Levels of Processing Memory Model Overview

8/13/2019 Levels of Processing Memory Model Overview

1/44

Levels of processing memory

model overview Explain how the levels of processing model of memory

works

Seminars on LOP

SAQ comparing and contrasting two models of memory

Explain how Biological factors affect cognitive processes(memory, amnesia & serotonin)


2/44

Develop your own theory Imagine you are a theorist who really disagrees with

Attkinson and Shriffen.

Present a one page proposal for new ideas for a theoryon memory.

The basis of your proposal is provided by theweaknesses of the MSM (notes; Crane 75)- you are

trying to overcome such weaknesses. To justify your proposal use examples from your own

memory experience.


3/44

Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart,

1972)

This model was proposed as alternative to the multi-storemodel. Craik & Lockhart rejected the idea of separatememory structures put forward by Atkinson & Shiffrin

The model places an emphasizes memoryprocess rather than the structure like the MSMmodel.

The LOP model based on the idea that thestrength of a memory trace is determined byhow the original information was processed


4/44

LOP: Shallow & Deep Processing

The model proposed that there are different levels ofprocessing that influence how much is remember

Shallow processingthe 1ststage of processing e.g.

recognising the stimulus in terms of its physical appearanceor structure e.g. the shape of the letters a word is written in

Deep processingthe deepest level of processing involves

encoding the input in terms its meaning (semantics)

The model assumes that shallow processing will lead to weakshort termretention and deep processing will enable long

termretention


5/44

Structural

(looks like)

Weak memory trace

-leading so short term

retention

Strong memory traceleading to long term

retention

Phonological

(sounds like)

Semantic

(means)

Shallow processing Deep processing


6/44

LOP: Maintenance & Elaborative Rehearsal

The model also proposed that different ways of rehearsing alsohave an influence on how well we remember:

1. Rehearsing material simply by rote repetition is called

maintenance rehearsaland is regarded as shallow processing.

2. Making links with semantic (meaning) associations is calledelaborative rehearsaland is seen as deep processing

The assumption of the model is that shallow processing will giverise to weak short term retention and deep processing will ensurestrong, lasting retention


7/44

Research Studies for the LOP Model

(support & criticisms):

1. Elias & Perfetti (1973) study of acoustic & semanticencoding & Hyde and Jenkins (1973) effects of the wayin which words are processed on recall

2. Tyler et al (1979) Cognitive Effort & Memory &Palmere et al. (1983) elaboration and recall

3. General Evaluative Points

Activity:work in 3 groups - fill in your notes and discuss, then work in new group toteach each other


8/44

General evaluative

points for LOP model of memory


9/44

Elias & Perfetti (1973) study of acoustic & semantic encodingAIM:Elias & Perfetti (1973) aimed to investigate

encoding and memory

PROCEDURE:They gave PPs a number of differenttasks to perform on each word in a list, such as:

finding another word that rhymes or

finding a word that means the same or similar

(synonym)to the word on the list. The rhyming taskinvolved only acoustic coding and

hence was a shallow level of processing.

The synonym taskinvolved semantic coding and hencewas a deep level of processing.


10/44

The participants were not toldthat they would be asked torecall the words, but nevertheless they did remember someof the words when subsequently tested.

This is called incidental learningas opposed to intentionalor deliberate learning.

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:The PPs recalledsignificantly more words following the synonym task thanfollowing the rhyming task,

suggesting that deeper levels of processing leads to betterrecall and thus supporting the LOP model. EVALUATION:Ecological Validity/ Experimental research


11/44

Hyde and Jenkins (1973) effects of the way in which words are

processed on recall

AIM:To investigate the effects of shallow & deep processing onrecall. PROCEDURE: Hyde and Jenkins (1973) presented auditorily lists

of 24 words and asked different groups of participants to performone of the following so-called orienting tasks:

rating the words for pleasantnessestimating the frequency with which each word is used in the

English languagedetecting the occurrence of the letters e' and 'g' in any of the wordsdeciding the part of speech appropriate to each word (e.g. noun,

adjective)decidingwhether the words fitted into a particular sentence frame.


12/44

Rating the words for pleasantness (e.g. is donkey apleasant word?)

Estimating the frequency with which each word is usedin the English language (e.g. how often does donkeyappear in the English language?)

Detecting the occurrence of the letters e & g in the

list words (e.g. is there an e or a g in the worddonkey?)

Deciding the part of speech appropriate to each word

(e.g. is donkey a verb, noun or an adjective?) Deciding whether the words fitted into particular

sentences (e.g. does the word donkey fit into thefollowing sentence > I went to the doctor and showed

him my ............)


