Some theorists suggests that there are three stores of memory: sensory memory, long-term memory LTM , and short-term memory STM. Overall, the mechanisms of memory are not completely understood. However, there are many theories concerning memory retrieval. There are two main types of memory retrieval: recall and recognition. In recall, the information must be retrieved from memories. In recognition, the presentation of a familiar outside stimulus provides a cue that the information has been seen before.
A cue might be an object or a scene—any stimulus that reminds a person of something related. Recall may be assisted when retrieval cues are presented that enable the subject to quickly access the information in memory. Memory retrieval can occur in several different ways, and there are many things that can affect it, such as how long it has been since the last time you retrieved the memory, what other information you have learned in the meantime, and many other variables.
For example, the spacing effect allows a person to remember something they have studied many times spaced over a longer period of time rather than all at once. The testing effect shows that practicing retrieval of a concept can increase the chance of remembering it. Some effects relate specifically to certain types of recall. There are three main types of recall studied in psychology: serial recall, free recall, and cued recall.
People tend to recall items or events in the order in which they occurred. This is called serial recall and can be used to help cue memories. By thinking about a string of events or even words, it is possible to use a previous memory to cue the next item in the series. Serial recall helps a person to remember the order of events in his or her life.
These memories appear to exist on a continuum on which more recent events are more easily recalled. When recalling serial items presented as a list a common occurrence in memory studies , two effects tend to surface: the primacy effect and the recency effect. The primacy effect occurs when a participant remembers words from the beginning of a list better than the words from the middle or end.
The theory behind this is that the participant has had more time to rehearse these words in working memory. The concept of association is tremendously important in psychology: it forms the basis of learning and problem solving.
It allows us to have a relevant conversation and it helps us discover new things. It is the link between the present the current context in which we are and our previous experience and history. But how does context affect the retrieval of information from memory? Our seminar The Human Mind and Usability discusses the concepts of memory and activation in more detail. The big difference between recognition and recall is the amount of cues that can help the memory retrieval; recall involves fewer cues than recognition.
If instead I asked you Who wrote Moby Dick? In our everyday life, we often use a combination of recognition and recall to help us retrieve information from memory. Often we start with a piece of information that is easier to recall to narrow down our choices, then we go through the resulting choices one by one and recognize the relevant one. This transforms your task into one of scanning the SERP search engine results page and relying on recognition to pick out the desired website from among the other options listed.
In fact, a paper by Eytan Adar, Jaime Teevan, and Susan Dumais showed that this method of retracing the path to a previous page is the preferred method for revisiting content on the web.
Search does require users to generate query terms from scratch — which most people are bad at — but from then on users are able to rely on recognition while using the search results. This is one of the reasons search engines have become such an essential tool for using the web.
Search suggestions are a major advance in search usability because they partly transform the query generation task from one of recall to one of recognition. The classic example of recall in an interface is login.
When you log in to a site, you have to remember both a username or email and a password. You receive very few cues to help you with that memory retrieval: usually, just the site itself. Some people make it easier for themselves by using the same credentials everywhere on the web. Others create a password that is related to the site e. And many others just keep their passwords somewhere on their computer or on a piece of paper. A menu system is the most classic example of a recognition-based user interface: the computer shows you the available commands, and you recognize the one you want.
Before the advent of graphical user interfaces you would have had to recall the name of this rarely used formatting feature. A difficult and error-prone task. Now, however, you look at the menu of formatting options and easily recognize the term strikethrough as being the one you want. How do you promote recognition? By making information and interface functions visible and easily accessible.
You can make both the content and the interface easy to remember; both can benefit from designing for recognition rather than recall. Providing access to the pages recently visited and searches performed in the near past can help users resume tasks that they left incomplete and that may have a hard time recalling. The decision stage of recall is assumed to involve the same processes as are involved in recognition. Since this model assumes that recall consists of two stages retrieval and search and recognition only one search , it also assumes that the two processes are different.
The dual process hypothesis assumes that recognition is a subprocess of recall. This implies that if an item can be recalled, it should also be recognizable and that the total number of recognized items should always be at least as much as the total number recalled. Tulving and Thompson and Wiseman and Tulving have provided data that violate both these implications. The phenomenon has been called "recognition-failure of recallable words.
Later two stage theories, such as those of Anderson and Bower and Kintsch called "modified dual process theories" , are able to account for recognition failure of recallable words. According to the modified dual process view, the subject encodes propositions about the list words at the time of the encoding of items.
These propositions are of the form, " is on the list. Recognition testing may superficially seem the same as this decision process, but, in theory, it has its own search component. In recognition, the subject is given a potential list word, which sends the subject to a location in memory. At that point, propositions connected to that location are searched. The subject may or may not find the critical proposition created during the initial encoding.
The modified dual-process model suggests that recognition testing, where a to-be-remembered item is actually presented, does not guarantee that the subject will find the appropriate location in memory for that item.
