Wikipedia:School and university projects/Psyc3330 w10/Group3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Psy3330 W10 (talk | contribs) moved sections around; began formatting article using Wikipedia tutorial; cut out some information from original decay theory article |
m →top: task, replaced: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition → Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
'''Decay theory''' proposes that [[memory]] fades due to the mere passage of time. [[Information]] is therefore less available for later retrieval as time passes and memory, as well as memory strength, wears
==History==
The term decay theory was first coined by [[Edward Thorndike]] in his book “The Psychology of Learning” in 1914<ref name="kevone"> E. L. Thorndike, The psychology of learning, N. Y., Teachers College, 1914, p. 4.</ref>. This simply states that if a person does not access and use the memory representation they have formed the memory trace will fade or decay over time. This theory was based on the early memory work by [[Hermann Ebbinghaus]] in the late 1800s<ref name="kevtwo"> Ebbinghaus H. 1885/1913. Memory. A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. New York: Teachers College/Columbia Univ. (Engl. ed.)</ref>. The decay theory proposed by Thorndike was heavily criticized by McGeoch and his interference theory <ref name="kevthree"> McGeoch, J. (1932) Forgetting and the Law of Disuse [Electronic Version]. Psychology Review, 39, pp. 352-370. Retrieved March 6, 2010</ref>. This led to the abandoning of the decay theory, until the late 1950s when studies by John Brown and the Petersons showed evidence of time based decay by filling the retention period by counting backwards in threes from a given number. This led to what is known as the [[Interference theory#Proactive interference|Brown-Peterson Paradigm]]<ref name="kevfour"> Brown, J. Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 10, 12-21.</ref> <ref name"kevfive"> Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. Shortterm retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 193-198.</ref>. The theory was again challenged, this time a paper by Keppel and Underwood who attributed the findings to [[Interference theory#Proactive interference|proactive interference]]<ref name="kevsix"> Keppel, G., & Underwood, B. J. Proactive inhibition in short-term retention of single items. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1962, 1, 153-161.</ref>. Studies in the 1970s by Reitman<ref name="kevseven"> Reitman J. S. Mechanisms of forgetting in short term memory. Cognitive Psychology. 1971, 2, 185-195.</ref> <ref name="keveight> Reitman J. S. Without surreptitious rehearsal, information in short term memory decays. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour. 1974, 13, 365-377.</ref> tried reviving the decay theory by accounting for certain confounds criticized by Keppel and Underwood. Roediger quickly found problems with these studies and their methods <ref name="kevnine"> Roediger HL, Knight JL, Kantowitz BH. 1977. Inferring decay in short-term-memory—the issue of capacity. Mem. Cogn. 5(2):167–76.</ref>. Harris made an attempt to make a case for decay theory by using tones instead of word lists and his results are congruent making a case for decay theory <ref name="kevten"> Harris, D. J., Pitch Discrimination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Vol 24,1952, 750-755.</ref>. In addition, McKone used implicit memory tasks as opposed to explicit tasks to address the confound problems. They provided evidence for decay theory, however, the results also interacted with interference effects <ref name"kevelev"> McKone E. 1995. Short-term implicit memory for words and non-words. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 21(5):1108–26.</ref> <ref name="kevtwel"> McKone E. 1998. The decay of short-term implicit memory: unpacking lag. Mem. Cogn. 26(6):1173–86.</ref>. One of the biggest criticisms of decay theory is that it can’t be explained as a mechanism and that is the direction that the research is headed.
==Inconsistencies==
[[Image:decaycorrect.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Graph of recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if Decay Theory accounts for forgetting.|Recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if decay theory accounts for forgetting.]]
Researchers disagree about whether memories fade as a function of the mere passage of time (as in decay theory) or as a function of interfering succeeding events (as in [[interference theory]])1. Often, evidence tends to favour interference related decay over temporal decay 2, yet this varies depending on the specific memory system taken into account.▼
[[Image:interferencecorrect.jpg|thumb|right|alt=Graph of recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if Interference Theory accounts for forgetting.|Recall probability over number of intervening items, accounting for time, if ''[[interference theory]]'' accounts for forgetting.]]
▲Researchers disagree about whether memories fade as a function of the mere passage of time (as in decay theory) or as a function of interfering succeeding events (as in [[interference theory]])
===Short-Term Memory===
Within the [[short-term memory]] system, evidence favours an interference theory of forgetting, based on various researchers’ manipulation of the amount of time between a participant’s retention and recall stages finding little to no effect on how many items they are able to
===Working Memory===
Both theories are equally argued in [[working memory]]. One situation in which this shows considerable debate is within the [[memory span|complex-span task]] of working memory, whereas a complex task is alternated with the encoding of to-be-remembered
===System Interaction===
These inconsistencies may be found due to the difficulty with conducting experiments that focus solely on the passage of time as a cause of decay, ruling out alternative
==Future Directions of Decay Theory==
Revisions in Decay Theory are being made in research today. The theory is simple and intuitive, but also problematic. Decay theory has long been rejected as a mechanism of long term forgetting <ref name="kevthree" />. Now, its place in short term forgetting is being questioned. The simplicity of the theory works against it in that supporting evidence always leaves room for alternative explanations. Researchers have had much difficulty creating experiments that can pinpoint decay as a definitive mechanism of forgetting. Current studies have always been limited in their abilities to establish decay due to confounding evidence such as attention effects or the operation of interference.<ref name="emtwo" />
===Hybrid Theories===
The future of decay theory, according to Nairne (2002), should be the development of hybrid theories that incorporate elements of [[Baddeley's model of working memory|the standard model]] while also assuming that retrieval cues play an important role in short term memory. <ref> Nairne, J.S. (2002) Remembering Over the Short Term: The Case Against the Standard Model [Electronic Version]. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, pp. 53-81. Retrieved March 2, 2010</ref> By broadening the view of this theory, it will become possible to account for the inconsistencies and problems that have been found with decay to date.
===Neuronal Evidence===
Another direction of future research is to tie decay theory to sound neurological evidence. As most current evidence for decay leaves room for alternate explanations, studies indicating a neural basis for the idea of decay will give the theory new solid support. Jonides et al. (2007) found neural evidence for decay in tests demonstrating a general decline in activation in posterior regions over a delay period. <ref name="jonref"> Jonides, J., Lewis, R.L., Nee, D.E., Lustig, C.A., Berman, M.G., & Moore, K.S. (2007) The Mind and Brain of Short Term Memory [Electronic Version]. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, pp. 193-224. Retrieved March 2, 2010</ref> Though this decline was not found to be strongly related to performance, this evidence is a starting point in making these connections between decay and neural imaging.
A model proposed to support decay with neurological evidence places importance on the firing patterns of neurons over time.<ref name="jonref" />The neuronal firing patterns that make up the target representation fall out of synchrony over time unless they are reset. The process of resetting the firing patterns can be looked at as rehearsal, and in absence of rehearsal, forgetting occurs. This proposed model needs to be tested further to gain support, and bring firm neurological evidence to the decay theory.<ref name="jonref" />
==Ways to Improve Memory==
There are several methods that can be employed to improve one’s memory skills. Recall that the decay theory states that as time passes with a memory trace not being used, it becomes increasingly difficult for that pattern of neural activity to become reactivated, or in other words to retrieve that memory.<ref
In remembering new information,
# Recall using cues. Connecting a piece of unfamiliar information with, say, a visual cue can help in remembering that piece of information much more easily.<ref
# Use the
# Teach it. This is another way to speed up the process of learning new information.<ref
# Use [[mnemonic
==References==
{{reflist}}
| |||