The article on the episodic buffer was the most intriguing part of this week’s readings, specifically the concept of amnesic patients being able to recall certain events that one would expect them to not be able to (in this case, to play a good game of bridge, which involves keeping track of the contract as well as which cards have already been played). Previous readings have described two main types of amnesia: anterograde, where new information cannot be remembered, and retrograde, where previous memories are lost. This example of being able to play a good game of bridges seems to fall in some unidentified middle ground, for previous memories must, essentially, be used to play the game correctly, and a new memory must be formed to continue to play the game. This makes the concept of working memory, especially the idea of an episodic buffer proposed in this article, particularly interesting for it makes one wonder what exactly constitutes working memory. It seems to exceed the previous notions of what working memory is but falls short of the capabilities that we typically think an amnesic patient possesses.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
September 26th--Episodic Buffer
Monday, September 24, 2007
September 26th... the cues for memory
Sorry this is coming in so late, I meant to write on Sunday after finishing the readings but got distracted and (well) forgot...
For me cueing was one of the most interesting concepts in the reading. For most things in life, we are supplied with cues to remember information even when unaware of it. A face can become a cue for a given name, or vice versa a name for a certain face associated with that particular name. After studying (or cramming as the case may be) for an exam, the questions on the exam become the cue for your answers. In high school had a history exam been presented as one phrase "write what you remember" I probably would not have done very well. I would have recalled the things read most carefully, probably the key points while details would be lacking especially if the question was so broad. However, we are never presented with such vague questions. We are given essays with reminders, and multiple choice questions that will begin your mind working. In the American Revolution who crossed the Hudson river? The questions hold cues that give your mind the ability to sift through all of the information lying dormant. A normal conversation will take people back through memories of days or even years past. Even walking past something we've seen hundreds of times or something that looks like that object can bring us on a journey, all in a matter of seconds. The initial 30 seconds of a song can cue all of the words or the name of the singer. It can cue memories of the first or last time you heard the song. If studying to music, it can become a cue for information.
And each brain holds a billion different cues. Love is like a butterfly (a song by Dolly Parton) playing on the radio will trigger memories of me and my mom sitting in a car for a road trip, but for other summon nothing, or something negative. It all depends on individual experience. This would make experiments of all kinds extremely difficult. Therefore knowing the basic background of subjects in experiments can be very important. A linguistics major may be able to place meaning to nonsense syllables and come up with a method for remembering, as will an avid runner, or sport player, a musician. Everyone has their own vices and procedures for remembering things. These procedures could in themselves be interesting to study because they can show how different people filter information which leads to memory to begin with.
This led me to wonder how exactly a cue is created and why. What makes a particular cue be able to summon images of ten years ago in bright vivid color while others only get a vague response with barely there images and just a feeling of well being? Were these conscious efforts of when something was happening or just something our brain filters at random?
Can you create a cue after you have already seemingly forgotten a piece of information? Can you force yourself to remember something or will you simply reconstruct a false memory from what you can remember if you try too hard?
For me cueing was one of the most interesting concepts in the reading. For most things in life, we are supplied with cues to remember information even when unaware of it. A face can become a cue for a given name, or vice versa a name for a certain face associated with that particular name. After studying (or cramming as the case may be) for an exam, the questions on the exam become the cue for your answers. In high school had a history exam been presented as one phrase "write what you remember" I probably would not have done very well. I would have recalled the things read most carefully, probably the key points while details would be lacking especially if the question was so broad. However, we are never presented with such vague questions. We are given essays with reminders, and multiple choice questions that will begin your mind working. In the American Revolution who crossed the Hudson river? The questions hold cues that give your mind the ability to sift through all of the information lying dormant. A normal conversation will take people back through memories of days or even years past. Even walking past something we've seen hundreds of times or something that looks like that object can bring us on a journey, all in a matter of seconds. The initial 30 seconds of a song can cue all of the words or the name of the singer. It can cue memories of the first or last time you heard the song. If studying to music, it can become a cue for information.
And each brain holds a billion different cues. Love is like a butterfly (a song by Dolly Parton) playing on the radio will trigger memories of me and my mom sitting in a car for a road trip, but for other summon nothing, or something negative. It all depends on individual experience. This would make experiments of all kinds extremely difficult. Therefore knowing the basic background of subjects in experiments can be very important. A linguistics major may be able to place meaning to nonsense syllables and come up with a method for remembering, as will an avid runner, or sport player, a musician. Everyone has their own vices and procedures for remembering things. These procedures could in themselves be interesting to study because they can show how different people filter information which leads to memory to begin with.
