MEMORY & FORGETTING EXAM 3

Article Review 2 Due next Tuesday @ 5pm – October 21

Non-Declarative Memory Non declarative memories are implicit – there are many differences between explicit and implicit memory

ND measures are indirect

Implicit memories are not part of conscious awareness

Implicit memories enhance performance in various tasks

Mere exposure to information can aid later perception

Measuring Non-Declarative Memories Could we probe ND memory with: cued recall? Forced recall? Old/New recognition? NOPE

Remember, ND memories are not part of conscious awareness

How do we measure memory without mentioning memory?

Remember Priming? – We measure response time to infer memory

Responses can be verbal judgments (e.g., word/non-word…) or nonverbal (e.g., perceptual identification – looking at an object and being able to name it)

Fragment identification In most of these studies, there is an exposure phase and a test phase and we DON’T mention that it is

a memory phase.

In exposure – they can be intentional and incidental— does not matter how we expose them but how we measure it.

When we measure a performance change, it has to be compared to something else. You are measuring the time for the primed words by your responses for the unprimed words.

Whether you are aware of it or not, when you’ve been primed by a word, you can better respond

Stem Completion Accommodates for guessing because there are multiple correct answers – but we care about when you

fill it in with something you’ve been primed with

Test phase, you are given stems of words (like pla__ or sal__)

You will fill in the blank of the words with things you’ve been primed with more often

Perceptual Identification Memory can be assessed by decreasing perceptual clarity (making something harder to perceive)

Words and pictures that you’ve seen previously, you’ll be better able to identify it after it has been made blurry

Is ND really a separate system? How do we know we’re looking at something that’s not declarative or explicit in nature?

In 1985, this dude J.G. served in the war and when he returned, he became a severe alcoholic. What results from long term alcoholism results in Korsakov’s amnesia (happens when you don’t get adequate

J.G. lost the ability to make long term memories, declarative memories.

So Oliver Sacks asked him what year it was, how old he was and J.G. says that he’s 19 and that he’s

People that have this form of amnesia don’t form explicit, long term memories, but they have a surprising ability to show non-declarative performance enhancements

Graf et al. o Participants were inpatients in the hospital, alcoholics, and those who suffered from amnesia

from alcoholism. o Results—the patients and the alcoholics did fine with free recall, but the amnesia patients did

much worse. However, with stem completion, the amnesia patients don’t suffer in their performance relative to other participants. They are performing above the level of chance on this task, suggesting that their declarative systems are shot, but their non-declarative memory systems are pretty much intact.

Warrington & Weiskrantz o Testing amnesiacs and control participants using perceptual identification. o Results: across multiple days -- on day one, it takes controls a few tries to get them correct,

same thing happens with amnesiacs. They don’t remember the plane, but perception got easier as s function of having seen it previously.

o Even though these people can’t explicitly remember seeing the airplane, their memory for remembering gets closer and closer to that of the control.

Same people, different study o Comparted amnesic patients with age-matched controls o All participants completely 4 memory tests

Free recall, recognition ( declarative) Fragment identification and stem completion

o Results: although people with amnesia have sever memory impairments on explicit memory test, they have persevered memory when you test them with non-declarative testing measures.

This is SUPER reliable o And is stronger with more severe amnesiacs o HM had really bad memory because they took is hippocampus, but he could do non-declarative

memory tasks. o Similar results emerge from temporary amnesia (e.g. when you get blackout drunk). During that

state, you will don’t encode new declarative memory, but you could be tested with non-declarative memory for things during that time.

Same thing with electroconvulsive shock therapy o Horton et Al. did a clever study on malingering (faking) of amnesia

People arrested for crimes sometimes claim to have amnesia to reduce guilt. There were three groups compared

Group 1 – control they were told nothing about memory and didn’t have to pretend to have amnesia

Group 2 – Uninformed simulated amnesic were told to fake that they have amnesia, but were not told that real amnesiacs have normal implicit memory.

