjects are monitoring memory during presentation.

Memory is commonly defined as the process by which individuals grasp, encode,

save and recall information. Memory enables us to acquire new skills and form behaviors

and habits to aid us in our daily lives. In order to have memories, one must have

experiences to call upon. Learning is brought forth by these experiences. Learning

involves changed in an individual's behavior as a result of an experience.

Ever since the importance of learning came into play centuries ago, people have

been experimenting with ways to improve memory ability and performance. Early

studies, such as those performed by German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus, focused

on memory in regards to a number of different aspects. Ebbinghaus memorized a list of

nonsense words and tested his ability to recall them based on the length of the list, the

time elapsed between the memorization and recall, as well as the order in which the

words were presented (Mazur, et al. 2006). In addition to Ebbinghaus' studies, others


have shown that when recalling an item, that item has to compete with all of the

remaining items that have not yet been recalled. Items early on in the list have little

trouble winning this competition (Henson, Norris, Page, & Baddeley, et al. 1996).

More recent studies have focused on how the material is presented to subjects.

Studies often rely on a list of words presented to the subjects either through visual stimuli

or auditory stimuli. Visual stimuli are often presented as a list of written words, either on

paper or a computer screen. Auditory stimuli are presented as a list of words read out

loud to the subject by the experimenter or by a computer program. The type of memory

being studied in these experiments is generally episodic memory, that is, memory of a list

or images presented to the subject by an experimenter. Memory performance is

influenced by the modality in which the stimuli are presented and the type of encoding

activity that is employed (De Haan, Appels, Aleman, Postma, et al. 2000). Encoding is

the ability to perceive information and bringing it into an individual's memory.

Auditorially presented words are processed in a different or more distinct manner than

visually presented words (De Haan, et al. 2000). In addition, we often recode information

to have it make more sense to us so that we may remember it later if necessary.

Other studies have used visual and auditory stimuli such as music to test certain

memory theories. One of these theories is a chaining mechanism that is hypothesized to

aid an individual when recalling a list of items. The theory states that learning a sequence

involves the formation or strengthening of associations between representations of

successive items (Henson, et al. 1996). That is, one word may serve as the queue for the

next word in the list and words that are may be easily confused with others in the same

list may have an affect on recall. However, there is evidence that this theory is not


correct, as shown by Henson’s experiment regarding chaining patterns and error in recall.

Basically, confusable items seem to have little effect on real of non-confusable items in

the same list (Henson, et al. 1996).

We use our memory so many times in one day that we don’t even take notice how

often we look into our experiences to help us make everyday decisions. The way those

experiences were presented to us has an effect on how well we remember them. Only by

being able to recall upon those experiences will learning take place.

Centuries ago, philosophers were all ready questioning how a complex object that

comprised multiple properties was learned. John Locke for example, wrote about what

we know today as the classical association theory, in which one takes a whole and breaks

it up into smaller pieces. Through repetition one will come to memorize those smaller

pieces and then assemble them into a whole. Another concept that explains how objects

are learned is reintegration – the idea that an entity is learned and retrieved as a whole.

The unit concept of Gestalt psychology proposes that object properties are directly

integrated by their inclusion within a more comprehensive structure that represents the

object (Ceraso, Kourtzi, Suchismita, et al. 2002).

Sometimes, one has easier time remembering lists of things when they’re short

and simple. One study showed that the immediate memorization and recall of words is

affected by their length. However, various researchers have different opinions on whether

the rate of recall is influenced by phonological length (how long is the sound) or

orthographical length (how many syllables). Through experimentation, test results

indicate that both orthographic length and phonological length contribute to the difficulty


people have in short-term memory recall of visually presented word lists when the words

are long. (Coltheart, Mondy, Dux, & Stephenson, et al. 2004).

In a similar study, longer words are assumed to take more time to articulate, hence

allowing a greater degree of forgetting, either from trace decay or from interference.

Experiments were conducted in which word sequences were repeated exactly, or with one

pair of words reversed. Two experiments using auditory presentation showed clear word

length effects for both recall and serial recognition, although the magnitude of the effect

tended to be less for recognition. A third experiment using visual presentation studied the

effect of articulatory suppression during the recognition test; a clear word length effect

was found. It is concluded that the word length effect can influence retention through

both rehearsal and output factors, as proposed by the phonological loop hypothesis. The

phonological loop, made up of an inner ear and an inner voice, is the part of working

memory that rehearses verbal information (Baddley, Chincotta, Stafford, & Turk et al.

