In cognitive psychology, a recall test is a test of memory of mind in which participants are presented with stimuli and then, after a delay, are asked to remember as many of the stimuli as possible.[1]:123 Memory performance can be indicated by measuring the percentage of stimuli the participant was able to recall. An example of this would be studying a list of 10 words and later recalling 5 of them. This is a 50 percent recall. Participants' responses also may be analyzed to determine if there is a pattern in the way items are being recalled from memory. For example, if participants are given a list consisting of types of vegetables and types of fruit, their recall can be assessed to determine whether they grouped vegetables together and fruits together. Recall is also involved when a person is asked to recollect life events, such as graduating high school, or to recall facts they have learned, such as the capital of Florida.[1]:123
Measuring recall contrasts with measuring recognition, in which people are asked to pick an item that has previously been seen or heard from a number of other items that have not been previously seen or heard, which occurs, for example, during a typical multiple-choice question exam.[1]:123
Types of recall
Free recall test
Free recall is one of the most commonly used recall tests. In free recall tests participants are asked to study a list of words and then are asked to recall the words in whatever order they choose to recall them in. The words the participants are to recall are typically presented one at a time and for a short duration. The recalling of the words starts immediately after the final item being recalled is shown. The items can be listed either through verbal or written recall. Immediate recall of the items(Immediate Free Recall) is the most common form of free call tests, but recall of the items can be delayed(Delayed Free Recall). Both the immediate free recall and delayed free recall have been used to test the recency and primacy effects. Free recall is most often used to measure the number of items recalled from a list. Murdock in an experiment on serial position effects, used six groups of 103 participants. Each group was given different combinations of list lengths and presentation rates. Three of the groups were shown lists of ten, fifteen, and twenty words with a presentation rate of two seconds per word. The other three groups were shown lists of twenty, thirty, and forty words with a one-second presentation rate for each word. There were eighty lists in total that included randomly selected common English words. After the presentation of each list, subjects were asked to recall as many words as possible in any order. Results from the experiment showed that all groups expressed both primacy effects and recency effects. Recency effects were exhibited regardless of the length of the list, and it was strongest for the words in the last eight serial positions. The primacy effect extended over the first four serial positions.[2] Serial recall paradigm is a form of free recall where the participants have to list the items presented to them in the correct order they are presented in. Research shows that the learning curve for serial recall increases linearly with every trial. Bruno, Miller, and Zimmerman (1955) in an experiment tested to learn why the serial recall learning curve increases linearly. They were testing to see if this linear increase is a result of the order in which the participant sees the items, or if it is instead dependent on the order in which the participant is told to recall the items. The study involved three different conditions: serial recall, free recall with items to be recalled randomized before each trial, and free recall with the order of the items kept constant. The experiment tested nine college students on 18 series of words. In addition to the linear serial recall learning curve, it was found that more words are forgotten when recall is free than when it is serial. This study also supported the notion that the difference between the types of recall depends on the order in which the learner must recall the items, and not on the order in which the items are presented.
Cued recall test
A cued recall test is a procedure for testing memory in which a participant is presented with cues, such as words or phrases, to aid recall of previously experienced stimuli.[1]:182 Endel Tulving and Zena Pearlstone (1966) conducted an experiment in which they presented participants with a list of words to be remembered. The words were from specific categories such as birds (pigeon, sparrow), furniture (chair, dresser), and professions (engineer, lawyer). The categories were not made apparent in the original list. Participants in the free recall group were asked to write down as many words as they could remember from the list. Participants in the cued recall group were also asked to recall the words, but this group was provided with the names of the categories, "birds", "furniture", and "professions". The results of Tulving and Pearlstone's experiment demonstrate that retrieval cues aid memory. Participants in the free recall group recalled 40 percent of the words, whereas participants in the cued recall group recalled 75 percent of the words.[3]
Factors affecting recall
Encoding specificity
The principle of encoding specificity states that we encode information along with its context. The memory utilizes cues from which the information was encoded and from the environment in which it is being retrieved.[1]:184 An experiment demonstrating encoding specificity was conducted by D. R. Godden and Alan Baddeley (1975) in their "diving experiment". During this experiment, one group of participants studied a list of words underwater while another group of participants studied the same list of words on land. These groups were then divided, so half of the participants in the land and water groups were tested for recall on land and half were tested underwater. The participants demonstrated a better recall when the context of retrieval matched the context of encoding, for example having studied underwater and being tested underwater.[4]
State-dependent learning