Group 3 – informed simulated amnesiacs were told to fake amnesia, but they were told that real amnesiacs have normal implicit memory

Results

Baseline is chance—this is your chance level of correctly filling in fragments.

Normal – did pretty well

Uniformed – sucked

Informed – did well

People who know better fake amnesia better! Uninformed amnesiacs badly overact because they are remembering the information in an attempt to pretend that they don’t.

Becoming Famous Overnight Phase 1 – participants read a list of non-famous names

There was a 24 hour delay or no delay before phase 2

In phase 2—there were given some famous names and some infamous names and they had to determine if famous or non-famous

Results – in the immediate test, recalling that non-famous names were recently studied aided “non-famous” judgments. [this is largely declarative] In the delayed test, name familiarity (in the absence of recollection) let to false fame judgments. (You forget the names on the list, but when you see them

again, you get this nagging feeling and they feel familiar – you attribute that familiarity as them being famous.)

You’re not having a declarative memory, but cause if you were you would know that that person is NOT famous. This is non-declarative.

Dissociations in Classic Findings Factors known to influence episodic memory affect implicit memory in o(often) opposite ways

o Levels of processing – how deeply you process information. The deepest processing task is going to give you better declarative memories

o Time – gradually you lose episodic memory detail as time progresses. Explicit memories fade over time.

o These variables have opposite or different effects on explicit/implicit memory

Time Compared recognition memory and stem completely for words

They would study the words and then would be tested either an hour or a week later and they would be tested on whether words were old/new and then sentence completion task

Results: Implicit memories remain stable overtime! (it depends on how you test the memory) If you test the explicit memory (recognition) they do worse overtime.

Musen & Triesman o Participants had to either recognize or copy simple line drawings o They studied patterns and then were tested. Some were tested in multiple choice (declarative)

and then others were given a priming task (old and new patterns) and they were measured by how accurate they were at reproducing.

o If your non-declarative memory is aiding you, you should do better with the old images, even though you don’t necessarily remember them.

o Results: (Declarative) with 3 hours after, you do fine. If we wait a week, you don’t do as well. With the Non-Declarative (implicit memories) For, Implicit memories novel, nonverbal stimuli are

resistant to the effects of time. (you’re performance doesn’t change over time delays— remains stable)

o These memory boosts are relative. Relative to new items, you are able to perceive enough detail from the old items to identify them.

Levels of Processing Another classic finding to show dissociations between implicitly and explicit memory – levels of processing

Explicit memories are strongly affected by “depth” of initial processing

Implicitly memories are relatively unaffected by Levels of processing

Jacoby & Dallas o Participants studied words by making size, rhyme, or semantic judgments followed by either

perceptual identification (flashed words on a screen really quickly ([30 milliseconds]) or did Old/New recognition

o Results: implicit memories are unaffected by Levels of Processing.

Theoretical Questions In both normal and memory impaired subjects, declarative and non-declarative memory show dissociation

From the previous studies, we could assume that implicit and explicit memories are separate systems.

BUT, are these really separate systems, or are there just different cognitive operations involved?

Brain Damage Disrupts explicit Memory Implicit memory is preserved in amnesia this is a really reliable finding.

And this extends to other ND memories o Amnesiacs patients can learn to “mirror read” at the same rate as control subjects o Important: even over time with non-repeated items, people with severe amnesia get better at

doing this task, even though they have no memory of performing this task. This suggests that their brain damage changes their explicit vs. implicit memory because they have preserved implicit, not explicit

o Does this imply separate neural systems for declarative and non-declarative memories?

We can’t “create” amnesia – but we can with monkeys!

