9149064
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Ella Middlemiss, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Ella Middlemiss
vor mehr als 7 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Aim | To investigate the interaction between episodic and prior knowledge in naturalistic environments - they wanted to see how prior knowledge was used to reconstruct memory for photographs of normal everyday settings e.g. hotel. |
| Ppts | recruited using a random sample from an experimental ppt pool at the University of California, Irvine |
| Part 1 of prior testing | 22 ppts list objects they would expect to find in 5 naturalistic scenes - enter responses into computer for atleast 1 min per scene |
| What were the 5 scenes? | hotel urban kitchen dining office |
| Why is it important to assess prior knowledge? | so researchers know what people would expect to find in naturalistic scenes (control group) |
| Part 2 of prior testing | A separate group of 25 ppts shown 25 images of the 5 scenes - asked to name all the objects they could see |
| Why is part 2 important? | a measure of perception |
| What was done with the results of prior testing? | Objects placed into high frequency and low frequency (most and least recalled). Expectations of high frequency objects tended to be iconic objects e.g. TV in a hotel room. |
| Ppts for main experiment? | 49 ppts who didn't do prior testing, selected from same experimental pool |
| How were the images for the main experiment chosen? | 10 pics from prior testing. 2 from each scene that had elicited the most objects named in the perception test. Ppts only viewed 1 images of each scene to avoid carry-over effects. |
| Procedure of main experiment | Ppts shown the 5 images for either 2 seconds or 10 seconds, to control for exposure duration. 4 possible time trial orderings and ppts were randomly allocated to one. Free recall in their own time. |
| Which memory does the 2 second condition rely on? | Prior knowledge/ semantic |
| Which memory does the 10 second condition rely on? | episodic |
| If there is recall of missing objects, which memory is being used? | semantic/ prior knowledge |
| If there is correct recall of inconsistent objects, which memory is being used? | episodic |
| How did they look at the effect of prior knowledge on the results? | Compared the number of objects guessed in expectations test to those actually recalled in 2 experimental conditions (2 and 10 seconds) |
| What was the result from the prior testing expectation test? | Accuracy of object guesses was over 55% from semantic memory |
| What percentage was the actual recall in both experimental conditions? | over 80% |
| Result from 10 second condition | 9 objects recalled on average |
| Results from 2 second condition | 7 objects recalled on average |
| What do these results suggest? | episodic memory played a significant role in recall |
| What percentage was the incorrect recall of high frequency objects? | 9% |
| What percentage was the incorrect recall of low frequency objects. | 18% |
| What does this suggest? | with naturalistic/ unmanipulated scenes, memory is accurate. |
| In unnatural scenes, what did the error rate increase to? | 19% |
| Conclusions (naturalistic, unmanipulated scenes) | With naturalistic, unmanipulated scenes, prior knowledge drawn from semantic memory can contribute to accurate recall in memory tasks. This is accurate due to high frequency objects that are present. We use general knowledge as a good guess of objects expected to be there. This frees up cognitive resources to be better spent focusing on novel and unexpected objects. Recall of high and low frequency objects is benefitted using a more ecologically valid approach. |
| Conclusions (unnatural with low frequency objects) | Prior knowledge tends to be unrepresentative of everyday event recall; removing high frequency objects induces false memory - makes memory seem unreliable. |
| Strengths | No gender bias. Lab experiment with highly controlled, standardised procedure - high internal validity. Different time conditions for each ppt removes bias. Application - help with EWT Ethical No order effects - individual differences. |
| Weaknesses | Low population validity - age bias (university students), culture bias (California), small sample. Low ecological validity - despite naturalistic scenes, still artificial. Low mundane realism - artificial task. Demand characteristics. Individual differences. Ethics - embarrasment. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.