1 Nandini Pandey

Importance of memory:
Perhaps the best way to appreciate the importance of memory is to consider what it would be like
to live without it, or rather without them, as memory is not a single organ like the heart or liver,
but an alliance of systems that work together, allowing us to learn from the past and predict the
future.
In recent years we have learned a great deal from the study of memory impairment following brain
damage. Almost any damage to the brain will lead to some slowing in learning and some
impairment in the speed with which we access old memories. Certain areas of the brain, however,
are particularly crucial for memory. Serious damage to these can lead to dense amnesia, which can
be a crippling handicap.
- Relationship maintenance
- Examinations
- Criminal justice system aka eyewitness memory
In some situations, not only do we need to keep certain bits of information accessible in mind, but
also, we need to perform cognitive operations on them, mulling them over, manipulating or
transforming them. These short-term mental storage and manipulation operations are collectively
called working memory. Think of working memory as involving a mental blackboard—that is, as
a workspace that provides a temporary holding store so that relevant information is highly
accessible and available for inspection and computation. When cognitive tasks are accomplished,
the information can be easily erased, and the process can begin again with other information.
A) MODELS OF MEMORY
I) WILLAIM JAMES, 1890s
The first discussion of a distinction between short-term and long-term storage systems was put
forth by the pioneering American psychologist William James in the late nineteenth century. James
called these two forms of memory primary memory and secondary memory, using these terms to
indicate the degree of the relationship of the stored information to consciousness (James, 1890).
In James’s view, primary memory is the initial repository in which information can be stored and
made available to conscious inspection, attention, and introspection. In this way, such information
would be continually accessible.
He contrasted primary memory with a long-term storage system, or secondary memory, from
which information cannot be retrieved without initiating an active cognitive process. The link
between working memory and consciousness that James sought to describe remains a central part
of most current thinking; the question of whether or not we are conscious of the entire contents of
working memory is still open to debate. Some current models suggest that only a subset of working
memory is consciously experienced (Cowan, 1995).
Revolutions(?) and upgrades(?) in research????
2 Nandini Pandey

Despite James’s early work regarding the system for short-term information storage, there were
no experimental studies of the characteristics of this system until the 1950s.
- Hebb (1949) differentiated b/w LTM and STM in a physiological way. With the concept
of cell assembly, he concluded that neurons organise themselves in memory circuits based
on the levels of arousal/stimulation coming from the env.
But the circuit dissolves after a short duration.
However, it can become durable if stimulation persists.
Hence, STM is only till circuits are active, and durable memory is in LTM.

- George Miller, an early and influential cognitive theorist, provided detailed evidence that
the capacity for short-term information storage is limited. Miller suggested that people can
keep only about seven items active in short-term storage, and that this limitation influences
performance on a wide range of mental tasks. Tests of short-term memorization, such as
repeating a series of digits, showed that regardless of how long the series is, correct recall
of digits appears to plateau at about seven items.
Miller made a further, and critical, point: that although there is a limitation on the number
of items that can be simultaneously held in short-term storage, the definition of an “item”
is highly flexible, and subject to manipulation. Specifically, Miller (1956) suggested that
single items can be grouped into higher level units of organization he called chunks. Thus,
three single digits could be chunked together into one three-digit unit: 3 1 4 becomes 314.
Miller’s (1956) work drew attention to the concept of short-term storage and its functional
characteristics. As a result, a common view emerged that short-term storage was
structurally and functionally distinct from long-term storage and could be independently
studied. In particular, it seemed that short-term memory, as this capacity began to be called,
could be uniquely defined in terms of its short duration and high level of accessibility.

- A central idea regarding short-term memory was that information would be available only
for a very brief period if it were not rehearsed. An experimental technique for studying
short-term memory called the Brown-Peterson task was developed to test that idea (Brown,
1958; Peterson & Peterson, 1959). Participants are typically given a string of three
consonants to memorize and then prevented from engaging in active rehearsal (that is, from
saying the consonants to themselves), perhaps by being asked to count from 100 backward
by 3s. After variously set delays, participants would be asked to recall the string. Measuring
recall accuracy in relation to the delay interval showed the time course of forgetting. After
a delay as short as 6 seconds, recall accuracy declined to about 50 percent, and by about
18 seconds recall was close to zero.
- These findings suggested the shortness of short-term storage. (About this time
investigations were also being conducted on an even briefer form of storage—termed
sensory memory—that serves to keep a perceptual representation of a stimulus persisting
for a few hundred milliseconds after the sensory input is gone; Sperling, 1960.)
3 Nandini Pandey

- Ebbinghaus did the same but with longer items with longer durations.