Zola-Morgan & Squire o Gave monkeys more precise brain damage to study these things o Three groups of monkeys were tested on two memory tests o First, given an exposure phase, where they just look at what they’ve been given and then a

variable delay period, and then a test phase o The monkeys are being tested on how they identify the item they have not seen.

o They could also do a maze test – metal bar through a metal maze, variable delay period, and

then measure if they get faster over time. – what they were looking for is what happens after brain damage

o Monkeys damage N (Neurologically Intact) H (Hippocampally - leisoned H-A (Hippocampal 0amygdaloid leisoned

o Results: In explicit memory test – their performance (as a function of the length of the delay period), the neurologically intact monkeys are affected by time, the H and the HA group are

more severely affected by this task – if the delay is longer they perform worse. If we look at their performance on the maze task, there is no significant difference between the three groups. This suggests that when you slice the hippocampus or surrounding structures, you’ll impair explicit memory, but even with that severe damage, you will not affect non-declarative memories. This means they are in different brain areas! Because we don’t see any change in performance, we can conclude that the hippocampus is not important in non-declarative structure, but it is important for declarative memories.

Distinct Systems (DS) Theory Results from amnesiacs and lesioned monkeys suggest separate neural systems for declarative and ND

memories o Hippocampus and Amygdala are important for declarative memories o Cerebellum and Basal Ganglia are important for Non-declarative memories

A problem for strict DS Theories o If ND is a separate system, modality (the way you present something [auditory, picture based]

shouldn’t matter

o You can test this in basic behavioral studies – an exposure phase followed by fragment identification or free recall. Half would use free recall (and would do better with the picture), and the other half would do fragment ID.

o But Modality matters! The percentage of time for free recall was better when pictures were studied Fragment ID is essentially a word-based task. When you see strawberry as a picture, you

are less able to effectively recall strawberry as a word. You get more priming in a fragment id task when you are given words. More priming was

obtained with words, relative to pictures. You are powerfully effected by the way info is presented to you.

o Remember Transfer-appropriate processing? Participants completed either a rhyming or sentence-completion task at study. At

retrieval, participants completely a rhyme-based memory test. Participants were better when they rhymed in study and rhymed at test – memory was best when the encoding and retrieval tasks matched.

o This is the same general idea, but now we’re called Transfer Appropriate Procedures (TAP) theory Processing can be described in two ways:

Data Driven o When you engage in a date process, you are basically perceiving an item o Perceptual processes are important.

o Mental activity is determined by the environment/stimuli – we’re just asked to read a word from a screen instead of just reading a word and thinking about it

o Ex: when you’re given a word on a blank screen

Conceptually Driven o Thought processes are important – (top, down knowledge) o Your thoughts, feelings are important o Mental activity is determined by a person’s knowledge/expectations o Ex: showing you the word tomato and asked you to decide if this is

something you like to eat – look at this word and think about it.

Ex: when you’re given intelligent – smart, we are being given associated paired (conceptually) but when you’re given ######- smart, its out of context and

Evidence in Favor of TAP o Most explicit memory test draw on concept meaning, semantic memory, elaborative encoding –

these are all conceptually driven o Implicit tests are impervious to Levels of processing, but are sensitive to surface feature

changes – this is data driven.

Remember the Generation effect o Participants studied words in one of three ways:

Context – Study word Processing Type?

#### Cold Data driven Hot cold conceptually driven Hot ??? Conceptually drive (very!)

o Later participants completely either a recognition or perceptual identification test o Processing type affects performance!

Explicit tests rely on conceptual processing (levels of processing, putting things in context)

Implicit tests rely on perceptual processing o So what’s the problem?

If all of our explicit memory measures rely on one type of processing (conceptually drive) and all of our implicit measures rely on another type of processing ( data/perceptually driven) WE CAN’T TEST BETWEEN DS AND TAP

How do we solve this problem?