2002).

Method

Participants

Forty students from California State University Northridge, participated in the study.

They were divided to two groups that contained twenty people in each group. The

participants took part in the study and received credit for their participation.

Material

The experiment took place in a four walled room with a table, four chairs, and one door.

Participants were presented with a list of 10 words (see appendix for actual word list)

either printed on a white 8 1⁄2 by 11 piece of printer paper or read the same list by an


experimenter, with a typical American accent. The list included words such as ambitious,

politician, sufficient, and anticipate. They were then asked to recall as many words as

they could and were provided with an 8 1⁄2 by 11 piece of lined notebook paper and a

pencil to write upon.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Randomization was done by

assigning every person a 1 or a 2, group 1 represented the visually group, and group 2

represented the auditory list group. Randomization was done by having each participant

pick one slip of paper from a small cardboard box, which contained 40 slips of paper, 20

with a 1 typed on it, and 20 with a 2 typed on it. Hence, those participants that picked the

1 were assigned to that group, and those that picked a 2 were assigned to group number 2.

Group 1 would be receiving the list of 10 words as a typed list from which to study,

group 2 received the words given orally by the researcher. The participants, four at the

time, were taken into a small research room upon the start of the experiment. They were

asked to sit at the table located in the room. Here, depending on which group they were

assigned to, they were given a list of 10 words. Participants in the auditory group were

seated and had the list of words read to them by the researcher, over and over for a period

of 5 minutes. The researcher read the words standing on the opposite side of the table

from where the participants were seated. After the 5 minutes was up, the researcher

presented the participant with a piece of lined notebook paper and a pencil and asked the

participant to write down as many words as they could remember from the list. They

were allowed three minutes for this recall, then they were dismissed. The visually group

had the same exact set up, except they received the list of words typed upon a piece of


computer paper, and were allowed 5 minutes to memorize it. During this time, the

researcher simply sat on a chair in the room. After the five minutes was up, the list was

taken away and the researcher gave the participant a piece of lined paper and a pencil and

asked them to write down as many words as they could remember, in the allowed 3

minutes. At the end of the 15 minute study, the participants were handed a typed copy of

a debriefing statement, which is located in the appendix for reference.

Results Our sample consisted of two groups of twenty people. We calculated the mean,

median, mode and standard deviation of the two groups. The visual group’s recall mean

was 9.15, the median was 10, the mode 10, and the standard deviation was 1.46. The

auditory group’s recall mean was 7.3, with a median of 7, a mode of 8.5, and a standard

deviation of 1.95.

The statistical test we used for our data was an independent sample t test. The

independent variable was the way in which the word list was presented. The dependent

variable was how many words the participants were able to recall successfully. Our

hypotheses states that the simplest way to recall the list of words would be to visually see

what you are expected to retain rather than just hear it.

An independent sample t test was preformed to see if there was a difference

between the auditory group’s results and those from the visual group. We had a statistical

significance of .002 on a two-tailed test and our degrees of freedom were 38 with our t-

value being 3.396 and p=.002 [t(38)+3.396, p=.002]. Our SPSS outputs are included in

the appendix.


Conclusion

Memory is commonly defined as the process by which individuals grasp, encode,

save and recall information. Memory enables us to acquire new skills and form behaviors

and habits to aid us in our daily lives. Ever since the importance of learning came into

play centuries ago, people have been experimenting with ways to improve memory

ability and performance (Henson, Norris, Page, & Baddeley et al. 1996). Our study’s goal

was to find out if the way we are presented information affects how well we memorize it.

As some evidence suggests, it would seem clear that visual presentation results in

better recall. Although some subjects were able to successfully recall all words presented

verbally; overall, most were not so successful. Overall, the subjects that received the

words visually did significantly better than the subjects who heard the words. This is

further supported by a study (Summer and Sammuel et al. 2005) that demonstrated the

obstacles people face when attempting to remember or recall words presented verbally. If

a person hears a word and then is presented a word that sounds similar to it, they are

more likely to forget it. People hear thousand’s of words a day, which is why it’s more

difficult to remember words you hear over words you read. Also, virtually all repetition

priming literature is based on visual, rather than auditory presentation.