II) ATKINSON AND SHIFFRIN

The notion that short-term and long-term memory are distinct modes of storing information was
further articulated in the model proposed by Richard Atkinson and Richard Shiffrin (Atkinson &
Shiffrin, 1968). In this model, short-term memory serves as the gateway by which information can
gain access to long-term memory. The function of short-term memory is to provide a means of
controlling and enhancing, via rehearsal and coding strategies (such as chunking), the information
that makes it into long-term memory.

This model, also termed the modal model, suggests that the flow of information from sensory input
to long-term memory must first pass-through short-term memory. Information from the
environment is registered by sensory receptors—visual, auditory, haptic (relating to touch), and
others—and passed to short-term memory. Here it is rehearsed or otherwise manipulated before
entering long-term memory; here also are strategies for retrieving information from long-term
memory.
The three systems are differentiated on the basis of
- Duration
- Capacity
- Memory trace (preferred way of encoding)
- Forgetting
In sensory memory, more is seen than remembered (since capacity of both sensory and LTM is
unlimited).
Yet today the modal model does not have the influence it once had, and most psychologists favor
a different conceptualization of short-term storage, one that is not exclusively focused on its
relationship to long-term storage and includes a more dynamic role than storage alone. This shift
was reflected in the increasing use of the term “working memory” which better captures the notion
4 Nandini Pandey

that a temporary storage system might provide a useful workplace in which to engage in complex
cognitive activities.
- For one thing, the Atkinson-Shiffrin model is essentially sequential: information passes
through short-term memory before entering long-term memory. But neuropsychological
data were showing that this assumption is not correct. Some patients with brain damage
(typically to the parietal lobe) who showed drastic impairments in short-term memory
nevertheless were able to store new information in long-term memory in a fashion
comparable to that of neurologically healthy people (Shallice & Warrington, 1970).

III) CRAIK AND LOCKHART

A radical departure from the three-stores model of memory is the levelsof-processing framework,
which postulates that memory does not comprise three or even any specific number of separate
stores, but rather varies along a continuous dimension in terms of depth of encoding (Craik &
Lockhart, 1972, 2008).
In other words, there are theoretically an infinite number of levels of processing (LOP) at which
items can be encoded through elaboration—or successively deeper understanding of material to
be learned. There are no distinct boundaries between one level and the next. The emphasis in this
model is on processing as the key to storage. The level at which information is stored will depend,
in large part, on how it is encoded. Moreover, the deeper the level of processing, the higher, in
general, is the probability that an item may be retrieved (Craik & Brown, 2000).
A set of experiments seems to support the LOP view (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Participants
received a list of words. A question preceded each word. Questions were varied to encourage item
elaboration on three different levels of processing. In progressive order of depth, they were
physical, phonological, and semantic. Samples of the words and the questions are shown in Table
5.2. The results of the research were clear: The deeper the level of processing encouraged by the
question, the higher the level of recall achieved. Similar results emerged independently in Russia
(Zinchenko, 1962, 1981).
A level-of-processing (or depth-of-processing) benefit can be seen for a variety of populations,
including in people with schizophrenia. People suffering from schizophrenia often suffer from
memory impairments because they do not process words semantically. Deeper processing helps
them improve their memory (Ragland et al., 2003).
An even more powerful inducement to recall has been termed the self-reference effect (Rogers,
Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977). In the self-reference effect, participants show very high levels of recall
when asked to relate words meaningfully to the participants by determining whether the words
describe them. Even the words that participants assess as not describing themselves are recalled at
high levels. This high recall is a result of considering whether the words do or do not describe the
5 Nandini Pandey