This led me to wonder how exactly a cue is created and why. What makes a particular cue be able to summon images of ten years ago in bright vivid color while others only get a vague response with barely there images and just a feeling of well being? Were these conscious efforts of when something was happening or just something our brain filters at random?
Can you create a cue after you have already seemingly forgotten a piece of information? Can you force yourself to remember something or will you simply reconstruct a false memory from what you can remember if you try too hard?
September 26th Post (a little late...)
Most of what I would like to discuss doesn't center on anything specifically in the readings, more just some basic ideas that were throughout and on what has been happening with the research we've been doing outside of class (the story project).
While all of these studies—release-from-proactive-interference, cue-dependent-forgetting, etc.—posit interesting and seemingly accurate theories onto how our memory seems to work, what if they are all missing something. Collecting the research for the story project made me wonder, what if every one of these tests is suffering from the same bias? Doesn't the knowledge that you are participating in a psychological study on memory, particularly in the case of the story, make you approach the whole situation differently? Even without the understanding that it is a study on memory you are still stuck into a position that is testing you in some way.
It is ridiculous for me to claim that all experimental psychology is biased and unreliable by virtue of the fact that it is a psychological experiment. That is in no way what I am claiming here; I think it's obvious that these structured experiments have plenty to offer to the understanding of memory as well as many other aspects of psychology. What I find interesting is the idea that perhaps we will never get to the truth of how our minds really work by putting them in these artificial and structured situations. Rubin is very interested in getting to the root of how memory functions in oral histories and how the findings from the lab experiments reveal things (or don't) about this process. Perhaps the problem with all of it is that we cannot get to a more complete understanding of this process with the experiments structured the way they are.
What prompted me into this line of thinking was when I gave the story experiment to one of my friends. I told her (probably mistakenly) that it was for my Memory Research Seminar class. It completely changed the way she had been reading the story. At first she was reading normally and as soon as she had the knowledge that it was for a psychology course—much less one on memory—she began asking for quiet and seemed much more focused (without actually breaking any of the rules of the experiment). I would be curious to see what would happen if the experiment was done without the absolute knowledge of the participant, and what everyone thinks the result—whatever it might be—signifies.
I don't have an answer to any of these questions, nor do I have a purported alternative. I think it is something, though, that would be interesting to explore further and I'm curious to see what everyone thinks of the idea. Would it be a problem? Does it even matter? Would we gain any new knowledge from conducting these experiments in a different manner?
While all of these studies—release-from-proactive-interference, cue-dependent-forgetting, etc.—posit interesting and seemingly accurate theories onto how our memory seems to work, what if they are all missing something. Collecting the research for the story project made me wonder, what if every one of these tests is suffering from the same bias? Doesn't the knowledge that you are participating in a psychological study on memory, particularly in the case of the story, make you approach the whole situation differently? Even without the understanding that it is a study on memory you are still stuck into a position that is testing you in some way.
It is ridiculous for me to claim that all experimental psychology is biased and unreliable by virtue of the fact that it is a psychological experiment. That is in no way what I am claiming here; I think it's obvious that these structured experiments have plenty to offer to the understanding of memory as well as many other aspects of psychology. What I find interesting is the idea that perhaps we will never get to the truth of how our minds really work by putting them in these artificial and structured situations. Rubin is very interested in getting to the root of how memory functions in oral histories and how the findings from the lab experiments reveal things (or don't) about this process. Perhaps the problem with all of it is that we cannot get to a more complete understanding of this process with the experiments structured the way they are.
What prompted me into this line of thinking was when I gave the story experiment to one of my friends. I told her (probably mistakenly) that it was for my Memory Research Seminar class. It completely changed the way she had been reading the story. At first she was reading normally and as soon as she had the knowledge that it was for a psychology course—much less one on memory—she began asking for quiet and seemed much more focused (without actually breaking any of the rules of the experiment). I would be curious to see what would happen if the experiment was done without the absolute knowledge of the participant, and what everyone thinks the result—whatever it might be—signifies.
I don't have an answer to any of these questions, nor do I have a purported alternative. I think it is something, though, that would be interesting to explore further and I'm curious to see what everyone thinks of the idea. Would it be a problem? Does it even matter? Would we gain any new knowledge from conducting these experiments in a different manner?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Response to Sept 26th reading
There were several things that peaked my interest in the last reading One was the concept of cuing. This concept explains that memories that can seem forgotten forever, can be recovered with the proper cue. Something else that's interesting, is that the stronger the cue, the stronger the memory. For example; If I smell vegetable soup it propels me back to my childhood at some point when I would eat this really good vegetable soup. I can't remember who made it for me, or where I was, but I remember that soup. Now, had the cue been stronger I might have been able to remember all the details of my soup meal, including who made it and where.
