Levels of processing model: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:56, 27 January 2023

Latest revision as of 00:51, 27 July 2025

(27 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Psychological model of memory}}

The '''Levelslevels of Processingprocessing model''', created by [[Fergus I. M. Craik]] and Robert S. Lockhart in 1972, describes [[memory]] [[recollection|recall]] of [[Stimulus (physiology)|stimuli]] as a function of the depth of mental processing., where Deeperdeeper levels of analysisprocessing produce more elaborate, longer-lasting, and stronger [[memory traces]] than more shallow levels of analysis. Depth of processing falls on a shallow to deep continuum. Shallow processing (e.g., processing based on [[phonemic]] and [[Orthography|orthographic]] components) leads to a fragile memory trace that is susceptible to rapid decay. Conversely, deep processing (e.g., [[semantic processing]]) results in a more durable memory trace.<ref name="CL1972"/>Craik, F.There I.are M.,three &levels Lockhart,of R.processing S.in (1972)this model. LevelsStructural ofor visual processing: Ainvolves frameworkremembering foronly memorythe research.physical Journalquality of Verbalthe word (e.g. how the word is Learningspelled and Verbalhow Behavior,letters look). Phonemic processing includes remembering the word by the way it sounds 11(6e.g. the word tall rhymes with fall). Lastly, 671in semantic processing, individuals encode the meaning of the word with another word that is similar or has similar meaning.</ref> Once the word is perceived, the brain allows for a deeper processing.

This theory contradicts the multi-store [[Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model]] which represents memory strength as being continuously variable, the assumption being that rehearsal always improves [[long-term memory]]. They argued that rehearsal that consists simply of repeating previous analyses (maintenance rehearsal) doesn'tdoes not enhance long-term memory.<ref>{{cite book|author=Eysenck, M. (|year=2006). |chapter=Learning and Long-term memory. In |title=Fundamentals of cognition (|edition=Second ed.). |___location=Hove, England: |publisher=Psychology Press}}</ref>

In a study from 1975 (Craik and [[Endel Tulving|Tulving]]) participants were given a list of 60 words. Each word was presented along with three questions. The participant had to answer one of them. Those three questions were in one of three categories. One category of questions was about how the word was presented visually ("Is the word shown in ''italics''?"). The second category of questions was about the phonemic qualities of the word ("Does the word begin with the sound 'bee'?"). The third category of questions was presented so that the reader was forced to think about the word within a certain context. ("Can you meet one in the street [a friend]"?) The result of this study showed that the words which contained deep processing (the latter) were remembered better.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Craik, F. I., & |author2=Tulving, E. (|name-list-style=amp|year=1975). |title=Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. ''|journal=Journal of experimentalExperimental Psychology: general'', ''General|volume=104''(|issue=3), |pages=268|doi=10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268}}</ref>

==Modifiers==

Line 9 ⟶ 10:

===Familiarity===

A stimulus will have a higher [[Recollection|recall]] value if it is highly compatible with preexisting semantic structures (Craik, 1972). According to [[semantic network]] theories, this is because such a stimulus will have many connections to other encoded memories, which are activated based on closeness in semantic network structure.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.3758/BF03210735 |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |last=Rhodes |first=MG |author2=Anastasi JS |title=The effects of a levels-of-processing manipulation on false recall |year=2000 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=158–62 |pmid=10780030 |doi-access=free }}</ref> This activation increases cognitive analysis, increasing the strength of the memory representation. The familiarity modifier has been tested in [[implicit memory]] experiments, where subjects report false memories when presented with related stimuli.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Toth |first=JP |year=1996 |title=Conceptual automaticity in recognition memory: Levels-of-processing effects on familiarity |journal=Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.50.1.123 |volume=50 |issue=1 |pmid=8653094 |pages=123–38 |doi=10.1037/1196-1961.50.1.123 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080124111249/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3690/is_199603/ai_n8735087 |archive-date=2008-01-24 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Specificity of processing===