We need new tests1 o Explicit tests – conceptual [free recall and old/new recognition]

Data - ?? o Implicit Tests

We have lots of data tests – perceptual ID or stem/frag completion

We have NOT talked about any conceptual processing tests o DS blames the system while TAP blames the processes.

o Standard tests don’t fill each cell – if performance changes across the Declarative and Non-declarative task, we don’t know if it’s the columns or the rows to blame. We need to know what tasks will be effected by what to answer this question

Comparing DS and TAP

o Participants studied words in context (generation effect [espionage – t____) or out of context (### -- treason)

o Of these two methods – out of context will give you better data driven info, but free recall will be better when they are in context

o Graphemic cued recall – recall a studied words that looks and sounds like “treasure” – perceptually driven because it looks and sounds like the words, but also declarative because it’s free recall

o General Knowledge Priming – it is non-declarative because it is a priming score ( a change in performance due to prior exposure) and general knowledge is conceptually driven. Ex: for what crime were the Rosenberg’s executed?”

What what what? o Graphemic cued recall

Episodic because it is a recall task Data-driven, because it taps the look and source (perceptual characteristics) of the

studied word o General Knowledge Priming

Implicit because it is an indirect priming measure Conceptually driven because participants have to think about the meaning

(semantics/concepts) of the studied word – requires participants to think and they really want you to use the information that you’ve seen before.

What does DS predict? [Question 2] o If DS is correct, we should see that the system drives the difference, not the type of test

(cognitive operations)

o DS goes by columns o Says that graphemic cued recall and fragment id would be different, but free recall and

graphemic cued recall would be the same. o Declarative memories should be increased by generation [generation effect] o Non declarative memories should be increased by reading.

What does TAP predict [Questions 3] o Tao goes by rows o If TAP is correct, we should see that the type of test drives the differences, not the system. o Declarative versus non-declarative shouldn’t matter o Processing type should predict differences.

AND THE WINNER IS o TAP! o What we see is fragment ID is strongly effected by data driven, but general knowledge priming

is strongly effected by processing something perceptually [generation effects].

Further evidence within ND o Exposure phase (pictures of words) o Results: modality matters! Studying pictures transfers to resolving pictures, studying words

transfers to resolving words o SO when you study…

Know what each of the theories are, one piece of evidence for and once piece of evidence against DS

You should maybe think about how you could put this in short essay format, and be able to explain laxton’s graph.

Types of ND Memory Conditioning

o One of the most basic forms of memory o Organisms learn that certain events reliably signals the onset of other (usually important)

events o Ex: Planarian – used classical conditioning with flat worms.

Procedural Memory o Skill memory o Unconscious knowledge supporting the expert performance of different (often complex)

behaviors

Classical Conditioning Jim and Dwight in the office!

Ivan Pavlov – eventually the dogs salivated just to the sign of the person who fed them – Pavlov called this psychic secretion

o Before Conditioning The food is an unlearned association

A neutral stimulus – bell

The unconditioned stimulus – the food

the unconditioned response – the dog salivating o During Conditioning

Same as above o After Conditioning

The conditioned stimulus – the bell

The conditioned response – the salivation

Little Albert o Albert is conditioned to be afraid of the white rat because the researchers paired a loud noise. o He became afraid of little white bunnies, puppies, bears and Santa Claus

o What is the US? The loud noise – the baby is naturally afraid of loud noises o What is the UR? Fear o What is the Neutral Stimulus—the rat

o The CS – the rat. *UR always becomes the CR*

o The CR – fear. * The NS always becomes the CS*

What do we call this kind of CC in everyday life? o Phobias are a form of classical conditioning

Phobias CC explains Phobias

So what can we do about it? If you’re still alive, more classical conditioning

Extinction through systematic desensitization -- Making your fear go away o In order to do that o Step 1 – think about related concepts – think about interacting with a white teddy bear

instead of the white rat – learn that nothing bad is going to happen to you

o Step 2 – thinking more precisely about the actual source of the fear – so thinking about the

white rat – come to realize still nothing bad is happening.

o Step 3 – confront the fear – to actually, physically interact with your fear over and over until the fear is gone, or at least temporarily extinct.

