Up to this point our class readings have mainly revolved around broad ideas in memory research—different levels of memory, recall and retrieval. We have also studied anomalies and irregularities such as amnesia and synesthesia. And while the ideas seem concrete at face value, truly understanding their nature has yielded less than solid results, and we are often left to rely on inference and interpretation. How ironic it is, then, that the study of such a frustrating experience as the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon could be so satisfying. I found this week’s readings “satisfying” for a few reasons.
Firstly, all the readings worked together by providing different viewpoints of the same subject. While Schwartz offered an array of theories explaining the etiology of TOT, the Maril study gave sound neurological evidence linking certain parts of the brain (the anterior cingulated cortex and lateral prefrontal cortex) to the processes of conflict detection and retrieval monitoring that accompany TOT. And Schacter does what he does best—presenting cognitive theory, neurological study, and human story together in a cohesive text. Just as there are many interweaving ways to interpret TOT data, there are many ways in which these readings support each other and enrich our overall understanding. Unlike many other subjects in memory research, TOT lends itself easily to examination in multiple fields of study.
And speaking of examination, TOT is a pleasure because it can be so well studied in the laboratory. The factors are not only easy to control, but also easy to calculate. The results are definitive—one either knows, doesn’t know, or has TOT, and factors such as time and cues are easily quantifiable.
Another reason why TOT study is so satisfying is because it tends to ring true. It is a universal phenomenon, meaning that everyone exactly what TOT feels like. Unlike other specific phenomena such as amnesia, we all have personal experience with TOT, which we can reflect upon when evaluating different theories. It is pleasing to find that the findings and theories of well-respected experts of psychology, neurology, and cognitive science match up with your own intuitions on the same subject. Even the technical psychological term, “tip-of-the-tongue,” is intuitive, having originated from colloquial usage. TOT study is utterly accessible.
While it is safe to assume that TOT is universal, it is evident from the readings that there are many differing views and theories on why it occurs. As someone with a lifetime of experience with TOT, which theories most ring true for you? How exactly do you explain this feeling with which you are so familiar?
Monday, October 22, 2007
October 24 Blog
Burke and MacKay’s ideas on retrieved information also intrigued me as I came to see it in my experiment subjects, and myself, in the TOT test. It was almost frustrating, this clinging to a familiar name even though I KNEW it was wrong. But when I would force it out of my mind, it was almost as if I was staring at a blank blackboard. I had nothing to go on. My other subjects felt the same way. One of them even told himself to, “forget that one!” I observed similar reactions to the TOT feeling that Catie did with her subjects. They would return and repeat the information they already knew about the actors, rather then try to cue up new information. This did not work for me in helping to cue up the name, but it did work for one of my subjects. This could be because I did get frustrated because I knew what I was doing, knew that I was simply repeating the same thing over and over, and thus getting nowhere. Who’s to say that if I just focused on the information instead of my feelings, I would have been able, like my subject, to retrieve the name.
An interesting topic came up this weekend with a few friends that relates to memory and how we view our own memories. One of my friends explains his memory as an office filled with filing cabinets, but the cabinets aren’t labeled, which is why he sometimes gets his memories mixed up and has a hard time retrieving certain ones. I thought that theory related to Augustine’s comparison between his memory and a great harbor. It also made me realize that I have never visualized my memory, or attempted to. Maybe this has something to do with my preference for auditory learning. Sounds and the way I hear things tend to make a greater impact then images. I have never thought of my memory as something else, or given it an image. I was wondering if this, giving memory an image, is common, and what types of images do we give?