participants. However, the highest levels of recall occur with words that people consider self-
descriptive.
Some researchers suggest that the self-reference effect is distinctive, but others suggest that it is
explained easily in terms of the LOP framework or other ordinary memory processes (e.g., Mills,
1983). Specifically, each of us has a very elaborate self-schema. This self-schema is an organized
system of internal cues regarding our attributes, our personal experiences, and ourselves. Thus, we
can richly and elaborately encode information related to ourselves much more so than information
about other topics (Bellezza, 1984, 1992).
Criticisms:
- For one thing, some researchers suggest that the particular levels may involve a circular
definition. On this view, the levels are defined as deeper because the information is retained
better. But the information is viewed as being retained better because the levels are deeper.
- In addition, some researchers noted some paradoxes in retention. For example, under some
circumstances, strategies that use rhymes have produced better retention than those using
just semantic rehearsal. That means, focusing on superficial sounds and not underlying
meanings can result in better retention than focusing on repetition of underlying meanings.
In light of these criticisms and some contrary findings, the LOP model has been revised. The
sequence of the levels of encoding may not be as important as was thought before. Two other
variables may be of more importance: the way people process (elaborate) the encoding of an item
(e.g., phonological or semantic), and the way the item is retrieved later on. The better the match
between the type of elaboration of the encoding and the type of task required for retrieval, the
better the retrieval results (Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977).
IV) BADDELEY
The dynamic concept of “working memory”—as opposed to the passive nature of a simple
information store—is at the heart of the Baddeley-Hitch model, a system that consists of two short-
term stores and a control system. Three important characteristics differentiate this model from the
Atkinson-Shiffrin model.
- the function of short-term storage in the Baddeley-Hitch model is not primarily as a way
station for information to reside en route to long-term memory. Instead, the primary
function of short-term storage is to enable complex cognitive activities that require the
integration, coordination, and manipulation of multiple bits of mentally represented
information.

- in the Baddeley-Hitch model there is an integral relationship between a control system—a

central executive—that governs the deposition and removal of information from short-term
storage and the storage buffers themselves. This tight level of interaction is what enables
the short-term stores to serve as effective workplaces for mental processes.
6 Nandini Pandey

- the model proposes at least two distinct short-term memory buffers, one for verbal
information (the phonological loop) and the other for visuospatial information (the
visuospatial scratchpad). Because these short-term stores are independent, there is greater
flexibility in memory storage. Thus, even if one buffer is engaged in storing information,
the other can still be utilized to full effectiveness. The supervision of these storage systems
by a central executive suggests that information can be rapidly shuttled between the two
stores and coordinated across them.
Another component, the episodic buffer, was added later.
1) The Phonological Loop: When It Works and When It Doesn’t
The idea that verbal working memory involves both a “mind’s ear” and a “mind’s voice” is central
to current thinking about the phonological loop. It has been proposed that the phonological loop
system involves two subcomponents: a phonological store and an articulatory rehearsal process
(Baddeley, 1986). When visually presented verbal information is encoded, the information is
transformed into a sound-based, or “auditory-phonological,” code.
This code is something like an internal echo-box, a repository for sounds that reverberate briefly
before fading away. To prevent complete decay, an active process must refresh the information,
and this is where the idea of a “loop” comes in. The active refreshment comes via articulatory
rehearsal, as you voice internally the sounds you heard internally.
Once the verbal information is spoken internally by the mind’s voice in rehearsal, it can then be
again heard by the mind’s ear and maintained in the phonological store. In this way a continuous
loop plays for as long as the verbal material needs to be maintained in working memory.
2) The Visuospatial Scratchpad
The ability to develop, inspect, and navigate through a mental image is thought to be a cardinal
function of visuospatial working memory. A classic experimental study examined these memory
functions by having participants answer questions about an outlined capital letter (Figure 8a)
(Brooks, 1968). Participants were instructed to form a visual mental image of the letter and then
navigate around it.
The subjective experience of moving the mind’s eye from one spatial location to another also
suggests the possibility that visuospatial working memory depends on brain systems that plan
movements of the eyes (or possibly other parts of the body), just as verbal working memory
depends on brain systems involved with planning speech (Baddeley & Lieberman, 1980).
Interestingly, this movement planning system might also be the basis for spatial rehearsal, the
process of mentally refreshing stored locations to keep them highly accessible.
7 Nandini Pandey

The visual cache, which stores information about form and color. The inner scribe, which deals
with spatial and movement information. It also rehearses information in the visual cache and
transfers information to the central executive.