Another great point in the reading was the reason people forgot things. In Basic Observations on Remembering Rubin states "Rather than time, changes in the environment and intervening activity have been examined as the causes of forgetting"(pg. 157 Rubin). A little earlier he says this is necessary because time does not explain the minimal loss of memory in oral traditions. I thought this was a very good point for several reasons. It's interesting because one of the biggest reasons I feel like I forget things is time. Why don't I remember that trip to Disneyland when I was 8 with the family? Or one of the countless field trips I took in elementary school? I always thought because as time went on, the memory started to fade. This all seems logical but then it leads to the question of how all of our ancestors could remember story after story to be passed down through there generations for hundreds of years.
This is where Rubin's experiment starts to come in. First of all "activity that reduces recall is termed interference" (pg. 147). There are a couple different types of interference: proactive and retroactive. The first being the interference that takes place before someone remembers something, and retroactive takes place after someone has tried to remember something, but before they try to recall it again. One thing he found was that interference similar to whatever was being remembered gave people a lot more trouble than something that had nothing to do with it. This makes a lot of sense because it becomes very easy to become confused and end up forgetting both the interference, and the original item to be remembered.
There are obviously a myriad of reasons people forget things but it's interesting to know what a few of those reasons are.
Another great point in the reading was the reason people forgot things. In Basic Observations on Remembering Rubin states "Rather than time, changes in the environment and intervening activity have been examined as the causes of forgetting"(pg. 157 Rubin). A little earlier he says this is necessary because time does not explain the minimal loss of memory in oral traditions. I thought this was a very good point for several reasons. It's interesting because one of the biggest reasons I feel like I forget things is time. Why don't I remember that trip to Disneyland when I was 8 with the family? Or one of the countless field trips I took in elementary school? I always thought because as time went on, the memory started to fade. This all seems logical but then it leads to the question of how all of our ancestors could remember story after story to be passed down through there generations for hundreds of years.
This is where Rubin's experiment starts to come in. First of all "activity that reduces recall is termed interference" (pg. 147). There are a couple different types of interference: proactive and retroactive. The first being the interference that takes place before someone remembers something, and retroactive takes place after someone has tried to remember something, but before they try to recall it again. One thing he found was that interference similar to whatever was being remembered gave people a lot more trouble than something that had nothing to do with it. This makes a lot of sense because it becomes very easy to become confused and end up forgetting both the interference, and the original item to be remembered.
There are obviously a myriad of reasons people forget things but it's interesting to know what a few of those reasons are.
What struck me the most about the reading were the experiments that were talked about in the two packets, “Experimental Studies” and “Basic Observations on Remembering.” While first reading about the different experiments, all I could think about was how the paper said that they were great breakthroughs in the field of memory research, yet to me they seemed to barely scratch the surface of the questions that I would want to answer in order to have a psychologically based working model of the different types of memory.
Since I have a lot of background in the sciences I am well versed in the idea of a scientific experiment and the importance of independent and dependent variables as well as the idea of holding variables constant. The Ebbinghaus experiments and the many different experiments performed on interference theory were all very ingeniously created and obviously based in a scientific experimental model. The Ebbinghaus experiment used non-sense syllables to try and hold the variable of experience constant, since the subjects would no have already formed ideas or impressions about the words that may later sway their results. Ebbinhaus thought that if the experiment used non-sense syllables which theoretically had no previous meanings of associations for the test subjects than any significance accrued during the experiment was significant. The experiments conducted on interference theory always used the same lists in the experiments, and seemed to use a very large sample pool.
These experiments are very simplistic and only seem to examine a very small specific aspect of the human memory. The problem seems to be that in order to keep with the scientific model and hold as many variables constant as possible the experiments must be organized like that. I guess that this model is necessary if you want to have results that can be generalizations and be applied to a model of the working memory. Both papers address this issue and how it is impossible to hold many variables constant, which is just an inevitability when working with the human mind.
So many millions of factors could affect someone’s memory. One subject could be having a bad day or not have gotten enough sleep and not perform as well. Another subject might be a biologist so the list of vegetables may have more significance to him and he would remember the items for longer because they had more significance. Even the person conducting the experiment could unconsciously place more emphasis on some words, making them later stick out in the subjects mind. There is much a multitude of variables it seems like not only could they not all be controlled, we might not even be able to think of a lot of them.