Are you cured? Not so fast o After a long delay, if the CS is presented again… there is spontaneous recovery of the CR, but it’s

not going to be as bad as it was at first. o Most evidence against forgetting

Remember savings form Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve – same thing happens with phobias.

So after forgetting/extinction, less time is required to relearn previous associations \

Mere Exposure Effects CC for a different kind of evil

Mere exposure to [seemingly neutral] information biases later perceptions and decisions

Begg et al. (1992)

o Examined the illusion of Truth effect – the mere reading of something makes you think its true o Ex: “On each continent, there is a town called Rome” is doesn’t matter if its true, but it matters

if you think it is. o Told participants that some of the statements came from perpetual truth tellers, someone who

was known to always tell the truth, and some came from perpetual liars, people who were known to lie often.

o Participants were then asked to rate the truth of statements – looked and whether or not people found more things true as s function of the person who said it and looked at knowledge of new information

o Results: even information form known liars, your later rating of that statement sort of airs on the side of truth – if you’ve been exposed to it, even just once or twice, you’ll remember it

better and think it’s true. They’re not going to remember who said it, but they’re going to remember it and think it’s true.

Monahan et all o Tested participants with an exposure phase and a test phase. o Participants were shown Chinese characters extremely briefly. Some were shown them only once,

while others were shown them 5 times and different times in a stream of information

o Test phase – they just showed them more stimuli and they were asked to tell them if they liked it. Some were old, that they had only seen once, some were some they had seen a lot, and some were brand new.

o Results – repeated exposure to information, even outside of your conscious awareness, will be remembered better/liked more

Cutting (2003) o Cutting and his research assistant calculated the frequency the frequency of appearance for

132 images over 6 million volumes. o Participants with varying levels of art expertise (1), attemoted to recognize the images and (2)

rated them for likability o Results: most of their participants had little of art experience. Looked at the preferences.

For those with some art experience, the frequent pictures are liked more than the less frequent, and the same goes for those that do not know art. Children actually have no art experience – and they show no preference for the infrequent and the frequent.

Preference judgments can be predicted by frequency of exposure!

Perfect & Askew (1994) o Participants asked to skim a magazine to find 5, 1 page articles o Split into two groups

Incidental group – “only red the main title and the main headings. Think about how well the article is laid out.”

Intentional group – “Look at the ad next to the article. What is each ad’s most striking feature?”

o Later, participants old and new ads on several dimension) e.g. appealing eye-catching) and asked if they had seen the ads before (old and new ads were used).

Results: Higher number mean they hated more – in both groups, people had a preference for ads they saw, even though some were not explicitly told to look at them. For example, the intention group showed a slightly stronger preference for those ads. You prefer

things you see previously. More interesting with recognition – intention group (about 60%) recognized the ads.

Even in the absence of memory for these ads, people still show strong preference for them.

Procedural Memory Unconscious knowledge supporting the expert performance of different (often complex) behaviors

What are some skills o Most “Skills” are actually quite mundane o Laboratory skills are even more mundane o Pursuit rotor task – what we measure is how accurate you are – the deviation of your

mouse/pen. – Overtime, you get better with this task. Your errors decrease, which indicates learning.

o Mirror drawing – holding a mirror up to a picture, and only looking at the reflection, you try to trace the picture. Same thing is seen --- you improve in this over time.

o These are both skills that require a skill and practice for you to improve.

Developing Procedural Memories Three stages of skill acquisition Ex: when you learn to drive.

o Cognitive stage – conscious deliberate action. When you’re learning about what thing does what when you’re driving. You had to consciously think about what was going on.

o Associative Stage – Still conscious and deliberate, but information is retrieved more quickly. When you get a little better. You’re not necessarily thinking about everything consciously, but when things get tough, you have to think more and take a step back. Not perfect yet.

o Autonomous stage – largely unconscious, proceduralized. This is where you are an expert. When you’ve been drying for a few years and you can put on makeup, eat or paint your nails (!1) while driving.

You don’t think about it.