This is another example of how matching the conditions at the encoding and retrieval can influence memory.[1]:185State-dependent learning is associated with a specific internal state, such as mood or state of awareness. According to the principle of state-dependent learning, memory will be better when a person's internal state during retrieval matches his or her internal state during encoding. Two ways of matching encoding and retrieval include matching the physical situation (encoding specificity) or an internal feeling (state-dependent learning).[5]
Transfer-appropriate processing
Transfer -appropriate processing (TAP) shows that our ability to recall information well is not only dependent on the depth at which we learn it. It shows that how we connect the information and build relationships with other encoded memories is important in being able to recall the information. Schendan and Kutas (2007) performed an experiment in which they confirmed that recall of memories is best when we match the situations.[6] They found that significantly more memory can be recalled when what has been learned is grouped together and paired with what the sensory information is saying was learned[7] Franks, and colleagues performed thirteen experiments on TAP and found that memory is best enhanced when the learning situation was matched to the retrieval situation.[6]
Levels of processing theory
The idea behind the levels of processing theory is that the depth of processing effects how well you encode the information you are learning. Craik and Tulving performed a study in 1975 where the participants were presented a list of 60 words each word having three questions. The questions varied from requiring them to think about the word to just remembering what they saw. Craik and Tulving discovered that the words that required deeper processing were remembered best.[8] Craik and Tulving also discovered that the more familiar the stimulus is recalling the information is increased. The reason for this being when a stimulus is presented is familiar it already has many connections to memories that have been encoded. These connections to the encoded memories strengthens the memory of the stimulus being presented.[9] Levels of processing theory goes even further to show that recall is increased when asked to remember in the way it was originally presented to us.[10]
Related Research Articles
Forgetting or disremembering is the apparent loss or modification of information already encoded and stored in an individual's short or long-term memory. It is a spontaneous or gradual process in which old memories are unable to be recalled from memory storage. Problems with remembering, learning and retaining new information are a few of the most common complaints of older adults. Studies show that retention improves with increased rehearsal. This improvement occurs because rehearsal helps to transfer information into long-term memory – practise makes perfect.
Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. Psychologists test these forms of recall as a way to study the memory processes of humans and animals. Two main theories of the process of recall are the two-stage theory and the theory of encoding specificity.
The Interference theory is a theory regarding human memory. Interference occurs in learning. It is the notion that memories encoded in long-term memory (LTM) are forgotten, and cannot be retrieved into short-term memory (STM). This is because of either memory interfering, or hampering, one another. There is an immense number of encoded memories within the storage of LTM. The challenge for memory retrieval is recalling the specific memory and working in the temporary workspace provided in STM. Retaining information regarding the relevant time of encoding memories into LTM influences interference strength. There are two types of interference effects:
The spacing effect demonstrates that learning is more effective when study sessions are spaced out. This effect shows that more information is encoded into long-term memory by spaced study sessions, also known as spaced repetition or spaced presentation, than by massed presentation (“cramming”).
Serial-position effect is the tendency of a person to recall the first and last items in a series best, and the middle items worst. The term was coined by Hermann Ebbinghaus through studies he performed on himself, and refers to the finding that recall accuracy varies as a function of an item's position within a study list. When asked to recall a list of items in any order, people tend to begin recall with the end of the list, recalling those items best. Among earlier list items, the first few items are recalled more frequently than the middle items.
Endel Tulving is an Estonian-born Canadian experimental psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist, known for his pioneering research on human memory. He is credited with proposing the distinction between semantic and episodic memory. Tulving is a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto. In 2006, he was named an Officer of the Order of Canada, Canada's highest civilian honour.
The Levels of Processing model, created by Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart in 1972, describes memory recall of stimuli as a function of the depth of mental processing. Deeper levels of analysis produce more elaborate, longer-lasting, and stronger memory traces than shallow levels of analysis. Depth of processing falls on a shallow to deep continuum. Shallow processing leads to a fragile memory trace that is susceptible to rapid decay. Conversely, deep processing results in a more durable memory trace.
Cue-dependent forgetting, or retrieval failure, is the failure to recall information without memory cues. The term either pertains to semantic cues, state-dependent cues or context-dependent cues.
State-dependent memory or state-dependent learning is the phenomenon where people remember more information if their physical or mental state is the same at time of encoding and time of recall. State-dependent memory is heavily researched in regards to its employment both in regards to synthetic states of consciousness as well as organic states of consciousness such as mood. While state-dependent memory may seem rather similar to context-dependent memory, context-dependent memory involves an individual's external environment and conditions while state-dependent memory applies to the individual's internal conditions.