It seems to me that the only way to make the results as unbiased as possible is the test as many people as possible. The more results are averaged in, the less likely the random differences between people will affect the overall results, and the more likely it is that a pattern will emerge. After reading about the experiments I tried to think of ways in which experiments could be designed to study more complex aspects of memory and I could not think of any. People come from such different backgrounds, have such different minds, and such different ways of dealing with the world that it seems impossible to test memory in more complex ways except by doing case studies. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with an in-depth explanation for the different types of memory that was applicable to the general population. I know that the results from those simplistic experiments are applicable to a general memory model but they don’t seem to go deep enough. I guess I just ended up somewhat frustrated by my realization at how complex the mind was and how hard it is to study it. I hope that this made sense and wasn’t to scattered.
Since I have a lot of background in the sciences I am well versed in the idea of a scientific experiment and the importance of independent and dependent variables as well as the idea of holding variables constant. The Ebbinghaus experiments and the many different experiments performed on interference theory were all very ingeniously created and obviously based in a scientific experimental model. The Ebbinghaus experiment used non-sense syllables to try and hold the variable of experience constant, since the subjects would no have already formed ideas or impressions about the words that may later sway their results. Ebbinhaus thought that if the experiment used non-sense syllables which theoretically had no previous meanings of associations for the test subjects than any significance accrued during the experiment was significant. The experiments conducted on interference theory always used the same lists in the experiments, and seemed to use a very large sample pool.
These experiments are very simplistic and only seem to examine a very small specific aspect of the human memory. The problem seems to be that in order to keep with the scientific model and hold as many variables constant as possible the experiments must be organized like that. I guess that this model is necessary if you want to have results that can be generalizations and be applied to a model of the working memory. Both papers address this issue and how it is impossible to hold many variables constant, which is just an inevitability when working with the human mind.
So many millions of factors could affect someone’s memory. One subject could be having a bad day or not have gotten enough sleep and not perform as well. Another subject might be a biologist so the list of vegetables may have more significance to him and he would remember the items for longer because they had more significance. Even the person conducting the experiment could unconsciously place more emphasis on some words, making them later stick out in the subjects mind. There is much a multitude of variables it seems like not only could they not all be controlled, we might not even be able to think of a lot of them.
It seems to me that the only way to make the results as unbiased as possible is the test as many people as possible. The more results are averaged in, the less likely the random differences between people will affect the overall results, and the more likely it is that a pattern will emerge. After reading about the experiments I tried to think of ways in which experiments could be designed to study more complex aspects of memory and I could not think of any. People come from such different backgrounds, have such different minds, and such different ways of dealing with the world that it seems impossible to test memory in more complex ways except by doing case studies. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with an in-depth explanation for the different types of memory that was applicable to the general population. I know that the results from those simplistic experiments are applicable to a general memory model but they don’t seem to go deep enough. I guess I just ended up somewhat frustrated by my realization at how complex the mind was and how hard it is to study it. I hope that this made sense and wasn’t to scattered.
September 26th Blog
I apologize if my thoughts skip around too much, or if this is too scattered!
While reading Bourtchouladze's descriptions of primary memory and secondary memory, a few questions came to mind: which do we use the most, and is there a difference in interest that determines which we use the most? So of course I'm thinking in terms of what I know, trying to relate all of this to my own life. So I'm thinking in terms of dance. Do dancers rely on secondary memory more then non-dancers? Some say that dancing is like riding a bike, once you retain the knowledge of say, what a plie is, you always have it. Others say that you must continue to practice or you lose it. What, then is "muscle memory"? A form of secondary memory? It makes sense then, that those dancers who pick up on movement, rhythm, etc, faster, are more reliant on their short term memories, and could not show you what they learned the next day. But those who take longer to possess the movement, who need to do it many times, are those who will remember the next day, next week. "He who learns quickly also forgets quickly" then makes sense. Short-term memory does not last as long, even though it is valued so much more.
When I think of which of these types of memory are valued more, it also includes declarative and non-declarative, episodic and semantic. Do we value memories of times, places and contexts, or are we more prone to those of skills, habits, and more importantly, emotions? Sometimes it may be the case of which do we pay more attention to. Since semantic memories are habits and general skills, we pay little attention to them. So it seems that episodic memories are the ones given the most attention. All those questions like "your first childhood memory" or "what you did Friday night," are episodic. I think we pay more attention to the fact that we are remembering when we are remembering an episodic memory.
