PSY 368 Human Memory Semantic Memory cont Reconstructive

PSY 368 Human Memory Semantic Memory cont. Reconstructive Memory

Announcements • Data from Experiment 3 due April 9 (Mon) • Experiment 3 Report due April 16 • If you missed the details of the Experiment, I included them again at the end of this lecture • Optional reading for Monday is posted on Blackboard site (Media Library: Optional Readings): • Einstein, et al (2005) Prospective Memory article • Dr. Dawn Mc. Bride will be our speaker

Exam 2 • … was hard! • The mean % was 67. 7%. • The range of scores was from 41% to 92% • So when interpreting your score, think “good job” if in the 80 s and 90 s and ‘okay’ if in the mid 60 s to 70 s. • It was harder than I expected, so I am thinking about offering an additional, one-time-only extra credit option. I’ll get the details hammered out this weekend (probably another article and focus questions kind of thing)

Summary of Semantic Memory • Semantic memory = knowledge • Some evidence for a separate system • Early models suggested hierarchical network - cognitive economy • Results suggest no strict hierarchy or cognitive economy • But current network models suggest loosened hierarchy (spreading activation) • Other ideas: compound cues, prototypes, exemplars, schemas • What kind of impact is there of this organization on retrieval of memories?

Compound Cue Models • Alternatives to Spreading activation models • Examine mechanisms of priming and extent to explain of priming effects • Make predictions about performance in memory retrieval tasks • Generally they are mathematical models that predict sets of results based on strength of cue associations • There a lot of models to choose from (see “optional chapter” for details) • In SAM (Search of Associative Memory), a matrix of association among cues and memory traces, which are called images • Cues are assembled in a short-term store, or probe set, which is the match against all item in memory • In TODAM (Theory Of Distributed Associative Memory), to-be-remembered items are represented as vectors of features • Sum of vectors, convolution • The resulting scalar can be mapped into familiarity and, in turn, into response time and accuracy

Semantics as Exemplars • Instance theory: each concept is represented as examples of previous experience (e. g. , Medin & Schaffer, 1978; Hintzman, 1986) • Make comparisons to stored instances • Typically have a probabilistic component • Which instance gets retrieved for comparison dog

Semantics as Prototypes • Prototype theory: store feature information with most “prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975) Rate on a scale of 1 to 7 if these are good examples of category: Furniture TV bed chair table refrigerator couch desk 1) chair 1) sofa 2) couch 3) table : : 12) desk 13) bed : : 42) TV 54) refrigerator

Semantics as Prototypes • Prototype theory: store feature information with most “prototypical” instance (Eleanor Rosch, 1975) • Prototypes: • Some members of a category are better instances of the category than others • Fruit: apple vs. pomegranate • What makes a prototype? • Possibly an abstraction of exemplars • More central semantic features • What type of dog is a prototypical dog? • What are the features of it? • We are faster at retrieving prototypes of a category than other members of the category

Semantics as Prototypes • The main criticisms of theory • The model fails to provide a rich enough representation of conceptual knowledge • Vague: How can we think logically if our concepts are so vague? • Flexibility: How do our concepts manage to be flexible and adaptive, if they are fixed to the similarity structure of the world? • features have different importance in different contexts • what determines the feature weights • Individual differences: If each of us represents the prototype differently, how can we identify when we have the same concept, as opposed to two different concepts with the same label? • Does membership = similarity? : Why do we have concepts which incorporate objects which are clearly dissimilar, and exclude others which are apparently similar?

Demo • Before we start talking about constructive (integrative) and reconstructive memory, let’s do a demonstration. • I will present you with a long list of words, which I’ll later test your memory for.

queen

crown

castle

England

throne

ruler

prince

royalty

power

hill

valley

climb

summit

top

molehill

peak

plain

glacier

butter

food

eat

sandwich

rye

jam

milk

flour

jelly

thread

pin

eye

sewing

sharp

point

prick

thimble

haystack

steal

robber

crook

burglar

money

cop

bad

rob

jail

shoe

hand

toe

kick

sandals

soccer

yard

walk

ankle

Name as many state capitals as you can (1) Vermont (8) Missouri (2) New York (9) Colorado (3) North Carolina (10) Florida (4) Alaska (11) Washington (5) California (12) Virginia (6) Texas (13) New Mexico (7) Maine (14) Oregon

