Memory Recall Experiment: Assessing The Impact Of Retroactive Interference

This CA requires students to submit a research report based on an experiment.  In the experiment students participated in a memory test which involved retroactive interference.

1. Organise the content of the report in structured way
2. Present key literature relating to the topic
3. Identify appropriate hypotheses based on the existing literature

Methodology

Cognitive psychology is a branch of psychology that deals with the mental processes such as attention, learning, memory, creativity, problem-solving and thinking. Memory is one of the most important parts in cognitive psychology (Neisser, 2014). Short term memory is a part of memory that can hold a small amount of information in the active mind but it cannot manipulate the stored information.

Memories can also being recalled by the series of events that was being encoded and was stored inside the brain (Baesalou, 2014). These memories are also known as working memory. It does not have capability to manipulate or operate the stored information but it can decode the information if required immediately.

Proactive interference is a part of psychology in which an individual tries hard to acquire new information on some issues that was already being learnt by him (Ries et al., 2014). In case of retroactive interference, an individual forgets the previously learnt information and acquires the newly gained information.

The theory of interference expresses that impedance happens on learning when the recently learned information with beforehand learned data, influencing exchange between long haul memory and working memory (Wienstein et al., 2014). This infers stored data stays in the mind however can't be effectively recovered because of rivalry from recently obtained data.

The experiment for recalling the memories can be illustrated by the following. The lecturer or the professor called some names of the students for the first time in a particular time. The participants had to hear those names and needed to remember those and needed to call out again for the second time. Those names were asked to recall it again to check the potentiality of the memory to recall instantly.

The total number of the participants was 70 with a mean age of 26.4, who took part in the particular experiment. The participants were from full and part time course of BA in psychology course. The gender break down all throughout the experiment, there were total 49 females and 21 males.

The above experiment is a part of the memory information processing theory, a part of memory recalling.

The information processing theory is an intellectual way to deal with seeing how the human personality ‍‍‍transforms‍‍‍ tangible data. ‍‍‍The show assumes‍‍‍ that data that originates from the earth is liable to mental procedures past a straightforward jolt reaction design. "Contribution" from nature experiences the intellectual frameworks which are then measured by the "yield" (Jacoby, Wahlheim & Kelley, 2015). Data can take a few ways relying upon consideration, encoding, acknowledgment, and capacity. The focal official component controls how much data is being handled, however more primitive tactile ranges of the cerebrum first acknowledge natural information. The hypothesis takes a gander at continuous reactions to displayed jolts and how the brain changes that data. The model is utilized as a part of a few ranges of research, for example, psychological improvement, neuroscience, social learning, and fake ‍‍‍intelligence (Kliegl, Pastotter & Bauml, 2015).

The handling of the development were started to check the mind as a PC that procedures data with remarkable proficiency and great execution in critical thinking and basic considering, through a procedure progressively upgraded over time. The thought of Data Preparing exists in Psychological Brain science, that profoundly urge for checking the  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Outline - and as a hypothesis joins numerous hypothetical viewpoints that primarily try to clarify human learning as the improvement of arranged memory structures (Unsworth, Brewer & Spillers, 2013).

Memory Encoding

The main functions of processing of the information consist of three key functions:

Sensory Memory, Working Memory, Long-term memory

The instructional model that focuses the principles (Verneau et al., 2015):

The data that is provided by the surroundings is focussing in a very constant way that is processed by a complicated series of the system.

The processed system modifies the data or the information that is being gathered in a systematic system.

The main aim or the goal of the particular research tasks focuses with the determination that processes and the structures of the brain that are beyond the cognitive performances.

In a learning domain, there are various courses in which Data Handling can be connected. In a classroom setting, learners are consistently learning and using memory forms with a specific end goal to store the data being given by the educator. They are likewise effectively recovering the data required for the lesson. From an educator's point of view, Data Preparing is utilized to help learners to further upgrade their separate aptitudes and comprehend the educational programs presented. An awesome route for instructors and teachers to rehearse the data handling abilities of their learners is to test their focussing, data assembling, recollecting, and arranging aptitudes.

Focussing skills, this involves on the determining of a particular situation and the establishing the proper way for the addressing.

The skills on gathering the information, it focuses with the collection of the particular information or the data focussing the situation and dealing with preparing the questions for the clarification.

Remembering the skills is a part that deals accordingly with the encoding and the recalling and directly getting linked with the memories.

Organizational skills focus with the comparisons, sequencing, visuals, verbal or any particular symbolic representation (Leppink et al., 2014).

The different stages of recalling of the memory can be described as:

It is the first part of the memory storage. The collected information into the memory system needed to change into a particular form that the memory system can store it (Ragland et al., 2016).

