The Effects of Memory Improvement by Saying Words Aloud

Memory is divided into three categories. These categories consist of: sensory memory, short term memory and long term memory, out of these short term memory is the main focus in this essay. It has been widely researched due to interest of how much memory can be stored, how long this memory can be stored for and what information is memorised.

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.

Hearing the information repeated over and over makes it better stick in the auditory learner’s memory.

The current study was created to retest reproducibility of Slamecka and Graf results about participants remembering words better when they generated the words than when they read the words in a sample of undergraduate students at Texas A&M University (Slamecka and Graf, 1978). Nineteen undergraduate students at Texas A&M University participated in an experiment where one group was given a set of words and were told to memorize the words. The other group was given one word and the first letter of the second word and was told to generate the second word. It was hypothesized that the group with the participants who generated the second word would remember those sets of words better than the other group. Results showed that the group who generated the second word significantly memorized the words better, the p value being < .05. More in depth explanations involving more variables are discussed such as the five rules, or the within subjects, and their effect on the generation effect as well as future directions.

I found this to be shocking as I did not think I had that amount of recall with listening, especially over topics I am not fond of. I suffer from chronic illnesses that affect my memory skills so I was very happy to see that I could recite the information back and have full recall of it. I am suddenly seeing I am not as bad of a listener as I once thought at all.

15. The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of speed on the recall of abstract and concrete words. The hypothesis of this research is that words heard at normal speed will be easier recalled then those heard at a fast speed.

According to Baddeley (2012), the phonological loop is assumed to comprise a short-term storage system that holds information in phonological form (the phonological store) together with a control process that maintains and rehearses information vocally or subvocally (the articulatory control process). Furthermore, spoken words enter the phonological store directly however, written material has to be recoding into phonological form before entering the phonological store (Repovs & Baddeley, 2006). In the phonological store, memory traces are assumed to decay in a few seconds however, a function of the articulatory control process is to refresh this memory trace by reciting the information subvocally which then re-enters the phonological store

Author used the example of doubling the short term memory to give a picture of how the improvement of human memory would be.

The results show that there is a difference in the words being recalled in the imagery method and in the words being recalled in the rote rehearsal method. The data showed that there was a greater amount of words recalled by imagery than there was in rote rehearsal. Rote rehearsal had a mean value of 8.28, which wasn’t that close to imagery. Imagery had a mean value of 12.96. The median and mode for rote rehearsal had a value of 8, and both the median and mode for imagery had a value of 13. It wasn’t until the standard deviation that rote rehearsal increased higher than imagery. Rote rehearsal had a standard deviation of 5.11, while imagery had a standard deviation of 4.67.

The influence of context on memory recall was examined in an experiment based on Godden and Baddeley’s (1975) Context Dependent Memory study. Previous research suggests that memory recall is improved when learning and recall occur in the same environment. The current experiment examined the importance of context and perceptual clues in memory recall by manipulating the learning and recall environments for a memory task using a list of 30 random words tested on three groups of participants: each group learnt a list of words in one environment and recalled them in

But this improvement still wasn't consistent... Plus it seemed like I was still hearing some of the words in my head, and so it seemed this vocalizing would continue to limit my reading speed.

When we are asked to recall items from a given list, we are able to do it without any problems. However, if we hear any sort of unrelated irrelevant speech, we are bound to mess up while recalling. According to Elliot (2002), “The irrelevant-speech effect refers to the finding of impaired recall performance in the presence of irrelevant auditory stimuli” (p. 478). When asked to recall, if one is exposed to unrelated auditory information, their recalling will not be as accurate. Taking this further, according to Mathews, Davies, Westerman, and Stammers (2000), “The irrelevant speech effect is not found with single repeated utterances, for example “a a a a a”, but does occur with irrelevant non-speech sounds such as or segmented glissandi (pitch-glides”

It was discovered that the adults in experiment one and three as well as the children in experiment two have a survival recall advantage. It was also found that those who were put under a survival group had more false recalled words. By looking at the net accuracy scores, the advantage of true recall under a survival context is mute by the amount of falsely recalled words.

The article titled. “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips”, was written by Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu, and Daniel M. Wegner. The article was published in Science Magazine. The readers that the author intends to reach are people in the science field, or those interested in knowing more about how computers can affect the brain, specifically cognitive abilities. The purpose of the author’s writing this article is to inform readers about the effects computers have on memory and how a person’s brain functions. The tone of the article is formal and educated. The author’s provide evidence through referring to the three experiments that they conducted, which relate to computers and memory. The