Write Y or N for each word below to indicate if you saw it in the list (Y) or not (N) (1) haystack (2) sandals (3) fright (4) weather (5) sharp (6) hot (7) creek (8) king (9) thread (10) shoe (11) winter (12) tide (13) airplane (14) flow (15) pretty (16) ankle (17) awake (18) doctor (19) frame (20) jelly (21) top (22) jazz (23) sugar (24) needle (25) rye (26) melody (27) spider (28) music (29) girl (30) bread (31) sweet (32) stream (33) soft (34) river (35) jail (36) glacier (37) thief (38) hill (39) power (40) butter (41) foot (42) father (43) jagged (44) door (45) throne (46) money (47) mountain (48) steal

Studied list words - Accurate memories • Count up your correct Yes responses (1) haystack (2) sandals (3) fright (4) weather (5) sharp (6) hot (7) creek (8) king (9) thread (10) shoe (11) winter (12) tide (13) airplane (14) flow (15) pretty (16) ankle (17) awake (18) doctor (19) frame (20) jelly (21) top (22) jazz (23) sugar (24) needle (25) rye (26) melody (27) spider (28) music (29) girl (30) bread (31) sweet (32) stream (33) soft (34) river (35) jail (36) glacier (37) thief (38) hill (39) power (40) butter (41) foot (42) father (43) jagged (44) door (45) throne (46) money (47) mountain (48) steal

Critical theme words - False memories • Count up your false Yes responses • Pay particular attention to the ones in brown (1) haystack (13) airplane (25) rye (37) thief (2) sandals (14) flow (26) melody (38) hill (3) fright (15) pretty (27) spider (39) power (4) weather (16) ankle (28) music (40) butter (5) sharp (17) awake (29) girl (41) foot (6) hot (18) doctor (30) bread (42) father (7) creek (19) frame (31) sweet (43) jagged (8) king (20) jelly (32) stream (44) door (9) thread (21) top (33) soft (45) throne (10) shoe (22) jazz (34) river (46) money (11) winter (23) sugar (35) jail (47) mountain (12) tide (24) needle (36) glacier (48) steal

Demo • The task that we just did is called the DRM task • (Deese, 1959; Roediger & Mc. Dermott, 1995) • It is designed to create false memories • We’ll return to discussing this procedure later in the lecture

Remembering larger chunks • How do people acquire and remember ideas • Not individual sentences, but integrated semantic ideas

Semantic Integration • How do people acquire and remember ideas • Not individual sentences, but integrated semantic ideas Bransford & Franks (1971) • Each idea grouping consisted of 4 separate simple propositions (a simple relationship between 2 concepts) • The ants in the kitchen at the sweet jelly that was on the table. • • The ants were in the kitchen The ants ate the jelly The jelly was sweet The jelly was on the table

Semantic Integration Bransford & Franks (1971) • Whether subjects responded OLD or NEW was not related to whether the sentence was old or new • Confidence in memory was NOT related to accuracy • Subjects “remembered” seeing complex sentences that captured the meaning of • The simple sentences were the simple sentences integrated into one sentence • The ants in the kitchen ate that captured the story’s gist sweet jelly on the table

Semantic Integration Bransford & Franks (1971) • A composite memory • We store separate bits of info together to the extent those bits are related to each other (semantic relatedness) • Using what we already know (schemata & scripts) to understand new experiences in a conceptuallydriven fashion • Drawbacks: May lead to distortions when we try to remember and may not be technically accurate • Advantages: Content accuracy is enhanced and thus we can remember complex, meaningful events

Schema Theory • Scripts and schemas: • Knowledge is packaged in integrated conceptual structures. • Scripts: Typical action sequences (e. g. , going to the restaurant, going to the doctor…) • Schemas: Organized knowledge structures (e. g. , your knowledge of cognitive psychology). • Enable us to predict events, make sense of unfamiliar circumstances, organize our own behavior • Act as filters to perception & recall

Schema Theory ? The mind takes in the impoverished sensory input and matches it to a schema derived from past experience. The schema is used to ‘fill in the blanks’ in the input and to give it a meaning. Your ability to ‘see’ what’s there depends on your having an appropriate schema.

Schema Theory Bower, Black, and Turner (1979) • Restaurant Script • 73% of respondents reported these common events when going to a restaurant: • • • Sit down Look at menu Order Eat Pay bill Leave • 48% also included: • • • Enter restaurant Give reservation name Order drinks Discuss menu Talk Eat appetizer Order dessert Eat dessert Leave a tip

Schema Theory • People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts are typical).