This part of the memory focuses with the nature of the memory that is being stored and the duration of its storage. The storage of the memory can be of Long term or Short term (Pergola & Suchan, 2013).

It is the process by which the information from the storage are being taken out. The part or the portion of the memory that cannot being recalled or cannot being taken out, it gets lost from the storage (Brandimonte, Einstein & McDaniel, 2014).

This section will provide a statistical summary of the data for each memory trial. Following this the findings for the group comparisons will be reported.  Specifically, paired samples t-tests were conducted in order to explore whether memory performance differed significantly across trials 1 -4.

Table 1.1 displays the mean word recall, standard deviation and number of participants across the 4 memory trials. Analysis of the initial results indicates that condition 2 (x? : 7.61, SD: 1.33) showed the highest retention and recall of words with an increase of 1.46 words recalled when compared to condition 1 (x?: 6.16, SD: 1.39). This suggests that repeated exposure to the first list facilitated increased learning as shown by the higher mean score.  Condition 4 on the other hand showed the lowest mean score (x?: 5.59, SD: 1.83). This reduction in retention shown by the decrease of 2.03 words between condition 1(x?: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and condition 4(x?: 5.59, SD: 1.83) indicates the retroactive interference effect as a result of the second list being introduced in condition 3(x?: 5.93, SD: 1.70). Further analysis was conducted in order to investigate this effect.

Memory Storage

Table 1.1 Descriptive statistics for memory recall detailing mean, standard deviation and number of participants across 4 conditions

A series of paired samples t-tests was conducted in order to examine if there was a statistically significant difference in memory recall following the repeated exposure to the first list of words between condition 1 and the repeated condition 2.  Analysis of these results revealed that there was a statistically significant increase in memory recall (t(69) = -7.828, p < 0.001) between condition 1 (x?: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and condition 2 (x? : 7.61, SD: 1.33) of 1.46 words. The 95% confidence limits show that the population mean difference of the variables lies somewhere between -1.82 and -1.08. In addition to this a comparison of the word recall between condition 2 (x? : 7.61, SD: 1.33)  and condition 4 (x?: 5.59, SD: 1.83) was carried out which confirmed that the decrease of 2.03 words between both conditions was statistically significant (t(69) = 11.67,  p  <  0.001). The 95% confidence interval showed that the population mean difference lies somewhere between 1.68 and 2.37. Finally an analysis was conducted to assess word recall for both lists between group 1 (x?: 6.16, SD: 1.39) and group 3 (x?: 5.93, SD: 1.70). This analysis showed no significant difference in total word recall (t(69)  =  0.923, p  > 0.05). Please see Graph 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 for further details.

Graph 1.1  Showing total world recall and standard deviation for conditions 1 and 2. * Significant difference at the 0.001% level using paired samples t-test.

Graph 1.2  Showing total world recall and standard deviation for conditions 2 and 4. * Significant difference at the 0.001% level using paired samples t-test.

Graph 1.3  Showing total world recall and standard deviation for conditions 1 and 3. No significant difference reported between mean recall.

Keeping in mind the end goal to attempt speculation testing one have to express oner examination theory as an invalid and option speculation. The invalid speculation and option theory are articulations with respect to the distinctions or impacts that happen in the populace (Hahn & Ridder, 2015). One will utilize specimen to test which explanation (i.e., the invalid speculation or option theory) is in all probability (albeit actually, one test the proof against the invalid speculation). Along these lines, as for our showing case, the invalid and option theory will reflect articulations about all insights understudies on graduate administration courses.

The invalid speculation is basically the "contentious third party" position. That is, it expects that whatever one are attempting to demonstrate did not occur (indicate: it for the most part expresses that something breaks even with zero). For instance, the two distinctive showing techniques did not bring about various exam exhibitions (i.e., zero contrast). Another case may be that there is no connection amongst tension and athletic execution (i.e., the incline is zero). The option theory expresses the inverse and is generally the speculation one are attempting to demonstrate (e.g., the two diverse showing techniques resulted in various exam exhibitions). At first, one can express these theories in more broad terms (e.g., utilizing terms like "impact", "relationship", and so forth.), as appeared underneath for the showing strategies illustration.

Memory Retrieval

Contingent upon how one need to "condense" the exam exhibitions will decide how one might need to compose a more particular invalid and option speculation. For instance, one could think about the mean exam execution of each gathering.

The level of measurable noteworthiness is regularly communicated as the supposed p-esteem. Contingent upon the measurable test one have picked, one will figure a likelihood (i.e., the p-esteem) of watching specimen results (or more extraordinary) given that the invalid speculation is valid. Another method for expressing this is to consider the likelihood that a distinction in a mean score (or other measurement) could have emerged in light of the presumption that there truly is no distinction. Give us a chance to consider this announcement regarding our case where we are occupied with the distinction in mean exam execution between two diverse educating techniques (Johnson, 2013). On the off chance that there truly is no contrast between the two showing techniques in the populace (i.e., given that the invalid theory is valid.