An interesting topic came up this weekend with a few friends that relates to memory and how we view our own memories. One of my friends explains his memory as an office filled with filing cabinets, but the cabinets aren’t labeled, which is why he sometimes gets his memories mixed up and has a hard time retrieving certain ones. I thought that theory related to Augustine’s comparison between his memory and a great harbor. It also made me realize that I have never visualized my memory, or attempted to. Maybe this has something to do with my preference for auditory learning. Sounds and the way I hear things tend to make a greater impact then images. I have never thought of my memory as something else, or given it an image. I was wondering if this, giving memory an image, is common, and what types of images do we give?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
October 24th Post---TOT
I felt that the most compelling aspect of this week’s reading was the discussion of various brain-imaging techniques used to illustrate the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon. Though it seems as if the neural systems that causes TOT, as pointed out by Maril, Wagner, and Schacter, the evidence that has been discovered so far makes it very clear that there are distinct neurological patterns of activation that occur during TOT. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that TOT retrieval failures are accompanied by activation in the anterior-cingulate prefrontal cortices, a region of the brain that is involved in a metacognitive conflict. This is especially interesting because in my initial readings about tip-of-the-tongue, I never considered it as much of a neural conflict as I did a failure of a sufficient connection. For example, one of the readings (unfortunately, I cannot locate the place where I read this) mentioned the idea of a memory involving TOT not being able to produce a neural connection that is strong enough to enable a full recall. Conceiving of TOT failures as a meetacognitive conflict between the individual’s confidence in the existence of the knowledge and the cognitive level is an interesting challenge to my own previous views on tip-of-the-tongue.
I am interested to see what future research on the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon will reveal, particularly in terms of the neurological aspects. Schwartz’s very brief introduction to the neuropsychological approach mentioned that such approaches have investigated TOT in populations with conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and aphasics. Though the research is still, at this point, limited, it is my hope that further research will be able to clarify just what mechanisms specifically underlie TOT.
On a fairly unrelated note, I also found it particularly interesting that TOT occurs more often with proper nouns, especially names, than other types of words. Schacter discusses this concept in depth in The Seven Sins of Memory, especially the idea of associations. For example, patients would be able to recall that someone is a baker more easily than their name because the concept of baker brings to mind a wide array of images. He also discussed a study in which patients were able to more easily recall names such as Grumpy, Snow White, and Scrooge, which have personality and physical implications in the names themselves. It made me wonder about how often this happens in more personal situations, like if you meet someone named Mary who looks like Mary Poppins. I’m curious if one’s own knowledge and perceptions can influence name blocking in this way as strongly as more concrete associations can.
I am interested to see what future research on the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon will reveal, particularly in terms of the neurological aspects. Schwartz’s very brief introduction to the neuropsychological approach mentioned that such approaches have investigated TOT in populations with conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and aphasics. Though the research is still, at this point, limited, it is my hope that further research will be able to clarify just what mechanisms specifically underlie TOT.
On a fairly unrelated note, I also found it particularly interesting that TOT occurs more often with proper nouns, especially names, than other types of words. Schacter discusses this concept in depth in The Seven Sins of Memory, especially the idea of associations. For example, patients would be able to recall that someone is a baker more easily than their name because the concept of baker brings to mind a wide array of images. He also discussed a study in which patients were able to more easily recall names such as Grumpy, Snow White, and Scrooge, which have personality and physical implications in the names themselves. It made me wonder about how often this happens in more personal situations, like if you meet someone named Mary who looks like Mary Poppins. I’m curious if one’s own knowledge and perceptions can influence name blocking in this way as strongly as more concrete associations can.
is there possibility for spontaneous retrieval?
The Malin, Wagner, Schacter article writes that the TOT state is marked by recovery of partial information from long term memory. This leads to a sense of familiarity about the target trying to be retrieved. However, this familiarity does not actually help to retrieve the target information. The article states that the familiarity does not produce a coherent enough body of information about the target to aid in retrieval, and thus the retrieval effort is led to failure. In fact, some of the information retrieved that leads to this sense of familiarity may be related to the target in such a way that retrieving the target information actually becomes more difficult.
