lab report

Introduction
Memory is defined as the faculty by which the mind stores and remembers information(Eysenck & keane, 2010).
Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) (Cowan, Rouder, & Stadler, 2000), came up with a model of sensory memory which stated not everything we perceive we process. Craik and Tulving (1975) developed an opposing theory in which they proposed the levels of processing theory, stating its not the processing but the type of quality of the processing that is performed, that determines the retention.
The aims of this study were to empirically replicate and understand Craik and Tulving’s levels of processing theory and how it influences memory.
It was hypothesized as the level of processing increases, hit (yes responses) proportion will also increase. Also hypothesized that if in the study phase required a yes response, it would be more likely remembered.

Method
Participants
52 participants enrolled in Cognitive psychology PSYC2300 at the University of Newcastle.
Design and stimuli
The 3 x2 within participant design experiment consisted of two phases. The first phase was a study phase (60 trials) in which participants were asked to process words (5-7 letters in length) to different depths by answering (yes/ no) to various questions about the words (typeface (upper/lower), phonemics and meaning), all presented for 200ms.
The second phase was a surprised memory phase (120 trials) that measured the proportion of yes responses between 60 ‘old’ words and the 60 ‘new’ words. ‘Old’ words referring to words seen before (first phase) and ‘new’ referring to words that haven’t been seen. The false alarm rate was the number of times the word was called ‘old’ when it was actually ‘new’.
Procedure
Participants completed a practice trial (60trials) on the university computer, which was identical to the study phase. In the memory phase when participants saw ‘old’ words, being the targets, they pressed (/) and ‘new’ words (z). Each word was presented until participant made a response. Counterbalancing between 1-6 groups was used as everyone saw the same set of words but they were balanced across word/type responses.

Results
The results, figure 1, show that words that responded with a yes in the study phase were better remembered in the memory test compared to the no responses, which only occurred at deeper levels of processing (phonological and meaning). As levels of processing increased the difference between yes and no also increased.

Discussion
The results support the hypothesis that as the depth of processing increases, hit proportion also increases and that if in the study phase, required a yes response, it would be more likely remembered as deeper encodings took longer to process and are associated with higher levels of retention.
These results supported Craik and Tulving’s (1975) Level of processing theory that the depth of processing of a stimulus affects it memorability.
To improve future research would be to add positive and negative trials as they only account for yes responses and higher false alarm rates need to be analyzed as it could contribute to the accuracy.
Overall this experiment will assist in information about memory retrieval, which can be used in everyday life.

References

Cowan, N., Rouder, j., & Stadler, M. A. (2000). On human memory:Evolution, progree and reflections. American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 639.
Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the Retention of words in Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental psychology, 104, 268-294.
Eysenck, M. W., & keane, M. T. (2010). Cogntive psychology. USA and Canada: Psychology Press.

References: Cowan, N., Rouder, j., & Stadler, M. A. (2000). On human memory:Evolution, progree and reflections. American Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 639. Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the Retention of words in Episodic memory. Journal of Experimental psychology, 104, 268-294. Eysenck, M. W., & keane, M. T. (2010). Cogntive psychology. USA and Canada: Psychology Press.