I was drawn to the Charles Dickens quote, "In this life, we want nothing but Facts, nothing but Facts!" I’m wondering if this is true all the time. It seems to me that we want a mixture of both. I also think it is subjective and circumstantial. When I’m listening to someone tell a story, I’m drawn to the emotional aspect, what they were feeling, reactions, etc. However when I’m in a classroom, I like facts. But I am also always thinking of how I relate to these facts and how they connect with my life. I think trying to separate the two is what is driving me crazy. I want to think in terms of either one or the other, and what I need to focus more on is the fusion of the two. Bourtchouladze says that memory is a system, therefore things work together. In categorizing memory, I tend to separate.
Ebbinghaus speaks of whether or not we use our long term or short term depends on how mush we do it, how interested we are when we do it and whether or not we keep doing it. And so, those who spend the majority of their lives dancing will never forget, whereas those who do it for a short period of time are more likely to forget? Are we able to say that this trace decay happens all the time and to everyone? And what if we involved cueing? With the right cues, can we recall something and have it be as fresh in our minds as the day we learned it? If I were able to see an old dance combination once, one that was practiced and rehearsed numerous times, I could probably remember most of it, if not all of it.
This brings to mind the question about consolidation, the "transformation of memory from short-term to long-term". I’m wondering when this happens. How many times do we hear a song before we know the words by heart? How many times do I have to do a combination before I can do it on my own without any guidance from a teacher? And it’s not the same for everything. I can retain a dance combination much faster then I can memorize a math problem. Does this depend on what type of learner you are (auditory, visual, kinesthetic), or is it really dependent on what interests you?
While reading Bourtchouladze's descriptions of primary memory and secondary memory, a few questions came to mind: which do we use the most, and is there a difference in interest that determines which we use the most? So of course I'm thinking in terms of what I know, trying to relate all of this to my own life. So I'm thinking in terms of dance. Do dancers rely on secondary memory more then non-dancers? Some say that dancing is like riding a bike, once you retain the knowledge of say, what a plie is, you always have it. Others say that you must continue to practice or you lose it. What, then is "muscle memory"? A form of secondary memory? It makes sense then, that those dancers who pick up on movement, rhythm, etc, faster, are more reliant on their short term memories, and could not show you what they learned the next day. But those who take longer to possess the movement, who need to do it many times, are those who will remember the next day, next week. "He who learns quickly also forgets quickly" then makes sense. Short-term memory does not last as long, even though it is valued so much more.
When I think of which of these types of memory are valued more, it also includes declarative and non-declarative, episodic and semantic. Do we value memories of times, places and contexts, or are we more prone to those of skills, habits, and more importantly, emotions? Sometimes it may be the case of which do we pay more attention to. Since semantic memories are habits and general skills, we pay little attention to them. So it seems that episodic memories are the ones given the most attention. All those questions like "your first childhood memory" or "what you did Friday night," are episodic. I think we pay more attention to the fact that we are remembering when we are remembering an episodic memory.
I was drawn to the Charles Dickens quote, "In this life, we want nothing but Facts, nothing but Facts!" I’m wondering if this is true all the time. It seems to me that we want a mixture of both. I also think it is subjective and circumstantial. When I’m listening to someone tell a story, I’m drawn to the emotional aspect, what they were feeling, reactions, etc. However when I’m in a classroom, I like facts. But I am also always thinking of how I relate to these facts and how they connect with my life. I think trying to separate the two is what is driving me crazy. I want to think in terms of either one or the other, and what I need to focus more on is the fusion of the two. Bourtchouladze says that memory is a system, therefore things work together. In categorizing memory, I tend to separate.
Ebbinghaus speaks of whether or not we use our long term or short term depends on how mush we do it, how interested we are when we do it and whether or not we keep doing it. And so, those who spend the majority of their lives dancing will never forget, whereas those who do it for a short period of time are more likely to forget? Are we able to say that this trace decay happens all the time and to everyone? And what if we involved cueing? With the right cues, can we recall something and have it be as fresh in our minds as the day we learned it? If I were able to see an old dance combination once, one that was practiced and rehearsed numerous times, I could probably remember most of it, if not all of it.
This brings to mind the question about consolidation, the "transformation of memory from short-term to long-term". I’m wondering when this happens. How many times do we hear a song before we know the words by heart? How many times do I have to do a combination before I can do it on my own without any guidance from a teacher? And it’s not the same for everything. I can retain a dance combination much faster then I can memorize a math problem. Does this depend on what type of learner you are (auditory, visual, kinesthetic), or is it really dependent on what interests you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)