Memory has the ability to encode, store and recall information. Memories give an organism the capability to learn and adapt from previous experiences as well as build relationships. Encoding allows a perceived item of use or interest to be converted into a construct that can be stored within the brain and recalled later from long-term memory. Working memory stores information for immediate use or manipulation which is aided through hooking onto previously archived items already present in the long-term memory of an individual.
The generation effect is a phenomenon where information is better remembered if it is generated from one's own mind rather than simply read. Researchers have struggled to account for why generated information is better recalled than read information, but no single explanation has been sufficient.
Free recall is a basic paradigm in the psychological study of memory. In this paradigm, participants study a list of items on each trial, and then are prompted to recall the items in any order. Items are usually presented one at a time for a short duration, and can be any of a number of nameable materials, although traditionally, words from a larger set are chosen. The recall period typically lasts a few minutes, and can involve spoken or written recall. The standard paradigm involves the recall period starting immediately after the final list item; this can be referred to as immediate free recall (IFR) to distinguish it from delayed free recall (DFR). In delayed free recall, a short distraction period is interpolated between the final list item and the start of the recall period. Both immediate free recall and delayed free recall have been used to test certain effects that appear during recall tests, such as the primacy effect and recency effect.
Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) is a type of state-dependent memory specifically showing that memory performance is not only determined by the depth of processing, but by the relationship between how information is initially encoded and how it is later retrieved.
Henry L. "Roddy" Roediger III is an American psychology researcher in the area of human learning and memory. He rose to prominence for his work on the psychological aspects of false memories.
In psychology, context-dependent memory is the improved recall of specific episodes or information when the context present at encoding and retrieval are the same. In a simpler manner, "when events are represented in memory, contextual information is stored along with memory targets; the context can therefore cue memories containing that contextual information". One particularly common example of context-dependence at work occurs when an individual has lost an item in an unknown location. Typically, people try to systematically "retrace their steps" to determine all of the possible places where the item might be located. Based on the role that context plays in determining recall, it is not at all surprising that individuals often quite easily discover the lost item upon returning to the correct context. This concept is heavily related to the encoding specificity principle.
The recognition failure of recallable words is an experimental phenomenon in cognitive psychology originally discovered by the memory researcher Endel Tulving and colleagues. Although recognition of previously-studied words through a recognition memory test, in which the words are re-presented for a memory judgment, generally yields a greater response probability than the recall of previously studied words through a recall test, in which the words must be mentally retrieved from memory, Tulving found that this typical result could be reversed by manipulating the retrieval cues provided at test.
The encoding specificity principle is the general principle that matching the encoding contexts of information at recall assists in the retrieval of episodic memories. It provides a framework for understanding how the conditions present while encoding information relate to memory and recall of that information.
Retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) is a memory phenomenon where remembering causes forgetting of other information in memory. The phenomenon was first demonstrated in 1994, although the concept of RIF has been previously discussed in the context of retrieval inhibition.
Reconstructive memory is a theory of memory recall, in which the act of remembering is influenced by various other cognitive processes including perception, imagination, semantic memory and beliefs, amongst others. People view their memories as being a coherent and truthful account of episodic memory and believe that their perspective is free from error during recall. However the reconstructive process of memory recall is subject to distortion by other intervening cognitive functions such as individual perceptions, social influences, and world knowledge, all of which can lead to errors during reconstruction.
Elaborative encoding is a mnemonic that relates to-be-remembered information to previously existing memories and knowledge. One can make such connections visually, spatially, semantically or acoustically. Practitioners use multiple techniques, such as the method of loci, the link system, the peg-word method, PAO, etc., to store information in long-term memory and to make it easier to recall this information in the future. Many experiments have been done in order to examine elaborative encoding, some of them are listed below
↑ Murdock, Bennet B. (November 1962). "The serial position effect of free recall". Journal of Experimental Psychology. 64 (5): 482–488. doi:10.1037/h0045106. ISSN0022-1015.
↑ Tulving, Endel; Pearlstone, Zena (August 1966). "Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 5 (4): 381–391. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(66)80048-8. ISSN0022-5371.
↑ GODDEN, D. R.; BADDELEY, A. D. (August 1975). "Context-Dependent Memory in Two Natural Environments: On Land and Underwater". British Journal of Psychology. 66 (3): 325–331. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x. ISSN0007-1269.
↑ Craik, Fergus I. M.; Tulving, Endel (1975). "Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 104 (3): 268–294. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268. ISSN1939-2222.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