Learning a new skill despite serious motor deficits – Soliveri et al. [1997] o Compared pursuit rotor learning in 3 groups

Medicated Parkinson’s patients – people’s who’s condition was not to severe detrimental. Shaking movements were minimized.

Un-medicated Parkinson’s patients – were not being treated and the shaking was more severe.

Healthy controls o These patients were tested with pursuit rotor tasks and were tested over a period of time. o Results: healthy controls get better over time. This is not surprising. The white bars (medicated)

don’t perform as well as the healthy controls, but they do it well. The un-medicated patients (grey). Group D is when the un-medicated

o Why might unmediated patients show less learning? – Overtime, when they were practicing un-

medicated did not demonstrate learning – every time you remember something, you store remembering as a memory. If you’re doing the task off of medication, you’re storing the shaky

version/incorrect performance of that task – so when we put them on medication, they haven’t learned to do it correctly, so they won’t.

Study, Then Sleep – how about practice, then sleep? o Fischer et al. (2001) o Examined performance on a novel finger tapping task following periods of sleep or wake.

Participants were given 30 minutes to practice a sequence

Night time learning – did their learning between 10 and 10:30 and then stayed awake or slept and had them retrieve the task

Day time learning – learned the task in the morning and then some stayed awake and some slept and some stayed awake

o Results: performance (number of times they could correctly perform the sequence in the half an hour time period) improved after 8 hours of sleep and stayed higher even after 48 hours. Sleep enhances consolidation and prevents interference.

What about naps after daytime practice – Plihal & Born (1997) o Examined mirror drawing following early or late nocturnal sleep:

Early nocturnal sleep – characterized by a lot of time in slow-wave sleep – monitored their EEG and woke them up before they got to rem.

Late nocturnal sleep – heavy of REM sleep

Also tested ‘no sleep’ controls o Results: both “no sleep” groups performed poorly. Only group that had REM sleep showed a large

performance enhancement.

o If you want your nap to benefit your skills, make it a long nap. Performance on ND tasks is benefitted by REM sleep.

Proceduralizing is good, right – not always o Choking under pressure o What causes various forms of suckery, despite high levels of skills o Two general Theories –

Distraction theory – what happens when a player is under pressure is they get distracted.

The pressure shifts focus to task-irrelevant cues – things that have nothing to do with your performance.

Explicit Monitoring Theories – when you psych yourself out. When someone is in the expert stage, they regress back a stage [or two]. Instead of just getting up to the line and making the shot, then they walk through the steps. Pressure shifts focus to the task execution.

o How would we test these? Distraction Theories – choking follows attention to irrelevant details.

What structure helps to suppress irrelevant details – Central Executive, which is part of your working memory. It allocates attention and simultaneously suppresses irrelevant info.

Therefore, if we give someone a dual-task, this should mess with their central executive, it wouldn’t be able to suppress irrelevant info and would lead to choking.

Explicit Monitoring Theories – choking occurs when someone regresses proceduralized learning stage or two

If you tell experts to pay attention to the steps they take while performing their skill, they will perform poorly.

o Choking While Putting Beilock et al. {2004] Participants were novice and expert golfers who putted under two conditions

Condition one is a dual task – putters were wearing earphones and had to listen for a tone.

Condition two is skill-focus. – Putters were asked to attend to the club head and motion of the swing and say “straight” with the club connects to the ball.

Results: Novices, when they are asked to focus on skills, they do better than they do with

dual task. That makes sense – thinking about the steps for a novice will help them.

Experts are the exact opposite – when you ask them to focus on their skills, their putting gets worse… they do better when they monitor for a tone in dual task.

Focused attention helps/hurts o Novice and expert golfers putted under two sets of attention instructions

1 – emphasize accuracy – where would attention be focused under accuracy instructions

2 – Emphasize speed – where would attention be focused under speed instructions?

o Who should suffer more under speed instruction? – The novices.

o Who should suffer more under accuracy instruction? – The experts, because they are under pressure because they need to think about the steps.

o Results – Novice – do better under accuracy because they are focusing on the steps because they need them to do well. Experts do well while emphasizing speed.