Burke & MacKay elaborate on the idea of retrieved information prolonging the TOT state in the Schacter article when the “ugly sister” theory of blocking during the TOT state is discussed. Schacter writes that “often we tend to embrace the ugly sisters because they provide a comforting feeling of being “close” to the target and thus reassure us that we are about to resolve the TOT.” I noted examples of this in my own subjects when they were in a TOT state. One subject continued to repeat the name “Angela Lansbury” to himself while trying to recall the name “Annette Bening”. This repetition did not serve to help him ever remember the name Annette Bening, but, still, he continued to return to the non-target name. The sense of familiarity discussed by Marlin, Wagner, & Schacter in their TOT paper is not exactly what Schacter is discussing when he refers to the “ugly sister”. However, I think that the ugly sister model is useful in understanding how seemingly related and coherent information (which leads to the feeling of familiarity generated during the TOT state) can actually mislead a person trying to retrieve a target information. For example I noted that subjects were prone to repeating information about the target that was retrieved, rather than attempting to retrieve new information about the target. For example when trying to retrieve the name “Ben Stiller” the subject would return to the movies that the actor had been in, listing them off or trying to imagine what the movie cover looked like. Although these attempted cues had already been (unsuccessfully) tried before, the subject continued to return to them for aid.
I thought that this idea of retrieval of related information (and sometimes unrelated, as with the case of ugly sister information) actually inhibiting the retrieval of the target information was really interesting. Schacter speaks quite a bit to the idea of semantic organization and why retrieval of information related to the character of a proper noun does not help to retrieve that noun due to the lack of coherent connect and to the abstract nature of the connotation between the actual sound of the target and the information that is retrieved while searching for the target. It is, therefore, not surprising to note that the information that is retrieved is not used at all to actually retrieve the target information. Schacter states that one third of TOTs are resolved by a spontaneous or involuntary “pop up” of the target information. He states, however, that these spontaneous retrievals are probably not spontaneous. His evidence for this is that in a lab setting subjects who narrate their thoughts have traceable cues for the target retrieval. This information somewhat frustrated me. Firstly I felt like in this case what was found in the lab setting may not be cohesive with the way the retrieval works in the “real world”. Although I think that it is possible that there is external cuing which activate the retrieval of the target information, I think that it would be somewhat shortsighted to ignore the possibility which Schacter presents and then disagrees with: “the influence of ugly sisters has dissipates over time” and there is an “incubation process that operate[s] outside of awareness”. Perhaps the word spontaneous is not correct. Perhaps there is a cueing processes at hand. However, I would say that in “nature” rather than the cue for the retrieval coming from a stream of consciousness, as it does in the lab setting, the cue is so deeply embedded “outside of awareness” that there is no external stimulation- or traceable stimulation. It is purely internal, complicated, multi-faceted stimulation which leads to the retrieval of the target information. Overlooking this idea could possibly lead to overlooking a huge possibility for the way in which the mind stores and retrieves information, not to mention distinct ideas of how the mind works in general. Would it be so far fetched to think of a situation in which target information is retrieved during a dream, or in a similar state that lacks a coherent narrative-like state of consciousness? I know that Schacter is not saying that all cues are external. And he is certainly cannot be labeling the brain as so one dimensional. I suppose I just don’t see how without prescribing to these two views (external cuing and a “one dimensional” brain) he can rule out the possibility of spontaneous cuing.
Burke & MacKay elaborate on the idea of retrieved information prolonging the TOT state in the Schacter article when the “ugly sister” theory of blocking during the TOT state is discussed. Schacter writes that “often we tend to embrace the ugly sisters because they provide a comforting feeling of being “close” to the target and thus reassure us that we are about to resolve the TOT.” I noted examples of this in my own subjects when they were in a TOT state. One subject continued to repeat the name “Angela Lansbury” to himself while trying to recall the name “Annette Bening”. This repetition did not serve to help him ever remember the name Annette Bening, but, still, he continued to return to the non-target name. The sense of familiarity discussed by Marlin, Wagner, & Schacter in their TOT paper is not exactly what Schacter is discussing when he refers to the “ugly sister”. However, I think that the ugly sister model is useful in understanding how seemingly related and coherent information (which leads to the feeling of familiarity generated during the TOT state) can actually mislead a person trying to retrieve a target information. For example I noted that subjects were prone to repeating information about the target that was retrieved, rather than attempting to retrieve new information about the target. For example when trying to retrieve the name “Ben Stiller” the subject would return to the movies that the actor had been in, listing them off or trying to imagine what the movie cover looked like. Although these attempted cues had already been (unsuccessfully) tried before, the subject continued to return to them for aid.