Schema Theory • People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts are typical). • When people see stories like this: Chief Resident Jones adjusted his face mask while anxiously surveying a pale figure secured to the long gleaming table before him. One swift stroke of his small, sharp instrument and a thin red line appeared. Then an eager young assistant carefully extended the opening as another aide pushed aside glistening surface fat so that vital parts were laid bare. Everyone present stared in horror at the ugly growth too large for removal. He now knew it was pointless to continue.

Schema Theory • People also tend to fill in missing details from scripts and schemas if they are not provided (as long as those parts are typical). • And you ask them to recognize words that might have been part of the story, they tend to recognize material that is script or schema typical even if it was not presented. • Which of the following words appeared in the story? • • • Scalpel Assistant Nurse Doctor Operation Hospital Chief Resident Jones adjusted his face mask while anxiously surveying a pale figure secured to the long gleaming table before him. One swift stroke of his small, sharp instrument and a thin red line appeared. Then an eager young assistant carefully extended the opening as another aide pushed aside glistening surface fat so that vital parts were laid bare. Everyone present stared in horror at the ugly growth too large for removal. He now knew it was pointless to continue.

Schema Theory • When people are told the script or schema that is appropriate before hearing some material they tend to understand it better than if they are not told it at all or are told it after the material.

Schema Theory Rocky slowly got up from the mat, planning his escape. He hesitated a moment and thought. Things were not going well. What bothered him most was being held, especially since the charge against him had been weak. He considered his present situation. The lock that held him was strong but he thought he could break it. He knew, however, that his timing would have to be perfect. Rocky was aware that it was because of his early roughness that he had been penalized so severely - much too severely from his point of view. The situation was becoming frustrating; the pressure had been grinding on him for too long. He was being ridden unmercifully. Rocky was getting angry now. He felt he was ready to make his move. He knew that his success or failure would depend on what he did in the next few seconds. Wrestling Prison Other ?

Schema Theory Every Saturday night, four good friends get together. When Jerry, Mike, and Pat arrived, Karen had just finished writing some notes. She quickly arranged the cards and stood up to greet her friends at the door. They followed her into the living room and sat down facing each other. They began to play. Karen's recorder filled the room with soft and pleasant music. Her hand flashed in front of everyone's eyes and they all noticed her diamonds. They continued for many hours until everyone was exhausted and quite silly. Jerry made his friends laugh as he theatrically took a bow, entertaining them all with the wildness of his playing. Finally, Karen's friends went home. Playing cards Playing music Other ?

Schema Theory • Potential “down-side” of schemata • Memory is not a direct record of what was witnessed • What is encoded and how it is retrieved depends on: • Information already stored in memory • How this info is understood, structured and organized • Reconstructive retrieval • Refers to schema-guided construction of episodic memories that alter and distort encoded memory representations. • Reconstruction levels by losing details, assimilates by normalizing to fit expectations, and sharpens by embellishing details.

Schema Theory • Bartlett (1932) • Read unfamiliar story “War of the Ghosts” • Then the subjects “re-told” the story • Looked at progressive changes in what subjects remembered about the story • Remembered differently depending on expectation

Schema Theory • Bartlett (1932)

Schema Theory • Bartlett (1932) Proportions of text propositions recalled after varying retention intervals (adapted from Bergman & Roediger, 1999) • When recalled by UK PPs: • Some details changed • More consistent with ‘Western’ schema • Omissions: • Normalizations: • Poor recall for many of the details (specific names, or events) • Minor events were omitted (recall for main plot and sequence of events was not too bad) • Shorter than the original • Tendency to add and alter the stories to make them more conventional or reasonable (topdown processing)

Schema Theory • Bartlett (1932) • Conclusions: • Human memory for this type of material is NOT reproductive • A highly accurate, verbatim recording of an event • Rather, it is reconstructive • Altered during BOTH storage and retrieval • Combining elements from the original material with existing knowledge

Reconstructive Effects • Knowledge about a theme of a passage improves peoples memory for the passage • Providing a theme can also distort recall Sulin & Dooling (1974) • Subjects read identical stories about: • Carol Harris (fictitious) or Helen Keller • “Problem child from birth, wild, stubborn, violent…” • Asked to identify if sentences were the same, nearly the same, or different from the story

Reconstructive Effects • Knowledge about a theme of a passage improves peoples memory for the passage • Providing a theme can also distort recall Sulin & Dooling (1974) • Subjects who read the Keller paragraph rated sentences as the same more frequently when they matched their existing knowledge about Keller • Even though the original paragraph did not contain such info • 1 week later: “Was she deaf, dumb, and blind? ” • 5% of Harris group said yes • 50% of Keller said yes • The Keller groups’ “memory” of these stories was influenced by their knowledge of Keller