Why would emphasizing speed help the experts? Because they don’t have the time to think about it and they go on autopilot.

o This leads to the question – if experts utilize non-verbal procedural memories during skill execution, can they remember it?

Expert-Induced Amnesia

o We’ve seen many expertise effects in memory (e.g., Chasse & Simon, 1973) – people who are master chess players could remember quickly and more effectively chess configurations over novices.

o Why would we expect anything different in procedural memory? – Procedural memories are not conscious!

o Novice and Expert golfers described The steps for a generic successful put (before and after practicing some puts) The steps of a recent put, in enough detail that a friend could replicate it.

o Results: The pros can tell you how to do it, but just not how THEY did it. Why? They don’t remember it because it is proceduralized. It is non-conscious behavior and

they are not thinking about it. When you ask them to make that memory conscious, they can’t because it was never conscious to begin with.

Those who can’t do... o Can describing your skills hurt your performance?

Novice and intermediate golfers learns a novel putting task to criterion – putting 8 out of 10.

After they did this, half did each:

Described how they did a novel put (they had to put words to their actions)

Provided valence ratings for unrelated words – something completely unrelated. Then they putted to a criterion again and they measure how many attempts it took to

put to acceptable-ness (more attempts, worse performance) Results:

Novices – telling someone else how you learned something helped you to perform better instead of not verbalizing it.

Intermediate – performed worse when they had to verbalize their actions rather than not having to. It took them more puts to get to criterion

Describing a skilled motor performance hurts later performance of that performance.

ESSAY QUESTION

What were they studying? o Two experiments studied transfer effects implicit memory and consumer choice, using a

preference judgment task – the pairing of novel brand names with known product type parallels everyday situations when new brand names are introduced to market.

o Experiment 1 examined whether it is possible to obtain priming for unfamiliar food labels and whether the experience of seeing a brand name with a particular product type would and would benefit subsequent processing of the brand name when linked with a different product type

Is it possible to demonstrate implicit memory effects for unfamiliar brand names using the preference judgment task? And does any benefit at test, that results from previous exposure to a brand name [priming], transfer to that same brand name presented with a different product type at test.

o Experiment 2 examined whether changes in modality between study and test would affect priming to practical concerns in the consumer choice literature.

Examined whether changing the modality of presentation between study and test reduces the priming effects seen on the preference judgment task

How’d they do it? o Experiment 1 – subjects were shown 28 labels, preceded by 8 practice labels. Subjects were required

to count the vowels contained in the brand name and product type and indicate their response. Each label remained on the screen until an answer was given, but fast/accurate Reponses were encouraged. Following the response, the screen was black for a period before the next label. Subjects were given word association questionnaires right after. Subjects were then asked to rank the likability of 56 pairs – which one was a better label. Subjects were told to respond quickly with their first impression, on the basis of both brand names and product types.

o Experiment 2 – for the 14 visually presented labels, participants completed the same vowel counting task. Each label stayed on the screen for a period of time and then was followed by a blank screen. For the 14 spoken labels, participants were told that each label would be presented twice on tape recorder and they had to decide how many syllables were in both the brand name and product type and wrote their Reponses on an answer sheet. For the visual preference judgment task, they were asked to rate liability. For auditory, subjects indicated preference by choosing one of two columns on the response sheet.

What’d they learn? o Experiment 1 – significant priming was obtained in the condition with the same label – there was

significant priming for unfamiliar food labels and established that priming was unaffected by changing the product type of the brand name

o Experiment 2 –Priming on both auditory and visual version of the preference judgment task was

reduced by changes in modality. Changes in modality reduced priming for unfamiliar labels – for each, most of the priming was obtained for labels presented in the same form from study and test, although cross-modality priming effect was also significant for auditory version of the task.