Instead, there may still have to be a search for a key proposition about the item Klatzky Thus the modified dual process model assumes the importance of context in which encoding takes place and it also assumes existence of retrieval processes in recognition. Tulving has presented an alternative view episodic ecphory which is, in some respects, similar to two stage theories of recognition and recall.
Recognition and recall differ only with respect to the exact nature of the retrieval information available to the rememberer. In recognition, retrieval information is presented by a literal copy of the event or item to be remembered; in recall, the retrieval information is contained in cues other than copy cues.
In other respects the process of utilization of trace information in the act of retrieval is thought to be essentially the same for recall and recognition" Tulving , p. Notice that there are two important sources of information here - memory trace and ecphoric information. Tulving defines episodic trace as the perception and encoding of a unique event, such as the occurrence of a word in a list.
This results in the creation of a unique trace in the episodic memory system. The properties of the episodic trace includes not only the perceptible properties of the unique event and its semantic meaning, but also the context in which it occurs and the specific encoding operations performed on the input into the system. Ecphoric information refers to specific and temporal cues manipulated in the experiment. Recall and recognition are different inasmuch as the retrieval information that is present at the time of recall is different from that at the time of recognition.
Figure 1 presents a description of the episodic ecphoric view. The subject perceives the stimulus event E1 and it is encoded into a memory trace TE. This memory trace may be recoded into trace TR as a result of additional input E2 into the memory system. When the recoded trace TR is contacted, activated, matched or complemented by the information provided by the retrieval query together with one or more specific cues Q , stored information is retrieved; this results in conscious memory.
At this point, if conditions warrant it, the conscious contents of the memory are overtly reported R. It seems that as long as modified dual process theories have accepted the involvement of retrieval processes in recognition, the notion of two stages in recall is no longer useful. Hence this paper uses the episodic ecphory view. In examining prior work in this area, one finds a mix of findings.
In a study by Dallett, et al. The subjects were tested for their recognition of the pictures. One group of subjects was given the title of the picture and requested to recall it before recognition, while the other group was tested for recognition alone. Both immediate and one week delayed retention intervals were used. Results showed that giving the title of the picture and requesting recall before recognition testing made no difference in recognition accuracy.
Dallett, et a. Is explanation of these results was that "prior recall either does not affect recognition, or helps and hinders it to an equal degree. Subjects were shown 10 lists of words. Each list was either followed by an immediate free recall test or was not tested. Half the subjects in each condition received a final free recall test on the words from all 10 lists; the other half received a three-alternative forced choice recognition test.
Initial testing facilitated retrieval on the final recall test but had no overall effect on recognition performance. The results were explained by Darley and Murdock in terms of information availability vs. The probability that an item is retrieved from memory can be considered to be a function of both the availability of the item's trace in memory storage and the accessibility of that trace.
Since in the recognition test the item is physically present the ultimate retrieval cue , its memory trace is felt to be more accessible. If the prior recall test affects recognition it would have an effect on availability.
Since recognition was not affected, it was concluded that availability or trace storage of an item's memory trace is not affected by prior recall test. However, since prior recall does facilitate subsequent recall, it would imply that prior testing aids later retrieval by increasing accessibility of items stored in memory.
Lockhart has shown a facilitation effect of prior recall on the recognition of the last few items of a word list. However, he concludes that effect of recall on subsequent recognition frequently will be concealed because recallable items will usually be recognized even without the aid of the recall test. Thus, he made a distinction between effect of recall on recognition vs. Rabinowitz, et al. Postman, et al. Subjects in group l were tested for recognition followed by a 10 minute recall test.
For group 2 the order of tests was reversed, i. Prior recognition facilitated recall but prior recall depressed recognition. The explanation offered for lower recognition scores after 10 minutes of recall testing was that weak traces became weaker during the 10 minute delay. Belbin exposed a group of 64 subjects to a poster on a blank wall. One half of the subjects received a recall test "prompted by standardized questions".
The other half engaged in an unrelated activity following the viewing and took the recognition test after the same lapse of time. Prior recall had a depressing effect on recognition. Belbin explained this depression in recognition scores on the basis of errors in the recall test. On the recognition test the absence of some erroneously recalled detail or the presence of some non-recalled detail seemed to determine the recall groups' group 1 rejection of the pictures as being the same.
Results suggested that a depressing effect was present when recognition followed immediately after recall but the effect upon delayed recognition was that of facilitation. The studies reviewed above have given- different reasons for the results obtained. Some have offered very superficial explanations Dallett, et al.
However, none of these studies has offered any satisfactory explanation for the effects obtained on the basis of any theoretical model of recall and recognition. In the following section a hypothesis is developed concerning effect of prior recall on recognition based on Tulving's Episodic Ecphory View. Tulving's Episodic Ecphory View suggests that recognition and recall differ only with respect to the exact nature of the retrieval information available to the rememberer.
The probability of recollection depends on the amount of overlapping information between episodic trace and ecphoric cues. At the time of the recall, the subject has a memory trace, TR, of the unique event to be recalled.
0コメント