Memory: Temporal Effects, Subjectivity, Retrospectivity-Prospectivity, and so much more!
Overview of talk
• Background and Introductions• Temporal aspects of memory– Activity
• Prospective memory– Overview– Activity– Experiment 1 review
Temporal Aspects of memory
• What is memory?• What is forgetting– Encoding?– Retrieval?
• What happens in between memories?– Interference?• What is interference?
– Emotion?– Information?
Temporal Aspects of memory
Activity (10 minutes)Write about an experience (1-2 paragraphs for each)
that occurred or will occur:(1) 5 years ago(2) 5 day ago(3) 5 days from now(4) 5 years into the future
Once you are done, lets hear from you all!!!
Temporal Aspects of memory
• Episodic memory– Memory of autobiographical events…A type of
declarative memory• Solomon Asch: – “the very meaning of a message can change as a
function of the source to which it is attributed.”– The meaning of the statement is dependent on not
only who says it, but also on how the recipient of the message interprets it.
• How subjective are our memories?
Trope & Liberman, 2011
Construal Theory
• Solomon Asch: – “that the very meaning of a message can change
as a function of the source to which it is attributed.”• “A little rebellion….is a good thing”
Construal Theory
• Solomon Asch: – “that the very meaning of a message can change
as a function of the source to which it is attributed.”• “A little rebellion….is a good thing”
Temporal Aspects of memory
• Construal: person perceives, comprehends, and interprets the world around him or her.
• Construal level theory (CLT) proposes that we do so by forming abstract mental construals of distal objects. – we cannot experience what is not present, we can make
predictions about the future, remember the past, imagine other people’s reactions, and speculate about what might have been.
– Predictions, memories, and speculations are all mental constructions, distinct from direct experience.
What are mental constructions?
Trope & Liberman, 2011
Temporal Aspects of memory
• Psychological distance is egocentric– Its reference point is the self
• Transcending the self in the here and now entails mental construal, and the farther removed an object is from direct experience, the higher (more abstract) the level of construal of that object.
• Similar distances from reference point are related to each other
• “Subjective reality impacts person”
Trope & Liberman, 2011
Mental Construals – Temporal Aspects
5 days ago5 years ago 5 days from now 5 years from now
More abstract Less abstract More abstract
Trope & Liberman, 2011
Prospective Memory
• Overview (Give me a description…It seems you all know by now)
• Activity (in groups of 3-5 people)– Develop a theory of prospective memory– Draw a diagram of how it might work• Create an experiment
– Dependant variables?– Independent variables?
Prospective Memory
• Typical paradigm– Multiple Blocks
• Block 1 (Baseline)– Ongoing task (LDT)
• Block 2 (PM Blocks)– Ongoing task (LDT)– PM task
– What makes it difficult?– Types of processing
» Semantic» Orthographic
– Effort = Depletion of cognitive resources
Dependent Measures-Response Times
(in ms)Low EffortHigh Effort
-Ongoing Task Accuracy (in proportions)
Low EffortHigh Effort
-PM Task Accuracy (in proportions)
Low Effort
High Effort
Prospective Memory
Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)• Cue focality
– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval
Prospective Memory
Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)• Cue focality
– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval
– Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP)• Match in processing• Mismatch in processing
Prospective Memory
Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)
• Cue focality– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval
– Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP)• Match in processing• Mismatch in processing
– Effects of Effort (Marsh et al., 2005)• High Effort = lower performance• Low Effort = high performance
Prospective Memory
Theories of PM - What we know?– Multiprocess Theory (Einstein & McDaniel, 1995)
• Cue focality– Monitoring– Spontaneous Retrieval
– Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP)• Match in processing• Mismatch in processing
– Effects of Effort (Marsh et al., 2005)• High Effort = lower performance• Low Effort = high performance
Why so many theories?
Prospective Memory Experiment
• BAM! Let’s throw all of these ideas together!– Why? Because we can?.....Well yes, and it might
provide insight into what ACTUALLY happens in the real life???• That is called ecological validity!
• Transfer Appropriate Processing & Effort– What happens when we manipulate:• Difficulty (processing types)• Cognitive resources/depletion (effort)
Flow of Experiment
Baseline LDT (Block 1)
Semantic Instructions
Distractor (2 min)
Semantic PM Block (Block 2)
Orthographic Instructions
Distractor (2 min)
Orthographic PM Block (Block 3)
CounterbalancedWithin-subjects
Always first block
LOW EFFORT
hatch
sploof
house
MED EFFORT
roos
front
bail
HIGH EFFORT
blue
shirt
shorr
Flow of Experiment
Baseline LDT (Block 1)
Semantic Instructions
Distractor (2 min)
Semantic PM Block (Block 2)
Orthographic Instructions
Distractor (2 min)
Orthographic PM Block (Block 3)
LOW EFFORT
hatch
sploof
house
MED EFFORT
roos
front
bail
HIGH EFFORT
blue
shirt
shorr
Dependent Measures-Response Times***
(in ms)Low EffortHigh Effort
-Ongoing Task Accuracy (in proportions)
Low EffortHigh Effort
-PM Task Accuracy (in proportions)
Low Effort
High Effort
Results – PM Accuracy
Main Effect of Condition: F(1,38)=22.88, p<.001, η2=.376
TAP conditions (M=.78, SE=.03) regardless of effort have significantly higher PM accuracy than TIP conditions, M=.59, SE=.03, p<.001.
MATCH MISMATCH0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Experiment 1 - PM Performance
LOW EFFORTHIGH EFFORT
*
Results – Ongoing Task PerformanceWhat distribution do we typically use? Hint hint…Central Tendency….
Results – Ongoing Task PerformanceWhat distribution do we typically use? Hint hint…Central Tendency….
Two Parameters: MEAN and VARIANCE (STANDARD DEVIATION)
Results – Ongoing Task PerformanceAccording to the Worst Performance Rule (Coyle, 2003), slower RTs are more predictive of cognitive functioning (e.g., IQ)
Three Parameters: MEAN and VARIANCE (STANDARD DEVIATION) AND TAU
The ex-Gaussi
an Distribution
Results – Ongoing Task Performance
BASELINE MATCH MISMATCH0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Experiment 1 - RT - Mu (μ)
LOW EFFORTHIGH EFFORT
A main effect of Effort, F(1,28) = 10.03, p = .004, hp2
= .264 . No other MEs or Interactions were significant.
Results – Ongoing Task Performance
BASELINE MATCH MISMATCH0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Experiment 1 - RT - Tau (τ)
LOW EFFORTHIGH EFFORT
A main effect of PM Task Type was significant, F(2,56) = 19.09, p < .001, hp
2 = .405. No other MEs or Interactions were significant.
Results – Ongoing Task Performance
Conclusions
Match in processing resulted in higher PM cue detection.
Monitoring occurred during MATCH in processing ONLY when cognitive resources were depleted (High Effort) AND for all MISMATCH conditions.
The t parameter showed differences between PM conditions that the m and s did not.
PM performance and processes are affected by processing type and the amount of available cognitive resources.
Critical Question(s)
Is this really how the brain/mind works?
Seriously???
Any other questions???
Drew Abney
Top Related