I thought that this idea of retrieval of related information (and sometimes unrelated, as with the case of ugly sister information) actually inhibiting the retrieval of the target information was really interesting. Schacter speaks quite a bit to the idea of semantic organization and why retrieval of information related to the character of a proper noun does not help to retrieve that noun due to the lack of coherent connect and to the abstract nature of the connotation between the actual sound of the target and the information that is retrieved while searching for the target. It is, therefore, not surprising to note that the information that is retrieved is not used at all to actually retrieve the target information. Schacter states that one third of TOTs are resolved by a spontaneous or involuntary “pop up” of the target information. He states, however, that these spontaneous retrievals are probably not spontaneous. His evidence for this is that in a lab setting subjects who narrate their thoughts have traceable cues for the target retrieval. This information somewhat frustrated me. Firstly I felt like in this case what was found in the lab setting may not be cohesive with the way the retrieval works in the “real world”. Although I think that it is possible that there is external cuing which activate the retrieval of the target information, I think that it would be somewhat shortsighted to ignore the possibility which Schacter presents and then disagrees with: “the influence of ugly sisters has dissipates over time” and there is an “incubation process that operate[s] outside of awareness”. Perhaps the word spontaneous is not correct. Perhaps there is a cueing processes at hand. However, I would say that in “nature” rather than the cue for the retrieval coming from a stream of consciousness, as it does in the lab setting, the cue is so deeply embedded “outside of awareness” that there is no external stimulation- or traceable stimulation. It is purely internal, complicated, multi-faceted stimulation which leads to the retrieval of the target information. Overlooking this idea could possibly lead to overlooking a huge possibility for the way in which the mind stores and retrieves information, not to mention distinct ideas of how the mind works in general. Would it be so far fetched to think of a situation in which target information is retrieved during a dream, or in a similar state that lacks a coherent narrative-like state of consciousness? I know that Schacter is not saying that all cues are external. And he is certainly cannot be labeling the brain as so one dimensional. I suppose I just don’t see how without prescribing to these two views (external cuing and a “one dimensional” brain) he can rule out the possibility of spontaneous cuing.
TOT in Amnesiac Patients and Older Subjects.
I think in general I felt like there was a large amount of theory behind what might be the cause of this experience, but no real way to measure if recall is based on blockers or incomplete activation or any other theory. All of the theories presented in Schwartz's paper seem perfectly viable to me, so it feels like there is a definite lack of evidence to prove any of the theories. To me, a combination of absence of the correct cues and the presence of blockers seems logical. I feel like the general amount of data presented supports multiple theories, and are therefore inconclusive to support any one.
I experienced a large amount of frustration with Schwartz because he presents so many different viewpoints, but I felt no real backing for any of them. In general, I just want more data about the process that leads to TOT, and the resolution of the state. I think that it's relatively impossible to give more evidence for any theory with the technology and design of current experiments, but the article seemed more to define theories than to give real insight into the memory retrieval process.
One thing that intrigued me was the activation of parts of the right hemisphere normally associated with episodic memory in the retrieval of information to alleviate the TOT state. Of all of the arguments presented, the importance of episodic memory in determining the correct word makes the most sense. To recall, most people use episodic cues (such as what the actor looked like in the movie) in order to access the semantic memory. In earlier readings, we discussed a person's ability to use their semantic memory when their episodic memory is damaged. I now wonder how this lack of episodic memory affects the recall of a word in the TOT state. Furthermore, I wonder if a TOT state actually exists for amnesia patients, when they have a poor episodic memory. Very little is mentioned about the study of amnesiacs and the TOT state. I think the prevalence of this state would either decrease or increase depending on the damage and am interested to see in which cases the TOT state even still existed. The only issue I can find with studying amnesiacs and TOT is the possibility of too many variables as a result of their brain damage. Unless a full assessment of their general cognitive abilities is know, it may be difficult to differentiate between the two states. (TOT and general amnesia.)
