The Sternberg Task and Its Results: An Assignment

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

Ullsperger, Bylsma, and Botvinick (2005) investigated whether the findings of Mayr, Awh, and Laurey (2003) can be replicated and how much they can be shown across different task performances. Their specific study was motivated by a prior experiment where Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1992) found that after an incompatible type trial reaction times were reduced and target processing occurred more frequently than flanker processing on the next trial. Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, and Cohen (2001) believed that this follows the conflict monitoring hypothesis where incompatible trials involve a conflict with the response leading to greater top-down information processing (Botvinick, Nystrom, Fissell, Carter, & Cohen, 1999). However, Mayr et. al (2003) argued that the congruency sequence effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) was due to repetition priming because of stimulus repeats in a flanker task. This may have led to a faster reaction time with repeated trials. Mayr et al. (2003) used two experiments to present evidence for their argument. Both experiments failed to show the effect found by Gratton et al. (1992) when target and stimulus items did not repeat from trial to trial.

The hypothesis that in Experiment 1, words at the beginning and end of a list would be better remembered while in Experiment 2, words at the beginning would be better remembered, was partially rejected, while still being partially true. The hypothesis that a delay would in fact make a difference was supported. In both tests, words in the first third seemed to be remembered by significantly more of the participants. However despite the predictions, words in the last third of experiment 1 seemed to be not significantly more than words in the middle third. experiment2 did seem to fit with the hypothesis, as the words at the start seemed to be higher than the rest, but there was a absurdity on word 16, “ocean,” which was recalled 7 out of the 9 times. Apart from this, experiment 2 seemed to support the hypothesis.

Allport, Postman (1947) and Loftus (1974) also support Bartlett’s idea of reconstructive memory. Loftus mainly focused on the reliability of eyewitness testimonies. As done in this experiment, Loftus and Palmer conducted a study on the effects of wording a question differently and how that would affect the answer. In the experiment the researchers used two different verbs on two different test groups. One was “contact” the other was “smashed”. The effect of this was a change in the speed estimated by the participants. The verb “contact” gave an average speed of 32mph while the verb “smash” gave an average of 41 mph in the experiment conducted by Loftus. There is a positive correlation between word use and how memory is retrieved because of it.

The results indicated Mayra’s ability to process information that was being held within short-term memory was within the Above Average range (Working Memory standard score = 113). Mayra’s performance of the subtest Recall of Digits backward (T-Score = 60) was better than her performance on the Recall of Sequential Order subtest (T-Score = 55). Both tasks required Mayra to listen to a list of verbally presented words and/or numbers. She was required to hold the list in short-term memory while working on the list and re-ordering the words/numbers. Recall of Digits Backward was presented verbally. On Recall of Digits Backward, Mayra used an interesting strategy to successfully recall the numbers. When she struggled to remember the order of the numbers, she would verbally recall the list in the initial order and go back and say them in the required, backward form. On the Recall of Sequential Order subtest, the examiner presented the lists of body parts verbally. Mayra was required to encode the presented information and store it in her short-term memory. Then, she needed to mentally manipulate the encoded information to produce the body parts in a specific order. The ordering of the information required Mayra to visualize the body parts in sequential order from head to toe (e.g., elbow, foot, shoulder → shoulder, elbow, foot). Most

Hannula’s research is based on, “memory for different kinds of relations (i.e., spatial and nonspatial relations) is tested with different paradigms under long- and short-lag conditions” (Hannula, 2014). Hannula also showed detailed information about the experiments such as stimuli design, procedure, and statistical analyses. Hannula describe the history and condition of the participants that was involved in the experiment. “Participants in both experiments were six patients (three male, three female) with amnesia, and six neurologically intact comparison participants, each matched to one of the patients individually with respect to age, education, and intelligence quotient”(Hannula, 2014). The method that was used in the first experiment is eye-movement methodology. The “eye-movement methodology to explore the status of relational memory representations that are to be maintained over the course of a very brief delay in work involving presentation of scenes that were exact matches or were manipulated versions of scenes viewed just seconds earlier”(Hannula,

By doing so is finding support for hypothesis, “AA reflects a failure to consolidate short-lived encoded information into a durable form of memory” (Chen and Wyble,2016). In other words, AA shows brief information does not become a permanent and stable memory, stored in long-term memory. In order, find supporting evidence the authors performed 5 experiments. The first experiment tested consisted of elimination of AA by having participants report an attribute of the stimulus instead of the location, in order to separate the dependence of AA and location. The results suggested location information of the target was automatically stored. Experiment two tested, if AA only occurred because of the familiarity and repetition of targets However, despite eliminating the familiarities and repetition of targets AA still occurred. Lastly, the last three experiments were identical, but with changes in variables and tested the hypothesis. Experiment 3a results showed a weakening in AA by forcing the participants to consolidate the key attribute into memory. Experiment 3b showed the weakening in 3a was caused by having participants maintaining attributes in memory after delayed tasks. Lastly, 3c provided support the previous experiments in which participants were able to find the

final experiment Johnson, Hollingworth, and Luck tested to see whether whole-array stimuli would generate a binding deficit. The main alteration that researchers used was color and shape rather than that of the use of color and orientation. This study used a 3-digit number that each participant was to repeat aloud during experiment. Displayed for participant was a stimulus randomly assigned a positon or centered on the display screen. A small time allotment was given for participants to respond. Findings suggest that overall accuracy was highest within the whole display in the color only condition. Johnson, Hollingworth, and Luck conclude that having a multitude of objects to focus on, memory performance remained near 65% correct in the dual-task binding condition. (Johnson, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2008)