13/44

Five groups of participants performed one of these tasks,without knowing that they were going to be asked to recallthe words (incidentallearning group)..

An additional five groups of participants performed the tasks but they were told that they should learn the words.

(intentionallearning group)

Finally, there was a control group of participants who were

instructed to learn the words but did not do the tasks)


14/44

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONSAfter testing all theparticipants for recall of the original word list Hyde andJenkins found that there were minimal differences in the

number of items correctly recalled between the intentionallearning groups and the incidental learning groups.

This finding is predicted by Craik and Lockhart and supports

LOP because they believe that retention is simply abyproduct of processing and so intention to learn isunnecessary for learning to occur.


15/44

In addition, Hyde & Jenkins found that thepleasantnessratingand ratingfrequency of usagetasks produced thebest recall.

it was found that recall was significantly better for wordswhich had been analysed semantically (i.e. rated forpleasantness or for frequency) than words which had

been rated more superficially (shallow)(i.e. detecting 'e'and 'g').

This is also in line with the LOP model because semanticanalysis is assumed to be a deeper level of processing

than structural (shallow) analysis.

They claimed that this was because these tasks involvedsemantic processing whereas the other tasks did not.


16/44

one interesting finding was that incidental learnersperformed just as well as intentional learners in all tasksthis suggests that it is the nature of the processing that

determines how much you will remember rather thanintention to learn. Bear this in mind when you are revising the more

processing you perform on the information (e.g. quizzes,essays, spider diagrams etc.) the more likely you are toremember it .

EVALUATION: Not totally clear what level of processing is used for the

different tasks. More processing = more time spent elaborating the

material. Is this the same or are there two differentfactors involved? is time different to elaboration?

Ecological validity, experimental method/ applicability?


17/44

The Criticisms/Limitations of the LOP Model

It is usually the case that deeper levels of processing do leadto better recall.

However, there is an argument about whether it is the depthof processing that leads to better recall or the amount of

processing effortthat produces the result see Tyler et al(1970)

Also any of the the MSM and research that supports can beused as a counter claim in evaluation of the LOP as it fails

to recognize that there are indeed two separate stores ofmemory


18/44

Tyler et al (1979) Cognitive Effort &

MemoryAIM: Tyler et al (1979) investigated the effects of cognitiveeffort on memory

PROCEDURES:They gave participants two sets of anagramsto solve - easy ones, such as DOCTRO or difficult ones such asTREBUT.

Afterwards, participants were given an unexpected test for

recall of the anagram

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Alth h th i


19/44

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:Although the processinglevel was the same, because participants were processingon the basis of meaning, participants remembered moreof the difficult anagram words than the easy ones.

So Tyler et alconcluded that retention is a function ofprocessing effort, not processing depth.

KEY EVALUATION POINT : Craik and Lockhart

themselves (1986) have since suggested that factors suchas elaboration and distinctivenessare also importantin determining the rate of retention; this idea has beensupported by research.

For example, Hunt and Elliott(1980) found that peoplerecalled words with distinctive sequences of tall andshort letters better than words with less distinctivearrangements of letters


20/44

AIM: Palmere et al. (1983) a study of the effects ofelaboration on recall

PROCEDURE: They made up a 32- paragraphdescription of a fictitious African nation.

1. Eight paragraphs consisted of a sentence containing a

main idea, followed by three sentences each providingan example of the main theme;

2. Eight paragraphs consisted of one main sentence

followed by two supplementary sentences;3. Eight paragraphs consisted of one main sentencefollowed by a single supplementary sentence

4. The remaining eight paragraphs consisted of a single

main sentence with no supplementary information

Palmere et al. (1983) elaboration and recall


21/44

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:

Recall of the main ideas varied as a function of theamount of elaboration (extra info given).

Significantly more main ideas were recalled from theelaborated paragraphs than from the single-sentence

paragraphs. This kind of evidence suggests that the effects of

processing on retention are not as simple as firstproposed by the levels of processing model.

EVALUATION: suggests that elaboration is important and Craik & Lockhart (1986) did update their model toinclude elaboration & distinctiveness as having a major

influence on retention


22/44

General evaluative points relating to the research

Another problemis that participants typically spend a longertime processing the deeper or more difficult tasks.

So, it could be that the results are partly due to more timebeing spent on the material.

The type of processing, the amount of effort & the length oftime spent on processing tend to be confounded.

Deeper processing goes with more effort and more time, so itis difficult to know which factor influences the results.


