Memory Rehearsal

In the last half century several theories have emerged with regard to the best model for human memory. In each of these models there was a specific way to help people recall words and

This experiment is based on previous research done. For example, in 1969, in a research by Bower and Clark, no difference in the immediate recall scores of both groups was noted, but when later asked to recall, those who used narrative chaining recalled an average of 93% of the words compared to the control group which only recalled an average of 13% of words. In another experiment, participants who used narrative chaining remembered six times more information than participants who learned by simply repeating the words to themselves (Loftus, 1980). Narrative chaining is particularly useful when a person wants to remember information in a particular order. The aim of the study is to investigate the effectiveness of narrative chaining on memory. It is hypothesized that in a group of 59 participants aged 10-69 years old, participants who use narrative chaining to remember a list of words will remember a higher number and percentage of words when asked to write down as many words as possible through serial recall compared to participants who use maintenance rehearsal.

In each trial, the participants were presented with a sequence of words on the left side of the window. Each word was presented for one and a half seconds. After all the words were presented, the response buttons were presented on the right side of window. These response buttons were labeled with words from the sequence along with new distractor words that were not part of the sequence. The goal of the participants was to click on the response buttons and identify all the words that were part of the sequence. The independent variable for this study was the types of words that were presented on the test (response buttons). The dependent variable was the percentage of each types of items reported.

The hypothesis is that when trying to remember the word pair list with whatever memory methods used, the beginning and ending word pairs will be remembered most often. The subjects that were chosen came from Indian temple friends and classmates in chemistry class. The target population was eight subjects in three groups, which was a total of twenty-four subjects. There were eight subjects in the control group and eight other subjects each in the two experimental groups. They were divided into control and experimental groups randomly being a mix of temple friends and classmates. A independent variable is manipulated or changed. The independent variable was the word pair list needed to be memorized. The dependent variable is what is being measured in an experiment, which was the results of the word pair test. It was a single blind experiment, which is when only the participant does not know whether they are part of the treatment or control group.

The experimenters also told the students that no one would be monitoring the conversation and that when the experiment concluded, they would be asked questions. With that being said, the students had to go in order and speak for a maximum of two minutes. One of the subjects mentioned that he was prone to random seizures. What the students were not told was that they were the only real subject in the group and everyone else was just recordings, including the student that was prone to

Each group was assigned either a condition or a control; experimenters in the first group were appointed the control, the second group was assigned the first condition (the four walls technique), the third group was ascribed to the second condition (the four walls technique with hypocrisy). There were three locations on campus that were assigned to each group on the University of Arizona campus. The first group was located in front of the library, the second group on the mall, and the third group at the Student Union. Each group approached every third randomly selected, totaling to twenty individuals total (10 male, 10 female) at each

California Verbal Learning Test - Children’s Version (CVLT-C). The California Verbal Learning Test - Children’s Version (CVLT-C) (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 1994) measures performance level and strategic adaptation of verbal learning and memory in children ages 5 to 16. The CVLT-C consists of a 15-word list (five words from three semantic categories) presented over five learning trials with immediate recall after each trial. Next, a second 15-item interference word list with immediate recall is given which is then followed by free and cued immediate

After, the congruent word test was presented to them upside down as to not see the words. They were then told to flip the sheet when they are ready and start to read the words immediately. At the same time that they flipped the sheet the stopwatch was pressed to start. Once they had finished reading the congruent words the stopwatch was stopped and the time was recorded. For the incongruent word test the same procedure was carried out but it was told to the participants that if they made any mistake they would be called out on it and have to correct it before proceeding. Time was also recorded.

Each experiment had the same procedure among different participant groups. The participants in the first experiment was thirty-one undergraduate or graduate student from the University of Cambridge. For the second experiment, fifty-nine people were recruited by community advertisement. And in the last experiment, twenty-seven survivors from fatal motor vehicle accidents, who developed PTSD (PTSD+) or never suffered from PTSD (PTSD-), were recruited through newspaper advertisements and from local clinics. In each trail of the experiment, the participants need to complete a storage task, which required them to remember 4 to 7 words, and an operation task, which asked them to count the number of a specific shape before and after the present of words. The words and shapes was shown over a neutral or negative background. In each trail, the participants need to complete the task 6 times. In each task, over a background image, four shapes popped up with 250ms each, and a word would appear for 350ms, and the other three shapes would show up with 250ms each. After that, the background image disappeared and the participants need to answer a question about the number of a specific shape they saw. After repeat this for 7 times, the participants were asked to write down all the words they saw in the order they presented. The percentage they correctly recalled was recorded. In each experiment, the independent variables were the negative background

The second experiment tested college students. The results of both experiments showed that students recall information that was spaced rather than received all at once.

The computer was set up on a desk, and paper copies of the tests and math worksheet were placed face down. Either the auditory or the visual test was the top sheet, followed by the math worksheet, and then the remaining test. In the visual presentation of the word list, we pressed play for the slideshow of words for the participant after he or she read through the instructions. At the end of the slideshow, the participant was instructed to flip over the first piece of paper to the visual test word list (Appendix A) and to complete the recognition test in 2 minutes. We timed the participants for 2 minutes, and then had them stop working.

Cognitive psychology deals with the mental aspects of processes such as memory where there are many methods, known as mnemonics, which attributes to the expansion of information that can be retained by a person. One method used is chunking, the practices of taking chunks of separate information and organizing them into larger units so that information becomes easier to recall, which is demonstrated in Tulving’s “Subjective Organization in Free Recall of ‘Unrelated’ Words” (1962). Tulving (1962) aim to measure the extent of recall on verbal items when presented in different orders. Tulving asked sixteen female undergraduates to learn a list of 16 words that would be presented on sixteen separate trials, each trial had the words in a different

However, half of the participants were assigned a File A containing 8 words while the other half were assigned a File A containing 2 words. Furthermore, all the participants were assigned a File B containing 8 words. When the results were analyzed, experimenters discovered that for trials in which File A contained 8 words and trials in which File A contained 2 words, participants that saved File A remembered a significantly larger proportion of the words from File A than participants who did not save File A. Participants that saved a File A containing 8 words also remembered a significantly larger proportion of words from File B than participants who were assigned a File A containing 8 words but did not save it. However, participants that saved a File A containing 2 words and participants who were assigned a File A containing 2 words but did not save it did not significantly differ in the proportion of words they remembered from File B.

Participants read the list of words printed in black ink (Appendix V) first, using the cover sheet to reveal the next word once they read one off. If a participant identified a word wrong, then he or she must go back and correct themselves before continuing. Administrators pointed out errors.

Step 7: While the participants are waiting to be “tested” have a confederate ask the group, filed wit control and experimental group introverts and non introverts participate to help with a. observe the behavior of the introverts in both the control and experimental groups.