False Memories • Memory is reconstructive • Errors of omission • Transience, absent-mindedness, blocking • Errors of commission • Misattribution, suggestibility, bias • Why do we study them? • Like perceptual illusions, can give better understanding of “normal” processes • Eyewitness testimony credibility • Recovered memories issue

Eyewitness Testimony • Reconstructive memory • Schema driven errors • Effect of leading questions

Eyewitness Testimony • Persuasiveness • Most persuasive form of evidence • Eyewitnesses believed ~80% of the time (Loftus, 1983) Type of Evidence % guilty votes Eyewitness testimony 78 Fingerprints 70 Polygraph 53 Handwriting 34 • Juries cannot tell the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate witness • Accurate witness believed 68% of time • Inaccurate witness believed 70% of time

Eyewitness Testimony • Persuasiveness • Juries cannot tell the difference between an accurate and an inaccurate witness • Wells et al. (1998) • Studied 40 people who were convicted but later cleared by DNA • In 90% (36) of the cases, there was false eyewitness identification • Rattner (1988) • Studied 205 wrongfully convicted defendants • 52% were due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony • Brandon and Davies (1973) • Described 70 cases of people wrongfully convicted due to inaccurate eyewitness testimony

Eyewitness Testimony • Persuasiveness • Experimental studies • Buckhout (1975) • Simulated crime on a TV newscast • 2, 145 callers • 14. 7% were accurate • Buckhout (1974) • Staged assault on professor in front of 141 students • 7 weeks later, students shown line-up of six photographs • 40% identified attacker • 36% identified bystander • 23% identified person not there

Eyewitness Testimony • What do witnesses report? Attribute % Reporting % Accurate Gender 99. 6 100 Height 91. 2 44 Clothing (upper body) 90. 8 58 Clothing (head) 89. 6 56 Build 84. 4 57 Weapon 76. 4 71 Clothing (pants) 73. 6 53 Age 62. 4 38 Type of speech 46. 8 84 Fashsing, Ask, & Granhag (2004)

Eyewitness Testimony • Schema Driven Errors • Witnesses to crimes filter information during acquisition & recall • Their schematic understanding may influence how info is both stored & retrieved • Distortions may occur without the witness realizing, based on things like: • Past experiences • Assumptions about what usually happens • Stereotypes & beliefs about crime & criminals

Eyewitness Testimony • Interference paradigm • Information presented after an event can lead to distortions • Post-event information can be incorporated into the original memory • Misinformation effect • are even found when participants are warned that misleading information might be presented • Repeated exposure to misinformation strengthens memory about the misinformation • Repeated questioning about an event can enhance recall of certain details and induce forgetting of others (also increases confidence in memory of the event)

Eyewitness Testimony • Effect of leading questions on recall • Leading questions introduce new information • Leading info may activate wrong schemas in witness‘ mind • Consequently, witness may recall events incorrectly

Eyewitness Testimony • Effect of leading questions on recall Loftus & Palmer (1974) • Showed film of car accident • Estimated speed • How fast were the cars going when they ____ into each other? (smashed, hit, collided, etc) • ‘Smashed’ led to higher speed estimates. Smashed 40. 8 mph Collided Bumped Hit Contacted 39. 3 mph 38. 1 mph 34. 0 mph 31. 8 mph • Did you see a/the broken headlight? • ‘The’ produced more affirmative (incorrect) responses

Eyewitness Testimony • Effect of leading questions on recall • Most affected by leading Qs when: • • Witness believes questioner knows more than them Witness does not realize they may be misled Leading information is peripheral, not central Leading information is not blatantly incorrect

Eyewitness Testimony • Effect of misleading information on recall • Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978) • Saw slides of car turning to hit a pedestrian • Saw stop or yield sign • “Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was at the ____ sign? ” (consistent vs. inconsistent) • Recognition test for correct photo of car with sign

Eyewitness Testimony • Effect of misleading information on recall • Loftus, Miller, & Burns (1978) • Misinformation effect: People incorrectly claim to remember the misinformation (the yield sign) Immediate Consistent 75% Inconsistent 40% 2 week delay Inconsistent 20%

Misattribution & Misinformation • Genuine alteration for the original memory may be only one part of the memory distortion explanation • Three important effects: • Source misattribution • Misinformation acceptance • Overconfidence in the accuracy of the memory

Source Misattribution • The inability to distinguish whether the original event or some later event was the source of the information (misremember what we have experienced) • Did I remember the stop sign because it was actually in the picture? OR • Because I thought about the sign when I heard the questions?