In this way, one may get a p-esteem, for example, 0.03 (i.e., p = .03). This implies there is a 3% possibility of finding a distinction as huge as (or bigger than) the one in review given that the invalid theory is valid. Be that as it may, one need to know whether this is "measurably critical" (Gelman & Locken, 2014). Regularly, if there was a 5% or less shot (5 times in 100 or less) that the distinction in the mean exam execution between the two showing techniques (or whatever measurement one are utilizing) is as various as watched given the invalid speculation is valid, one would dismiss the invalid theory and acknowledge the option theory. On the other hand, if the shot was more prominent than 5% (5 times in at least 100), one would neglect to dismiss the invalid theory and would not acknowledge the option speculation. In that capacity, in this illustration where p = .03, we would dismiss the invalid theory and acknowledge the option speculation. We dismiss it in light of the fact that at an importance level of 0.03 (i.e., not exactly a 5% shot), the outcome we acquired could happen too every now and again for us to be certain that it was the two instructing strategies that affected exam execution (Kobyashi et al., 2016).

The condition 2 showed the highest level of retention value as compared to condition as the mean value of condition 2 is greater than that of condition 1 and the deviation value of condition 2 is less than condition 1. The high mean score of condition2 depicts that the facilitation of the first list is high. When the participants are exposed to the memory recall the exposure of the first list of the words in between condition 1 and 2 is differed significantly as the value of p is less than 0.001. The value of condition 4 depicts that it has the lowest mean score. This suggests that the retention of memory recall reduces significantly by 2.03 words between condition 1 and condition 2. Therefore, it has a retroactive interference and so the introduction of second list is followed. The introduction of second lists exhibited that condition 3 has the mean value more than condition 4. The value of p between condition2 and condition 4 shows that there is marginal significant as the value of p resides within 0.5 and 0.1. The final analysis between condition 1 and condition 3 exhibited that the mean values are 6.16 and 5.93. The p value is greater than 0.1 and therefore there is no significant difference in between condition 1 and 3 for memory recall.

References

Barsalou, L. W. (2014). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Psychology Press.

Brandimonte, M. A., Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Prospective memory: Theory and applications. Psychology Press.

Gelman, A. & Loken, E., (2014). The Statistical Crisis in Science Data-dependent analysis—a “garden of forking paths”—explains why many statistically significant comparisons don't hold up. Am Sci, 102(6), p.460.

Hahn, J. & Ridder, G., (2015). Non-standard tests through a composite null and alternative in point-identified parameters. Journal of Econometric Methods, 4(1), pp.1-28.

Jacoby, L. L., Wahlheim, C. N., & Kelley, C. M. (2015). Memory consequences of looking back to notice change: Retroactive and proactive facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1282.

Johnson, V.E., (2013). Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(48), pp.19313-19317.

Kliegl, O., Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2015). The contribution of encoding and retrieval processes to proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1778.

Kobayashi, Y., Nam, C. W., Tonino, P. A., Kimura, T., De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H., ... & FAME Study Investigators. (2016). The prognostic value of residual coronary stenoses after functionally complete revascularization. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 67(14), 1701-1711.

Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., van Der Vleuten, C. P., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32-42.

Neisser, U. (2014). Cognitive psychology: Classic edition. Psychology Press.

Pergola, G., & Suchan, B. (2013). Associative learning beyond the medial temporal lobe: many actors on the memory stage. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 7, 162.

Ragland, J. D., Ranganath, C., Harms, M. P., Barch, D. M., Gold, J. M., Layher, E., ... & Silverstein, S. M. (2015). Functional and neuroanatomical specificity of episodic memory dysfunction in schizophrenia: an fMRI study of the relational and item-specific encoding task. JAMA psychiatry, 72(9), 909.

Ries, S. K., Schendel, K., Dronkers, N. F., & Turken, A. U. (2014). White matter pathways critical for language are also critical for resolving proactive interference in working memory. In Front. Psychol. Conf. Abstr.: Academy of Aphasia–52nd Annual Meeting.

Unsworth, N., Brewer, G. A., & Spillers, G. J. (2013). Focusing the search: Proactive and retroactive interference and the dynamics of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1742.

Verneau, M., van der Kamp, J., Savelsbergh, G. J., & de Looze, M. P. (2015). Proactive and retroactive transfer of middle age adults in a sequential motor learning task. Acta psychologica, 156, 57-63.

Weinstein, Y., Gilmore, A. W., Szpunar, K. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2014). The role of test expectancy in the build-up of proactive interference in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(4), 1039.