Our hypothesis stated that the simplest way to recall the list of words would be to

visually see what one is expected to retain rather than just hearing it. After analyzing our

data we found our hypothesis to be true. A possible explanation for the subjects in the

auditory group who successfully recalled all the words is because auditorially presented

words are processed in a different or more distinct manner than visually presented words


(De Haan et al. 2000). Despite this, we were able to see that the way information is

presented has a significant effect on how well we memorize it.


References

Akyürek, E., & Hommel, B. (2006). Memory operations in rapid serial visual presentation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 520-536. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database

Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., Stafford, L., & Turk, D. (2002). Is the word length effect in STM entirely attributable to output delay? Evidence from serial recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 55(2), 353-369. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Bridgeman, B., & Stark, L. (1975). Ocular Proprioception and efference copy in registering visual direction. Vision Research, 16(7)

Ceraso, J., Kourtzi, Z., & Suchismita R., (1998). The integration of object properties. Journal of Experimental Psychology / Learning, Memory & Cognition, 24(5), 1152. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Coltheart, V., Mondy, S., Dux, P.E., & Stephenson, L. (2004). Effects of Orthographic and Phonological Word Length on Memory for Lists Shown at RSVP and STM Rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology / Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 815-826. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

De Haan, E., Appels, B., Aleman, A., & Postma, A. (2000). INTER- AND INTRAMODAL ENCODING OF AUDITORY AND VISUAL PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL: EFFECTS OF MEMORY PERFORMANCE. Psychological Record, 50(3), 577. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Dodge, R. (1990). Visual perception during eye movement. Psychological Review, 7(5), 454-465. Retrieved October 3, 2007, from PsycINFO database.

Henson, R.N., Norris, D.G., Page, M.P.A., & Baddeley, A.D., (1996). Unchained Memory: Error Patterns Rule out Chaining Models of Immediate Serial Recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 49(1), 80-115. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Korenman, L., & Peynircioglu, Z. (2007). Individual Differences in Learning and Remembering Music: Auditory versus Visual Presentation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(1), 48-64. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database

Mazur, J. (2006). Learning and Behavior. In Simple Ideas, Simple Associations, and Simple Cells (pp. 23-27). New Jersey: Pearson Education.


Pressley, M., Levin, J., & Ghatala, E. (1984). Memory strategy monitoring in adults and children. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 270-288. Retrieved October 4, 2007, from PsycINFO database.

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1985). A retrieval theory priming in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114,435–450.

Sumner, M., & Samuel, A. G. (2005). The perception and representation of regular variation: The case of final /t/. Journal of Memory and Language,52, 322–338.

Sumner, M., & Samuel, A.G. (2007). Lexical Inhibition and Sublexical Facilitation Are Surprisingly Long Lasting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 769. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ768638) Retrieved September 23, 2007, from ERIC database.

Tatler, B.W., Gilchrist, I.D., & Land, M.F., (2005). Visual memory for objects in natural scenes: From fixations to object files. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 58(5), 931-960. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from Academic Search Elite database.

Thompson, C., & Barnett, C. (1985). Review, Recitation, and Memory Monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 533. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ324700) Retrieved September 23, 2007, from ERIC database.

Wagenmakers, E.J., Steyvers, M., Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Shiffrin, R. M., van Rijn, H., & Zeelenberg, R. (2004). A model for evidence accumulation in the lexical decision task. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 332–367.


Appendix

Word List

Taken from…Chall, Roswell, Curtis, Strucher (2003). Quick Adult Reading Inventory. Elizabethtown, PA: Continental Press, inc.

AmbitiousPoliticianDurationEnthusiasticSufficientEconomicalComprehensionInterruptionAnticipateProductivity

SPSS OUTPUT

Group Statistics

Group Number N Mean Std. DeviationStd. Error

MeanTotal Words Recalled Visual 20 9.15 1.461 .327

Auditory 20 7.30 1.949 .436

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean Differenc

e

Std. Error Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Upper

Lower

Total Words Recalled

Equal variances assumed

1.455

.235

3.396 38 .002 1.850 .545 .747 2.953

Equal variances not assumed

3.396

35.224 .002 1.850 .545 .744 2.956


Bars show counts

2 4 6 8 10


0

4

8

12

Cou

ntAuditory Visual

2 4 6 8 10


Documents

Memory and what affects it - California State University ...lap79155/FINAL PAPER.doc · Web viewCurrent theories presume that word recognition systems rely on both word-level (lexical)