Specificity of processing describes the increased recall value of a stimulus when presented in the method with which it was inputted. For example, auditory stimuli (spoken words and sounds) have the highest recall value when spoken, and visual stimuli have the highest recall value when a subject is presented with images.<ref name = Vaidya2002>{{Cite journal| volume = 40| pages = 2136–2143| last = Vaidya| first = CJ |author2=Zhao M |author3=Desmond JE |author4=Gabrieli JDE | title = Evidence for cortical encoding specificity in episodic memory: memory-induced re-activation of picture processing areas | journal = Neuropsychologia | year = 2002 | url = http://web.mit.edu/gabrieli-lab/Publications/2002/Vaidya.Neuropsy.2002.pdf | doi = 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00053-2 | pmid = 12208009| issue = 12 | s2cid = 17108548}}</ref> In writing tasks, words are recalled most effectively with semantic cues (asking for words with a particular meaning) if they are encoded semantically (self-generated by the subject as being related to a particular meaning). Words are recalled most effectively with data-driven cues (word completion) if they are read, rather than generated by a subject.<ref>{{Cite journal| volume = 15| issue = 4| pages = 657–668| last = Blaxton| first = TA| title = Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework| journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition | year = 1989| url = http://www.colby.edu/psychology/ps341fa06/papers/Blaxton,%201989.pdf | doi = 10.1037/0278-7393.15.4.657 }}</ref>

===Self-reference effect===

Levels of processing have been an integral part of learning about memory. The self-reference effect describes the greater recall capacity for a particular stimulus if it is related semantically to the subject. This can be thought of as a corollary of the familiarity modifier, because stimuli specifically related to an event in a person's life will have widespread activation in that person's semantic network.<ref>{{Cite journal| volume = 121| issue = 3| pages = 371–394| last = Symons| first = CS|author2=Thompson BT | title = The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis | pmid = 9136641 | journal = Psychological Bulletin | year = 1997

| url = http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=chip_docs

| doi = 10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371 | format = pdf | url-access = subscription}}</ref> For example, the recall value of a personality trait adjective is higher when subjects are asked whether the trait adjective applies to them than when asked whether trait adjective has a meaning similar to another trait.<ref>{{Cite journal| volume = 14| issue = 5| pages = 785–794| last = Kelley| first = WM |author2=Macrae CN |author3=Wyland CL |author4=Caglar S |author5=Inati S |author6= Heatherton TF | title = Finding the Self? An Event-Related fMRI Study | pmid = 12167262 | journal = Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience| year = 2002| doi = 10.1162/08989290260138672| citeseerx = 10.1.1.522.2494| s2cid = 2917200}}</ref>

===Implicit memory and levels-of-processing===

Implicit memory tests, in contrast with explicit memory tests, measure the recall value of a particular stimulus based on later performance on stimulus-related tasks. During these tasks, the subject does not explicitly recall the stimulus, but the previous stimulus still affects performance.<ref>{{Cite journal | volume = 45 | pages = 1043–1056 | last = Roediger | first = HL | title = Implicit memory: Retention without remembering | journal = American Psychologist | year = 1990 | doi = 10.1037/0003-066X.45.9.1043 | pmid = 2221571 | issue = 9 }}</ref> For example, in a word-completion implicit memory task, if a subject reads a list containing the word "dog", the subject provides this word more readily when asked for three-letter words beginning in "d". The levels-of-processing effect is only found for explicit memory tests. One study found that word completion tasks were unaffected by levels of semantic encodings achieved using three words with various levels of meaning in common.<ref>{{Cite journal | issn = 0002-9556 | volume = 102 | issue = 2 | pages = 151–181 | last = Schacter | first = DL |author2=McGlynn SM | title = Implicit memory: Effects of elaboration depend on unitization | journal = The American Journal of Psychology | year = 1989 | doi = 10.2307/1422950 | jstor = 1422950 | s2cid = 31679776 }}</ref> Another found that typical level-of-processing effects are reversed in word completion tasks; subjects recalled pictures pairs more completely if they were shown a word representing a picture rather than asked to rate a picture for pleasantness (semantic encoding).<ref>{{Cite journal | volume = 18 | issue = 6 | pages = 1251–1269 | last = Roediger | first = HL |author2=Stadler ML |author3=Weldon MS |author4=Riegler GL | title = Direct comparison of two implicit memory tests: word fragment and word stem completion | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition | year = 1992 | doi = 10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1251 | pmid = 1447550 }}</ref> Typical level-of-processing theory would predict that picture encodings would create deeper processing than lexical encoding.