23/44

Associated with the previous point, it is often difficultwith many of the tasks used in levels of processingstudies to be sure what the level of processing actually is.

For example, in the study by Hyde & Jenkins (describedabove) they assumed that judging a words frequencyinvolved thinking of its meaning, but it is not altogether

clear why this should be so. Also, they argued that the task of deciding the part of

speech to which a word belongs is a shallow processingtask - but other researchers claim that the task involvesdeep or semantic processing.

So, a major problem is the lack of any independentmeasure of processing depth. How deep is deep?


24/44

A major problem with the LOP is circularity,

i.e. there is no independent definition of depth.

The model predicts that deep processing will lead to betterretention - researchers then conclude that, because retentionis better after certain orienting tasks, they must, bydefinition, involve deep processing

Eysenck (1978) claims


25/44

Eysenck (1978) claims In view of the vagueness with which depth isdefined, there is danger of using retention-test

performance to provide information about the depthof processing and then using the ... depth of

processing to explain the retention-testperformance, a self-defeating exercise in circularity.

What he means is that if a person performs well on a

test of recall after performing a particular task thensome researchers will claim that they must haveperformed a deep level of processing on theinformation in order to remember it - a circular

argument.Another objection is that levels of processing theory

does not really explainwhy deeper levels ofprocessing is more effective it is descriptive rather

than explanatory

E k ( ) l i th t it d ib th th l i


26/44

Eysenck (1990) claims that it describes rather than explainswhat is happening.

However, recent studies have clarified this point - it appears

that deeper coding produces better retention because it ismore elaborate.

Elaborative encoding enriches the memory representation ofan item by activating many aspects of its meaning and

linking it into the pre-existing network of semanticassociations.

Deep level semantic coding tends to be more elaborated thanshallow physical coding and this is probably why it worked

better.


27/44

Lesson Objectives Receive feedback on strengths & weaknesses of MSM

SAQ

Review plans for compare & contrast the MSM & LOPmodels

Complete key study sheets, and connect the researchback to the key principles of the LOA


28/44

Similarities between the two models

(comparison) Similarities between the two models (comparison)

-they are both models used to explain memory,

both use information processing approach, bothhave experimental research support (giveexamples), both have support from experiments,both have weaknesses in terms of the research e.g.

Ecological validity,, both are too simple, they bothsupport the key principles of the LOA


29/44

SAQ: Compare & contrast two models

of one cognitive processi.e. Give the similarities and differences

between Multi-Store and Levels of

Processing models of memory

o one cogn t ve process


30/44

o one cogn t ve processi.e. Give the similarities and differences

between Multi-Store and Levels of

Processing models of memory


31/44

Thesis

There are a number of similarities and differencesbetween the MSM & LOP models of memory. Thispaper will compare and contrast the two models, the

research that support those models, and the relativestrengths and limitations of the two models

The Models: What is different?


32/44

The Models: What is different?

1. The MSM focuses on the structure of memory, and

makes a clear distinction between STM & LTM & LOPfocuses on the depth of processing as what determinesretention

2. LOP does not make the distinction between LTM &

STM, and the MSM proposes that STM & LTM aredistinct separate stores of memory, and are different toeach other in terms of encoding, capacity & duration

3. The MSM model is linear, stating that STM is limited incapacity & duration, and rehearsal leads to a transfer

from STM to LTM4. MSM states that rehearsal is the way in which

information is transferred from STM to LTM, but LOPfocuses on depth of processing on determining the

length of retention

The Models: What is similar?


33/44

The Models: What is similar?1. Both models of memory which are influenced by the computer metaphor

and the both come from the information possessing approach and weredeveloped around the same time

2. Both models are based on the key principles of the level of analysis, thatmodels of psychological processes can be proposed and cognitive

processes actively organize and manipulate information that we receive3. Both seek to explain how memory works, both offer explanations of why

some information is retained for longer than others, both have given usinsight into the cognitive processes involved in memory

4. Both suggest that encoding has an influence on retention LOP ifprocessing is deep = semantic = longer retention & acoustic = shallow =short retention (Elias & Perfetti, 1973) in MSM - LTM encoding issemantic and STM is acoustic (Baddeley, 1966)

5. Both suggest that rehearsal is important MSM transfer from STM toLTM, and the LOP makes the distinction between maintenance andelaborative rehearsal

6. Both are limited in their ability to explain how memory works, and fail toaccount for the complexity of human behavior

7. They both take into account factors that the other model ignores LOPignores distinction between STM & LTM MSM does not take into

account the significance of depth of processing


34/44

The research

supporting the models: What is similar?