Very few studies have been done focusing the correlation between age and the number of TOT states produced. Of those, there is a definite trend supporting that younger adults experience less of this phenomenon than do the elderly. However, I felt like it was generally assumed that this increase in TOT state was a direct result of memory deterioration, and not the information the individual has been exposed to. If the theory of blocking is correct, then wouldn't a larger amount of TOT states possibly be because of the greater amount of information that comes to mind when given a single cue? With age, we acquire more memory and more cues. Most of which, overlap in some fashion. Is it really because older people have a poorer memory, or because they have more information stored in their head and therefore harder to for them to find the correct word because there is too much interference. It's strange to me that while this observation between age and the occurences of the TOT state, there is no real investigation into why. I felt like there was just an assumption made that because they are older, their memory has deteriorated. However, the studies Schwartz refers to in his article only show that there is a difference between age groups, but very little evidence as to why.
I experienced a large amount of frustration with Schwartz because he presents so many different viewpoints, but I felt no real backing for any of them. In general, I just want more data about the process that leads to TOT, and the resolution of the state. I think that it's relatively impossible to give more evidence for any theory with the technology and design of current experiments, but the article seemed more to define theories than to give real insight into the memory retrieval process.
One thing that intrigued me was the activation of parts of the right hemisphere normally associated with episodic memory in the retrieval of information to alleviate the TOT state. Of all of the arguments presented, the importance of episodic memory in determining the correct word makes the most sense. To recall, most people use episodic cues (such as what the actor looked like in the movie) in order to access the semantic memory. In earlier readings, we discussed a person's ability to use their semantic memory when their episodic memory is damaged. I now wonder how this lack of episodic memory affects the recall of a word in the TOT state. Furthermore, I wonder if a TOT state actually exists for amnesia patients, when they have a poor episodic memory. Very little is mentioned about the study of amnesiacs and the TOT state. I think the prevalence of this state would either decrease or increase depending on the damage and am interested to see in which cases the TOT state even still existed. The only issue I can find with studying amnesiacs and TOT is the possibility of too many variables as a result of their brain damage. Unless a full assessment of their general cognitive abilities is know, it may be difficult to differentiate between the two states. (TOT and general amnesia.)
Very few studies have been done focusing the correlation between age and the number of TOT states produced. Of those, there is a definite trend supporting that younger adults experience less of this phenomenon than do the elderly. However, I felt like it was generally assumed that this increase in TOT state was a direct result of memory deterioration, and not the information the individual has been exposed to. If the theory of blocking is correct, then wouldn't a larger amount of TOT states possibly be because of the greater amount of information that comes to mind when given a single cue? With age, we acquire more memory and more cues. Most of which, overlap in some fashion. Is it really because older people have a poorer memory, or because they have more information stored in their head and therefore harder to for them to find the correct word because there is too much interference. It's strange to me that while this observation between age and the occurences of the TOT state, there is no real investigation into why. I felt like there was just an assumption made that because they are older, their memory has deteriorated. However, the studies Schwartz refers to in his article only show that there is a difference between age groups, but very little evidence as to why.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
October 17 Blog
I thought that Bourtchouldaze’s discussion of prosopagnosia was very interesting, particularly the idea that even though such patients could not consciously identify any faces, changes in their skin’s electrical conductivity indicated that they can, on some unconscious level, identify faces. This made me wonder three things. First, I was curious as to what would make the researchers even begin to look at the electrical conductivity of the skin, for it seems that it would have been more likely for them to look for changes in conductivity (or another variable) in various parts of the brain. Second, I wondered why an increase in skin conductivity, which indicates a nervous, emotional, or guilty predisposition, would relate to face recognition; though emotional doesn’t seem very far off, feelings of guilt and nervousness are not ones I would think would be associated with knowledge of faces. Third, what are the differences, in terms of brain structures used, between “covert” recognition and “overt” recognition? Even though the facial recognition in this patient was unconscious, it seems unlikely that it would entirely bypass the brain structures used in conscious recognition. Bourtchouldaze states earlier in the chapter that “information flows through a set of distinct but interconnected neural networks, each of which performs a certain job. These interconnected networks allow information to be processed in a parallel fashion so that damage to one part of the network does not necessarily affect the function of the rest of the system.” What distinguishes, then, the part of the network involved in conscious facial recognition from the part that is involved in unconscious facial recognition?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
I found this weeks reading from Schacter especially interesting. It is always the most compelling to read about case studies to better understand a concept. While reading the case studies of the people suffering from severe amnesia, I realized how important memory is to every aspect of our lives, and how devastating it would be to lose parts of it. Even the people who retained procedural memory and some of their semantic memory were severely impaired. The loss of your episodic memory leaves you with no real sense of self, no way to make goals or plans for the future, and no way to relate to people and make new attachments and connections. You are essentially alive in a very stagnant state. It seemed so hopeless and depressing.