Misinformation Acceptance • Accepting additional information as having been part of an earlier experience without actually remembering that information (form memories on the basis of suggestion from some other source) • Do I remember the car speeding because it was? OR • Because the policeman said it was? • Tendency grows stronger as more time elapses

Overconfidence in Memory • Overconfidence comes from two factors: • Source Memory: Memory of the exact source of the information (original event, later information, or general knowledge of the situation) • Processing Fluency: The ease with which something is processed or comes to mind (remember “sleep” too easily for you to have imagined it)

Overconfidence in Memory • We are surprisingly unaware of how unreliable our memory can be and overly confident in the accuracy of our memories Roediger & Mc. Dermott (1995) study • DRM paradigm (Deese, 1959; Roediger & Mc. Dermott, 1995) • Creates false memories in the lab • DEMO (like the task that we saw Schacter give Alan Alda)

Studied list words - Accurate memories (1) haystack (2) sandals (3) fright (4) weather (5) sharp (6) hot (7) creek (8) king (9) thread (10) shoe (11) winter (12) tide (13) airplane (14) flow (15) pretty (16) ankle (17) awake (18) doctor (19) frame (20) jelly (21) top (22) jazz (23) sugar (24) needle (25) rye (26) melody (27) spider (28) music (29) girl (30) bread (31) sweet (32) stream (33) soft (34) river (35) jail (36) glacier (37) thief (38) hill (39) power (40) butter (41) foot (42) father (43) jagged (44) door (45) throne (46) money (47) mountain (48) steal

Critical theme words - False memories (1) haystack (2) sandals (3) fright (4) weather (5) sharp (6) hot (7) creek (8) king (9) thread (10) shoe (11) winter (12) tide (13) airplane (14) flow (15) pretty (16) ankle (17) awake (18) doctor (19) frame (20) jelly (21) top (22) jazz (23) sugar (24) needle (25) rye (26) melody (27) spider (28) music (29) girl (30) bread (31) sweet (32) stream (33) soft (34) river (35) jail (36) glacier (37) thief (38) hill (39) power (40) butter (41) foot (42) father (43) jagged (44) door (45) throne (46) money (47) mountain (48) steal

DRM Paradigm • The lists rely on properties of semantic association • Words that are similar in meaning or co-occur in language are associates • Activation of a concept spreads to related concepts in the network

DRM Paradigm • The lists rely on properties of semantic association thief steal robber crook burglar money cop bad rob jail foot shoe hand toe kick sandals soccer yard walk ankle bread butter food eat sandwich rye jam milk flour jelly king queen crown castle England throne ruler prince royalty power mountain hill valley climb summit top molehill peak plain glacier needle thread pin eye sewing sharp point prick thimble haystack

DRM Paradigm Roediger & Mc. Dermott (1995) • Recall: ~ 40% recalled “sleep” • Recognition: Remembering the lure (sleep) during recall strengthened participants memories of the lure during recognition • Participants claimed to “remember” the lure rather than merely “know” it had been on the list

DRM Paradigm • Recent studies indicate it is very robust • Replicated may times • Explicit warnings fail to eliminate the effect • May see a reduction in the effect • As the number of list items increases, rate of false recollection increases (Robinson & Roediger, 1997)

Spreading Activation Model queen Example ruler crown throne England prince king jewel castle power royalty

Theoretical explanations • Activation-source monitoring • Lure is consciously or unconsciously activated • Activation is automatic • High activation results in false recollection

Theoretical explanations • Activation-source monitoring • Memories for imagined events are attributed to other source • Participants think they studied items they thought about • Increased familiarity

Theoretical explanations • Fuzzy-trace theory • Information is encoded in two formats • Gist - meaning • Verbatim - details • List memory = verbatim + gist • Lure memory = gist only

Theoretical explanations • Scripts - We use knowledge about known events to fill in missing info

Individual differences • Young children are less susceptible to DRM paradigm • Have not yet developed associations • But they are easily influenced by suggestive questioning • Older adults are more susceptible to the illusion • Rely more on gist than verbatim traces

Recovered Memories • A person remembers a traumatic event from many years ago • The memory was “repressed”, but is now recovered in therapy • Intentional forgetting of painful or traumatic experiences • Little empirical evidence for this type of forgetting (could have the opposite effect)

