Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
GoingBatty (talk | contribs) m General fixes & manual cleanup |
||
| (138 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Psychological model of memory}}
The '''levels of processing 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 deeper levels of processing produce more elaborate and stronger [[memory]] than more shallow levels of processing. 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"/> There are three levels of processing in this model. Structural or visual processing involves remembering only the physical quality of the word (e.g. how the word is spelled and how letters look). Phonemic processing includes remembering the word by the way it sounds (e.g. the word tall rhymes with fall). Lastly, in semantic processing, individuals encode the meaning of the word with another word that is similar or has similar meaning. 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) does not enhance long-term memory.<ref>{{cite book|author=Eysenck, M.|year=2006|chapter=Learning and Long-term memory|title=Fundamentals of cognition|edition=Second|___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 Experimental Psychology: General|volume=104|issue=3|pages=268|doi=10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268}}</ref>
==Modifiers==
[[Familiarity heuristic|Familiarity]], [[transfer-appropriate processing]], the [[self-reference effect]], and the explicit nature of a stimulus modify the levels-of-processing effect by manipulating mental processing depth factors.
===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
===Specificity of processing===
Specificity of processing describes the increased recall value of a stimulus when presented in the method with which it was
===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
| 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
"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====
We especially remember information if we relate it to ourselves.
Damage to the hippocampus produces an inability to form or retrieve new long-term memories, but the ability to maintain and reproduce a small subset of information over the short term is typically preserved.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Baddeley | first1 = A. | last2 = Warrington | first2 = E. | year = 1970 | title = Amnesia and the distinction between long- and short-term memory | journal = Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior | volume = 9 | issue = 2| pages = 176–189 | doi = 10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80048-2 }}</ref>
==Sensory modes ==
Different sensory modes, by their nature, involve different depths of processing, generally producing higher recall value in certain senses than others. However, there is significant room for the modifiers mentioned earlier to affect levels-of-processing to be activated within each sensory mode.
===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
===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
| pmid = 9679776 | doi-access = free | hdl = 21.11116/0000-0001-A1F6-3 | hdl-access = free }}</ref>
===Touch===
[[Touch|Tactile]] memory representations are similar in nature to visual representations, although there is not enough data to reliably compare the strength of the two kinds of stimuli. One study suggests that there is a difference in mental processing level due to innate differences between visual and tactile stimuli representations
|doi=10.3758/BF03214345
|volume=4
|issue=4
|pages=535–540
|last1=Srinivas K
|first1=Kavitha
|author2=Greene AJ
|author3=Easton RD
|title=Visual and tactile memory for 2-D patterns: Effects of changes in size and lef-right orientation
|journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|year=1997
|doi-access=free
}}</ref> In this study, subjects were presented with an object in both visual and tactile form (a subject is shown a sphere but cannot touch it, and later is given a similar sphere to only hold and not view). Subjects had more trouble identifying size difference in visual fields than using tactile feedback. A suggestion for the lower level of size processing in visual fields is that it results from the high variance in viewed object size due to perspective and distance.
===Smell===
[[Odor]] memory is weaker than visual memory, achieving a successful identification rate of only 70-80% of visual memory.<ref>{{Cite journal | issn = 0033-2909 | volume = 109 | issue = 2 | pages = 242–51 | last =
==Neural
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
| 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
Levels-of-processing effects interact in various ways with [[mental disorders]]. In particular, levels-of-processing effects appear to be strengthened in patients with [[Memory and aging|age-related memory degradation]], selectively strengthened in [[panic disorder]] patients, unaffected in [[Alzheimer's disease]] patients, and reversed in [[autistic]] patients.
===Age-
{{main|Memory and aging}}
Memory encoding strength derived from higher levels-of-processing appears to be conserved despite other losses in memory function with age. Several studies show that, in older individuals, the ability to process semantically in contrast with non-semantically is improved by this disparity. Neural imaging studies show decreased [[Prefrontal cortex|left-prefrontal cortex]] activity when words and images are presented to older subjects than with younger subjects, but roughly equal activity when assessing semantic connections.<ref>{{Cite journal | volume = 10 | issue = 2 | pages = 224–231 | last = Grady | first = CL |author2=Craik FIM | title = Changes in memory processing with age | journal = Current Opinion in Neurobiology |year = 2000 | doi = 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00073-8 | pmid = 10753795 | s2cid = 9567476 }}</ref>
===Panic
Panic disorders appear to modify levels-of-processing by increasing ability to [[Recollection|recall]] words with
===
Modern studies show an increased effect of levels-of-processing in Alzheimer patients. Specifically, there is a significantly higher recall value for semantically encoded stimuli over physically encoded stimuli. In one such experiment, subjects maintained a higher recall value in words chosen by meaning over words selected by numerical order.<ref>{{Cite journal| volume = 6| issue = 8| pages = 583–588| last =
===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 =
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{memory}}
[[Category:Memory]]
[[Category:Memory biases]]
| |||