Results with 14 undergraduate Ss are almost identical to those of Bransford and Franks: Ss frequently reported recognizing new sentences derived from the. Citation, Bransford, J.D. and Franks, J.J., The Abstraction of Linguistic Ideas. Cognitive Psychology 2, (). (pdf). Summary of Experiment. Replicated J. D. Bransford and J. J. Franks’s (see record ) 2nd experiment in as great a detail as the description of the original procedure would .
|Published (Last):||6 January 2009|
|PDF File Size:||1.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.37 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
These our ONE proposition statements.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
The Integrative Memory Tendency: Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences. Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of English sentences.
They identified the long sentences composed of the short sentences they had seen more readily than the short sentences themselves.
Again, this is on more instance where we see “memory for meaning”, rather than verbatim recall of what was previously presented. Integration of linguistic materials. Subjects are asked to identify the briefly presented word.
In addition to rating the ftanks as new or old, they also assigned confidence values which stated how sure the subject was of their response. Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. A second piece of evidence for semantic integration is that subjects were very good at responding “NEW” to sentences which combined ideas across groupings from the first list. They constructed a clever experiment which showed how we link together related ideas into an integrated whole.
Look Specifically at items 1,4,6,12, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,5, Each word is flashed on computer screen for 35 ms. This suggests that participants automatically integrate concepts they see into schemas that integrate the concepts.
Now after they read the words and feanks the questions, the subjects are randomly split into two groups. Subjects were much more likely to “false alarm” or false positive to 3 and 4 propositional sentences. Alphabetical List Categorical List Memory: Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Then they were brransford to identify which of the sentences they had seen before.
The implicit memory test was NOT affected by the type of question which was paired with the word. Even though there is considerable evidence that semantic and episodic memories become combined during normal comprehension, there is also evidence supporting the idea that these are separate memory systems.
The participants were given a set of short sentences that expressed simple concepts. Second, PET scan results show different patterns of activation dependent upon whether subject is accessing a semantic or an episodic memory.
The psychological reality of phrase-structure rules. Results indicate that during an acquisition phase of the experiments, Ss frannks integrate the information expressed by a number of non-consecutively experienced but semantically related sentences into wholistic, semantic bransfrd, where these ideas encompass more franms than any acquisition sentence contained.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,2, Alphabetical List Categorical List. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,4, Ss’ subsequent attempts to recognize those exact sentences heard during acquisition are shown to be a function of the complete ideas acquired.
The phenomenon of “idea acquisition and retention” is demonstrated experimentally and contrasted with an “individual sentence memory” point of view. After they heard and answered 24 sentences, there was a five minute delay, and subjects were then presented with a second list of sentences.
Perception and Psychophysics,2, Semantic Memory seems to be unaffected, while episodic memory is considerably disrupted, or not available for access. Since the complete integration of the related sentences resulted in a four branstord structure, they falsely believed the 4 proposition statements presented during the testing phase had indeed come from the original list, because that combined proposition is consistent with their internal mental representation of those related, but unconnected sentences.
The higher the propositional complexity, the more confident fanks subjects were that they had heard the sentence in List 1. Found evidence for depth of processing effects with Implicit memory tests.
What was your average CR given for these items? Shows evidence that learning takes frabks when the subject is not aware their memory is going to be tested.
This is a little bizarre that a consciously chosen encoding strategy can affect the unconscious 19771 of Implicit memory tests.
Ss become less confident of having heard particular sentences as a function of the degree to which a sentence fails to exhaust all the semantic relations characteristic of a complete idea.
STEP: Scripts: Memory: Bransford and Franks
Propositional complexity in the first list varied from 1 to 3. What was your average CR confidence rating given to these items? Thus, Ss are most confident of “recognizing” sentences expressing all the semantic relations characteristic of a complete idea, in spite of the fact ffranks such sentences expressed more information than was communicated by any single sentence on the acquisition list.
Neurological Evidence supporting multiple long term memory systems.
Cognitive Psychology 2 Interlingual facilitation of short-term memory.