I thought it was interesting when Schacter talked about how some amnesic patients are aware of their memory disorders and some aren’t. It seems like it could even be a built in defense mechanism for the person to be unaware of their memory problems. When they are left unaware they are able to exist as well as they could with their brains being so compromised. It seems similar to other mental illnesses like autism. More severely autistic children are as content with their existence as possible. Less severely autistic children, however, are aware that they are unable to make the connections with people that other people make. They are aware that they are not “normal” and that they are missing out on parts of life that others take pleasure in.
I liked the way that Schacter talked about the experiments in brain imaging that lead up to our current understanding of the different parts of the brain and what mental processes occur in each of them. The PET scan and magnetic resonance imaging have really elevated our understanding of the brain in ways that were never possible before. Studies conducted using this type of technology to figure out what parts of the brain are responsible for what seems much more exact and scientific to me than the studies we talked about before like Ebbinghaus and Bartlett. These new technologies allow us to take out the human element which made the previous studies unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is now possible to follow the scientific method more exactly and hold most of the variables constant except the one being tested. To me, the results from these tests seem more accurate and reliable.
Another interesting part in Schacter was when he discussed the experiment done on priming where they showed participants a picture for just a second and then later the participants said that the liked that drawing over the other ones. I find that is true in my life also. If I have heard part of a song, even just playing in the background as I am doing something else and not focusing on it I always like it more later when I actually listen to it. When something is even a little familiar, I like it more than I would if it was my first time hearing it. At least for me, this seems to be true of most things in my life. Familiarity has a comfortable feeling which for me, becomes intertwined with feelings of enjoyment. Even places seem nicer when I have already been there, even if I don’t know that I have been there until I find out later. I wonder if that is true for most people.
I thought it was interesting when Schacter talked about how some amnesic patients are aware of their memory disorders and some aren’t. It seems like it could even be a built in defense mechanism for the person to be unaware of their memory problems. When they are left unaware they are able to exist as well as they could with their brains being so compromised. It seems similar to other mental illnesses like autism. More severely autistic children are as content with their existence as possible. Less severely autistic children, however, are aware that they are unable to make the connections with people that other people make. They are aware that they are not “normal” and that they are missing out on parts of life that others take pleasure in.
I liked the way that Schacter talked about the experiments in brain imaging that lead up to our current understanding of the different parts of the brain and what mental processes occur in each of them. The PET scan and magnetic resonance imaging have really elevated our understanding of the brain in ways that were never possible before. Studies conducted using this type of technology to figure out what parts of the brain are responsible for what seems much more exact and scientific to me than the studies we talked about before like Ebbinghaus and Bartlett. These new technologies allow us to take out the human element which made the previous studies unpredictable and uncontrollable. It is now possible to follow the scientific method more exactly and hold most of the variables constant except the one being tested. To me, the results from these tests seem more accurate and reliable.
Another interesting part in Schacter was when he discussed the experiment done on priming where they showed participants a picture for just a second and then later the participants said that the liked that drawing over the other ones. I find that is true in my life also. If I have heard part of a song, even just playing in the background as I am doing something else and not focusing on it I always like it more later when I actually listen to it. When something is even a little familiar, I like it more than I would if it was my first time hearing it. At least for me, this seems to be true of most things in my life. Familiarity has a comfortable feeling which for me, becomes intertwined with feelings of enjoyment. Even places seem nicer when I have already been there, even if I don’t know that I have been there until I find out later. I wonder if that is true for most people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)