"Memory over the short term and the long term has been thought to differ in many ways in terms of capacity, the underlying neural substrates, and the types of processes that support performance."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rose | first1 = N. S. | last2 = Craik | first2 = F. M. | year = 2012 | title = A processing approach to the working memory/long-term memory distinction: Evidence from the levels-of-processing span task | url = https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/300| journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition | volume = 38 | issue = 4| pages = 1019–1029 | doi = 10.1037/a0026976 | pmid = 22268911 | url-access = subscription }}</ref>

====Long-term memory====

Line 32 ⟶ 33:

===Vision===

[[Visual perception|Visual input]] creates the strongest recall value of all senses, and also allows the widest spectrum of levels-of-processing modifiers. It is also one of the most widely studied. Within visual studies, pictures have been shown to have a greater recall value than words – the [[picture superiority effect]]. However, semantic associations have the reverse effect in picture memories appear to be reversed to those in other memories. When logical details are stressed, rather than physical details, an image's recall value becomes lower.<ref>{{Cite journal | issn = 0278-7393 | volume = 11 | issue = 2 | pages = 284–98 | last = Intraub | first = H |author2=Nicklos S | title = Levels of processing and picture memory: the physical superiority effect| pmid = 3157769 | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition | year = 1985 | doi = 10.1037/0278-7393.11.2.284 }}</ref> When comparing [[orthography|orthographic]] (capitalization, letter and word shape), phonological (word sound) and semantic (word meaning) [[Encoding (memory)|encoding]] cues, the highest levels of recall were found with the meanings of the words, followed by their sounds and finally the written and shape-based cues were found to generate the least ability to stimulate recall.<ref name="CL1972">{{cite journal | last = Craik | first = FIM |author2=Lockhart RS | year = 1972| title = Levels of processing: A framework for memory research | doi = 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X | volume = 11 | issue = 6 | pages = 671–84 | journal = Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior | s2cid = 14153362 }}</ref>

===Hearing===

Auditory stimuli follow conventional levels-of-processing rules, although are somewhat weaker in general [[Recollection|recall]] value when compared with vision. Some studies suggest that auditory weakness is only present for [[explicit memory]] (direct recall), rather than [[implicit memory]].<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.3758/BF03210786 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=130–133 |last=Habib |first=R |author2=Nyberg L |title=Incidental retrieval processes influence explicit test performance with data-limited cues |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |year=1997 |doi-access=free }}</ref> When test subjects are presented with auditory versus visual word cues, they only perform worse on directed recall of a spoken word versus a seen word, and perform about equally on implicit free-association tests. Within auditory stimuli, semantic analysis produces the highest levels of recall ability for stimuli. Experiments suggest that levels-of-processing on the auditory level is directly correlated with neural activation.<ref name = Fletcher>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1093/brain/121.7.1239 | volume = 121 | issue = 7 | pages = 1239–1248 | last = Fletcher | first = PC |author2=Shallice T |author3=Dolan RJ | title = The functional roles of prefrontal cortex in episodic memory. I. Encoding | journal = Brain | year = 1998 | url = http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/121/7/1239 | format = pdf

| pmid = 9679776 | doi-access = free | hdl = 21.11116/0000-0001-A1F6-3 | hdl-access = free }}</ref>

