Homework 5 - REVISED COPY
Write a short summary (one or two paragraphs) describing any patterns you see, and conclusions you can reach, or any explanations you can bring to bear on the phenomena.

• 8 7 0 3 1 4 870314 (All correct.)
• 7 1 5 0 5 4 3 6 71505436 (All correct.)
• 2 1 6 6 8 7 2 5 4 5 216687215 (Substituted “1” for “4”)
• 6 8 1 4 3 7 9 5 2 4 7 0 68153790_ _ _ _ (Substituted “5” for “4”, “0" for "5" and omitted last four digits.)
• 2 8 4 3 9 3 4 8 2 5 5 1 28439_ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Omitted last seven digits.)
• T S Y L Q P TSYLQP (All correct.)
• C I M W O D X A CIMWODXA (All correct.)
• Q W E R T Y U I P QWERTYU_P (Omitted “I” near end of sequence.)
• K W U C R A L N Y W G S J QWU_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J (Omitted 9 out of the last 10 digits.)
• L A B O N N E M A I S O N LABONNEMO_SAIN (Reversed “O_” for “AI”)
• LEAF GIFT CAR FISH ROCK (All correct.)
• PAPER SEAT TIRE HORSE FILM BEACH TREE BRUSH (All correct.)
• BAG KEY BOOK WIRE BOX WHEEL BANANA FLOOR BAR PAD BLACK RADIO BOY (Words in red were omitted.)
• LOVE EMOTION PLAN ATTEMP RULE LAW ANALYSIS SYSTEM FINE PAYMENT (Words in red were omitted.)
•WHILE I WAS WALKING THROUGH THE WOODS A RABBIT RAN ACROSS MY PATH (All correct.)


Explain the data by relating it to the Ashcraft reading for Week 5:

According to Ashcraft, short-term memory loses information rapidly, (approximately within 15 seconds) when similar material has already been presented and tested. Results from the Brown-Peterson task validate this statement. This loss of information is attributed to proactive interference. What this means is that performance deteriorates across trials because of the growing amount of interference. In other words, the previous trials are generating interference. The older material interferes forward in time with your memory for the current stimulus. The fact that the participant generally recalled the beginnings, but had more difficulty recalling the endings, supports the phenomena of proactive interference.

Ashcraft discussed verbal codes in terms of relating the letter names themselves, a verbal, almost speech-like code. Conrad (1964) found in his study that when mistakes were made by subjects, they were likely to recall a letter that sounded like the correct one. The one error that the participant made in the beginning of any of the sequences was substituting “Q” for “K”. Because there is a similar speech sound between the two letters, this could account for the error.

Ashcraft discussed the “magical number seven, plus or minus two”. The participant was able to recall with 100 % accuracy the list of eight words. The participant was also able to recall with 100% accuracy the list of thirteen words. Even though this was a longer list, exceeding the “seven, plus or minus two” concept, the words made up a meaningful sentence. Ashcraft discussed semantic codes in terms of the meanings of words positively influencing retention. The meaningfulness involved in a coherent sentence would be a factor in being able to recall the thirteen word sequence. On the other hand, when the participant was presented with a thirteen word sequence which was not a sentence, he was able to recall only five of the words. The loss of recall was in the middle of the sequence. Both proactive and retroactive interference could be factors involved in this instance. This would also hold true for the ten word sequence, in which the participant could recall both the beginning and ending, but loss of recall occurred in the middle of the sequence.

Ashcraft discussed recoding, a chunking or grouping process by which more information is packed into the units that are remembered. It appears the participant employed this process by associating words together such as “love” and “emotion” and “fine” and “payment”. There were other opportunities for word associations within the sequences, but perhaps proactive and retroactive interference factors inhibited recall of these word pairings. Recoding could also be an explanation for being able to recall the number series and the letter series. In other words, the participant grouped more information into a single unit in order to overcome the “bottleneck” or limitation involved in the information processing. For example, when the participant repeated the letters or numbers back to me, he chose to do so by saying them in 2 or 3 number or letter combinations, rather than one by one.

Ashcraft discussed the primacy effect, which refers to the accuracy of recall for the early list positions. He also explains the recency effect as the level of correct recall on the final items of the list. The participant demonstrated a strong primacy effect in his recall ability. Ashcraft states that a strong primacy effect is usually due to rehearsal. A recency effect is evident in the participant’s results, as well, but is not as strong as the primacy effect.