Recovered Memories • Therapies included… • Hypnosis (uses imagery, suggestive questioning, & repetition) • Guided Imagery (for now, just imagine that you were abused by your father) • Body Work (recovering memories from your muscles) • Drug Therapies (sodium amytal, mostly)

Recovered Memories • 1990’s: A big spike in cases of people in therapy recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse • Often early abuse (e. g. , infancy) • “Courage to Heal”: General premise that we were all abused as children, we need help to remember • Even if there is no evidence and we have no recollection of being abused • San Diego Reader: Ads identifying symptoms

Recovered vs. false memories • Several techniques to recover memories also can create false memories • • • Hypnosis Repeated retrieval attempts Guessing (The courage to heal) Imagination Repeated exposure to stories of abuse

Recovered memories • Could some of the recovered memories be false? • If it is possible to create false memories, then some recovered memories might be false

Recovered memories • Mc. Nally (2003) – review of several studies • Identified 4 groups • • Repressed memory Recovered memory Continuous memory Control

Recovered memories • Mc. Nally (cont. ) • No differences in terms of personality traits between continuous & control • Repressed scored higher than all other groups in terms of negative affectivity • Repressed also reported more dissociative & PTSD symptoms • Repressed & recovered scored higher in terms of fantasy proneness

Recovered memories • Recovered are more likely than control to develop FM in laboratory paradigms • Clancy et al. (2002) • Ss reported being abducted by aliens • Exhibited robust FM effects

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Modification of Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork (1994) • (see Blackboard Media Library Optional Readings to download a pdf of this paper if you want to read more) • Question: Can the retrieval of some items impact the retrieval of others? • e. g. , Suppose that you are studying for a test. You decide to study half the material. Does studying half the material have an impact on the half of the material that you didn’t study?

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Stimuli: 4 categories • Drinks, Weapons, Fish, Fruits • Six exemplars from each category • Write out category and exemplar on index cards Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Fish: trout • The full list of 24 items is in the detailed instructions • Subjects: find 3 willing participants

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Procedure: 4 phases • Study phase: subs will study all categories and exemplars • Shuffle all of the cards, read Study phase 1 instructions, present each card to subject for 3 seconds in random order Drink: vodka Drink: vodka Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Weapon: sword Fish: trout

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Procedure: 4 phases • Practice phase: subs will attempt to remember some of the studied items (half from 2 of the categories) by coming up with exemplars with cues (category and first letter) • Give practice phase recall sheet to subject, Read practice phase instructions to subject, give subs category and first letter (see ordered list in detailed instructions) and give them 15 secs to practice it before moving to next item • “drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Procedure: 4 phases • Distractor phase: complete a city generation task • Read distractor phase instructions, Give distractor US Cities Task sheet

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Procedure: 4 phases • Test phase: free recall of all studied items (by category) • Read test phase instructions, give recall test response sheets (1 for each of the 4 categories) • Give 30 seconds for recall for each category

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Scoring: Subject #1 Data Sample data Banana Orange Lemon Tomato Club Sword Bomb Guppy Trout Ale Rum Vodka Beer Practiced # recalled % (divide # by 6) Non-practiced # recalled % (divide # by 6) Control # recalled % (divide # by 12)

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Scoring: Subject #1 Data Sample data Banana Orange Lemon Tomato Club Sword Bomb Guppy Trout Ale Rum Vodka Beer Practiced # recalled % (divide # by 6) 3 3/6 = 50% Non-practiced # recalled % (divide # by 6) Control # recalled % (divide # by 12) “drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Scoring: Subject #1 Data Sample data Banana Orange Lemon Tomato Club Sword Bomb Guppy Practiced # recalled Trout Ale Rum Vodka Beer % (divide # by 6) Non-practiced # recalled % (divide # by 6) Don’t count “beer”, not on list 3 3/6 = 50% Control # recalled % (divide # by 12) “drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”

Experiment 3 • Interaction of Episodic and Semantic Memory (Exp 3) (Download detailed instructions form Blackboard) • Scoring: Subject #1 Data Sample data Banana Orange Lemon Tomato Club Sword Bomb Guppy Practiced # recalled Trout Ale Rum Vodka Beer % (divide # by 6) Non-practiced # recalled Don’t count “beer”, not on list 3 3/6 = 50% 3 % (divide # by 6) 3/6 = 50% Control # recalled 6 % (divide # by 12) 6/12 = 50% “drinks – v”, “weapons – s”, “drinks – r”, “weapons – r”, “drinks – g”, “weapons – t”