===Touch===

Line 59 ⟶ 60:

==Neural evidence ==

Several brain imaging studies using [[positron emission tomography]] and [[functional magnetic resonance imaging]] techniques have shown that higher levels of processing [[correlate]] with more brain activity and activity in different parts of the brain than lower levels. For example, in a lexical analysis task, subjects showed activity in the [[prefrontal cortex|left inferior prefrontal cortex]] only when identifying whether the word represented a living or nonliving object, and not when identifying whether or not the word contained an "a".<ref>{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1073/pnas.91.6.2008| volume = 91| issue = 6| pages = 2008–2011| last = Kapur

| first = S|author2=FIM Craik |author3=E Tulving |author4=AA Wilson |author5=S Houle |author6=GM Brown | title = Neuroanatomical Correlates of Encoding in Episodic Memory: Levels of Processing Effect | journal = [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]] | year = 1994 | pmid = 8134340| pmc = 43298 | doi-access = free| bibcode = 1994PNAS...91.2008K}}</ref> Similarly, an auditory analysis task showed increased activation in the left inferior prefrontal cortex when subjects performed increasingly [[semantic]] word manipulations.<ref name = Fletcher/> Synaptic aspects of word recognition have been correlated with the [[Operculum (brain)|left frontal operculum]] and the cortex lining the junction of the inferior frontal and inferior precentral sulcus.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1093/cercor/10.7.698 | volume = 10 | issue = 7

| pages = 698–705 | last = Friederici | first = AD |author2=Opitz B |author3=Yves von Cramon D | title = Segregating semantic and syntactic aspects of processing in the human brain: an fMRI investigation of different word types | journal = Cereb. Cortex | year = 2000 | url = http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/7/698 | format = pdf | pmid = 10906316| doi-access = free | hdl = 11858/00-001M-0000-0010-D753-7 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> The self-reference effect also has neural correlates with a region of the medial [[prefrontal cortex]], which was activated in an experiment where subjects analyzed the relevance of data to themselves.<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Kelley | first = WM |author2=Macrae CN |author3=Wyland CL |author4=Caglar S |author5=Inati S |author6= Heatherton TF | title = Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study |year = 2002 | doi = 10.1162/08989290260138672 | pages = 785–794 | volume = 14 | issue = 5 | journal = Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience | pmid = 12167262 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.522.2494 | s2cid = 2917200 }}</ref> Specificity of processing is explained on a neurological basis by studies that show brain activity in the same ___location when a visual memory is encoded and retrieved, and lexical memory in a different ___location.<ref name = Vaidya2002/> Visual memory areas were mostly located within the bilateral [[Extrastriate cortex|extrastriate visual cortex]].

==Mental disorders==

Line 76 ⟶ 77:

===Autism===

In autistic patients, levels-of-processing effects are reversed in that semantically presented stimuli have a lower recall value than physically presented stimuli. In one study, [[phonological]] and [[orthography|orthographic]] processing created higher recall value in word list-recall tests.<ref>{{Cite journal| volume = 40| issue = 7| pages = 964–969| last = Toichi| first = M |author2=Kamio Y | title = Long-term memory and levels-of-processing in autism| journal = Neuropsychologia | year = 2002 | doi = 10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00163-4| pmid = 11900748 | s2cid = 37972435}}</ref> Other studies have explicitly found non-semantically processed stimuli to be more accurately processed by autistic patients than in non-autistic patients.<ref>{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1093/brain/awh561| volume = 128| issue = 10| pages = 2430–2441| last = Bertone| first = A |author2=Mottron L |author3=Jelenic P |author4=Faubert J | title = Enhanced and diminished visuo-spatial information processing in autism depends on stimulus complexity| journal = Brain | date = 2005-10-01| url = http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/10/2430| format = abstract| pmid = 15958508| doi-access = free| url-access = subscription}}</ref> No clear conclusions have been drawn as to the cause of this oddity.

==References==