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, the findings in the Intraub and Dickinson study are astonishing. According to the study, a disruption that lasts less than 0.5 seconds can cause someone to make an error. In the experiment, the participants task was relatively simple; it is something that everyone does everyday. One can argue that the results would be different if the experiment was replicated in other circumstances. Though this can be true, Intraub and Dickinson conducted another experiment, which addressed all threats to external validity in the first experiment. Experiment two was similar to experiment one, in that it examined boundary extension in relation to eye movement and that it had the same stimuli and experimental procedures. The first experiment was merely a foundation for the second experiment. As a result, it can be argued that Intraub and Dickinson’s decision to look at boundary and short-term memory in real life situations in experiment two, reduced the threat to external validity in experiment one when taken as a whole. In experiment two, the stimulus was presented on a screen that depicted the original photo and test pictures on opposing sides. This required participants to move in order to view the test picture. In order to remember features of the original photo while changing location, participants had to maintain an image of the stimulus in their

The Study of human memory started about two thousand years ago by Aristotle’s first attempt to understand how memory works. Aristotle “compared the human mind to a blank slate and theorized that all humans are born free of any knowledge and are merely the sum of their experiences”. David Hartley was the first philosopher to hypothesize that memories were encoded through motions in the nervous system. In the 1870s and 1880s, William James and William Wundt were the first psychologists to do research into how the human memory works. A German philosopher Herman Ebbinghaus developed the first scientific approach to studying memory. During Ebbinghaus’s experiments, he used lists of non-syllables, and then associated them with meaningful words. As he was doing his experiments, Ebbinghaus developed concepts of the learning

Prior to the early 1970s the prominent idea of how memories were formed and retrieved revolved around the idea of processing memory into specific stores (Francis & Neath, 2014). These memory stores were identified as sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory. In contrast to this idea, two researchers named Fergus Craik and Robert Lockhart proposed an idea linking the type of encoding to retrieval (Goldstein, 2015). This idea is known as the levels of processing theory. According to this theory, memory depends on the depth of processing that a given item is received by an individual (Goldstein, 2015). Craik and Lockhart stressed four points in supporting their theory. First, they argued that memory was the result of a series of analyses, each level of the series forming a deeper level of processing than the preceding level (Francis & Neath, 2014). The shallow levels of processing were believed to hold less importance and are defined as giving little attention to meaning of an item. Examples of which include focusing on how a word sounds or memorizing a phone number by repeating it over and over again (Francis & Neath, 2014) (Goldstein, 2015). The deeper levels processing involve paying close attention to the meaning of an item and relating that meaning to something else, an example of which would be focusing on the meaning of a word rather than just how the word sounds (Francis & Neath, 2014) (Goldstein, 2015). The second point Craik and Lockhart

Atkinson and Shiffrin proposed that control processes determines which information (stimuli) would be retained and rehearsed. They identified rehearsal as the process by which sensory memory retains information for STM, which then encodes the stimuli for encoding by LTM. (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Atkinson and Shiffrin model of memory led Alan Badderly and Graham Hitch to research the interactions of memory and in 1974 introduce the concept of working memory. Badderly and Hitch theorizes that STM’s role is to temporarily store information; but, while working memory is where the information is organized and controlled. Experiments conducted by these researchers found that working memory contains a phonological loop that holds verbal and auditory

The “serial position effect” (Holt et al., 2012, p. 283) is whereby what we remember is dependent on the position of the information we receive, for example a list of letters or “words” (Holt et al., 2012, p. 283). This can be explained in terms of the “three stage model” as when we are first receive information it goes into our “sensory memory” (Holt et al., 2012, p. 279) as we use our senses to identify the information, such as sight or hearing if the information is given out loud (Holt et al., 2012, p. 279). However people are not always able to remember all the information they have received but what they are able to remember is the result of the information being moved to what is known as the “ working/short-term memory” (Holt et l., 2012,

It is generally held that in the human brain, information is better remembered when one takes an active part in processing it (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). Thus, if a subject is to recall two lists of words, of which one was simply read by them and the other obtained by making pairs of rhyming words, the latter is likely to be better recalled. (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). An experiment performed by Slamecka and Graf (1978) seemed to empirically validate this view; In the study, participants were given a list of words. Some words were