1. Both models have experimental research support, with the use ofcontrolled environments and experimental designs to see examinecausal relationships between the manipulation of the IV on theDV

2. This similarity between the research can be seen through

comparing Baddeleys (1966) study of the encoding in STM & LTMsupporting the MSM model, and Hyde & Jenkins (1973) study ofthe effects of the depth at which words are processed on recallwhich supports the LOP model, - both studies requiredparticipants to recall word lists, both were carried out incontrolled conditions, both had experimental designs, both can be

criticized for having low ecological validity.3. Nevertheless, both studies support their respective models, Hyde

& Jenkins (1973) showed that depth of processing does influencerecall supporting LOP, and Baddeleys study suggests that STMencoding is acoustic & LTM is semantic supporting MSM


35/44

The research

supporting the models: What is different?

1. The MSM model has additional support from case studies of braindamaged individuals such as HM (Milner, 1966) who suffered fromanterograde amnesia, and was unable to transfer information fromSTM to LTM. Furthermore, Shallice & Warringtons (1970) casestudy of KF who had a severely impaired STM after a motorcycleaccident retrograde amnesia. This strengthens the validity of the

MSM model, suggesting that there is indeed two distinct separatestores of memory (STM & LTM)

2. The LOP model also has difficulties explaining certain the findingsof studies which support the MSM model, for example, Glanzer &Cunitz (1966) carried out an experiment on the serial position

effect, which supports MSM suggesting that there are two separatestores of memory, but LOP fails to offer an explanation for thisphenomenon.

3. However, MSM is also limited, as it is unable to explain thefindings of Hyde & Jenkins (1973) study which clearly suggest thatdepth of processing is important, thus supporting LOP


36/44

The evaluation of the research & models: What is

similar?

1. Both are too simplistic, and fail the both to take into accountwhat the other model does

2. The experimental research that supports both models hasmethodological issues such as low ecological validity, as muchof the research is carried out in an artificial environment whichis very different to real life situations

3. The experimental research supporting both models have fewethical issues, but its vital for such studies to closely follow

APA ethical guidelines4. Both models have supporting research which is easily

replicable, it can and should be replicated cross culturally to

ensure that the models are valid5. They both have practical applications: MSM highlights the

importance of rehearsal to transfer information to LTM, andchunking to enhance the capacity of STM, furthermore, LOPsuggests that when studying deep processing tasks will lead to

longer retention.


37/44

The evaluation of the research & models: What is

different?

1. The research that supports the LOP, showing that depth ofprocessing is important in retention, is limited by thepossibility of confounding variables of processing effortandtime, however, the research supporting the MSM does not havesuch problems

2. The LOP model has a major problem in terms of its circularity,

as the model predicts that deep processing will lead to betterretention, and researchers conclude that because betterretention is due to certain processing tasks, they must involvedeep processing. On the other hand the MSM model does nothave such problems.

3. However, Craik & Lockhart (1986) have been open to adaptingthe LOP model, and did integrate elaboration &distinctiveness of information as crucial factors influencingretention and in contrast the MSM fails to account for howmore distinctive information can be retained for longer


38/44

Conclusion: The MSM have a number of similarities and

differences, but together, they have deepened ourunderstanding of how memory works and offered

greater insight into the complexity of human cognition


39/44

Word bank: However

On the other hand

In contrast In comparison

Conversely

A similarity is A difference is..

Moreover

Differences between the two models


40/44

Differences between the two models

(contrast)

-they explain memory in different ways, focus ondifferent aspects of memory (structure/process), thehave different types of research supporting them (e.g.

MSM-more case studies), the research supporting themodels has different strengths & weaknesses


41/44

Evaluation of LOP Influential model emphasis on mental processes rather

than rigid structures, Descriptive rather that explanatorymodel e.g. how do you define what is deep and shallow

processing

Does not include the amount of effort one puts intolearning as an important factors

However, Craik and Lockhart (1986) have suggested thatelaboration on informationand the distinctiveness ofinformationare also important in determining memory


42/44

Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart)


43/44

Evaluation of MSM Distinguishes between STM & LTM

Milner (1966) case study of HM supports this distinction anterograde amnesia

Model is too simplistic and inflexible

Does not take into account the strategies people use to rememberthings it emphasises the amount of information processes ratherthan its nature

To much emphasis on structure without explaining the processesinvolved

Rehearsal as the only transfer from STM to LTM has beencriticized LOP theory


44/44

Levels of Processing Memory Model Overview

Documents

Transcript of Levels of Processing Memory Model Overview