3) The Central Executive

The component that most strongly differentiates the idea of working memory from the earlier
conceptions of “short-term memory” is the central executive. This part of the model (1) determines
when information is deposited in the storage buffers; (2) determines which buffer—the
phonological loop for verbal information or the visuospatial sketchpad for visual—is selected for
storage; (3) integrates and coordinates information between the two buffers; and, most important,
(4) provides a mechanism by which information held in the buffers can be inspected, transformed,
and otherwise cognitively manipulated. These functions all depend on the central executive’s
controlling and allocating attention. The central executive determines both how to expend
cognitive resources and how to suppress irrelevant information that would consume those
resources (Baddeley, 1986).
The notion of a central executive is supported by studies that show a dissociation between the
functions listed above and the operation of the two storage systems. These investigations often
involve the problem of dual-task coordination, that is, the process of simultaneously performing
two distinct tasks, each of which typically involves storage of information in working memory.
Participants are given two such tasks, one visuospatial and one auditory-verbal, to perform at the
same time. The assumption is that managing performance of the two tasks requires some sort of
time-sharing. If the central executive is specifically required to manage the coordination—the
time-sharing—of the two tasks, then it should be possible to find effects of dual-task performance
over and above those present when each of the tasks is performed in isolation.
V) TULVING
The working-memory model is consistent with the notion that multiple systems may be involved
in the storage and retrieval of information. Recall that when Wilder Penfield electrically stimulated
the brains of his patients, the patients often asserted that they vividly recalled particular episodes
and events. They did not, however, recall semantic facts that were unrelated to any particular event.
These findings suggest that there may be at least two separate explicit memory systems.
Based on such findings, Endel Tulving (1972) proposed a distinction between two kinds of explicit
memory. Semantic memory stores general world knowledge. It is our memory for facts that are
not unique to us and that are not recalled in any particular temporal context. Episodic memory
stores personally experienced events or episodes. According to Tulving, we use episodic memory
when we learn lists of words or when we need to recall something that occurred to us at a particular
time or in a particular context. In either case, we have personally experienced the learning as
associated with a given time. But if I needed to remember the name of the person I now see in the
8 Nandini Pandey

waiting room (“Harrison Hardimanowitz”), I would be drawing on a semantic memory. There is

no particular time tag associated with the name of that individual being Harrison. But there is a
time tag associated with my having seen him at the dentist’s office yesterday.
Tulving (1983, 1989) and others (e.g., Shoben, 1984) provide support for the distinction between
semantic and episodic memory. It is based on both cognitive research and neurological
investigation. The neurological investigations have involved electrical-stimulation studies, studies
of patients with memory disorders, and cerebral blood flow studies. For example, lesions in the
frontal lobe appear to affect recollection regarding when a stimulus was presented. But they do not
affect recall or recognition memory that a particular stimulus was presented (Schacter, 1989a).
However, it is not clear that semantic and episodic memories are two distinct systems. They
sometimes appear to function in different ways. But many cognitive psychologists question this
distinction (e.g., Eysenck & Keane, 1990; Humphreys, Bain, & Pike, 1989). They point out that
the boundary between these two types of memory is often fuzzy.
Some neurological evidence suggests that these two types of memory are separate, however.
Through neuropsychological methods, investigators found dissociations, which means that
separate and distinct areas seem to be involved in semantic versus episodic memory retrieval
(Prince, Tsukiura, & Cabeza, 2007). There are patients who suffer only from loss of semantic
memory, but their episodic memory is not impaired, as well as vice versa (Temple & Richardson,
2004). A person with semantic memory loss may have trouble remembering what date it is or who
the current president is; a person with episodic memory loss cannot remember personal events like
where she met her spouse for the first time. These observations indicate that there is a dissociation
between the two kinds of memory. These findings all support the conclusion that there are separate
episodic and semantic memory systems. Other findings suggest that the neural processes involved
in these memories overlap (Rajah & McIntosh, 2005).
VI) CURRENT DIRECTIONS
Episodic buffer: The Baddeley-Hitch model and the idea of a “mental workspace” took us a long
way in the exploration of working memory. However, the close examination of the role of the
prefrontal cortex, particularly the goal-maintenance model and the interaction of storage and
control functions, leads to considerations of other hypotheses. The original model makes a
structural distinction between storage and control; if that distinction is not rigid, other possibilities
arise.
Even good models of cognition need an update after a while, and Baddeley (2000) recently refined
his model of working memory to account for some limitations associated with the original
Baddeley-Hitch model. The more recent version has added a third storage buffer, termed the
episodic buffer, as a system that can serve as both an auxiliary store when the primary ones are
overloaded or disrupted, and also as a site in which to integrate diverse types of information such
as verbal and spatial content within working memory. Another key aspect of the episodic buffer is
9 Nandini Pandey

that it appears to be a place where short-term memories of complex information such as temporally
extended events or episodes can be stored (hence, the name “episodic”).
The inclusion of the episodic buffer into the working memory model appears to provide a nice
solution to many peculiar findings that have accumulated over the years, findings that could not
be easily accounted for by the original conception.
Individual differences: A current focus of research on working memory is that of individual
differences in working memory capacity. People vary widely in the ability to maintain items in
working memory, and especially in maintaining these items under conditions of interference.
Because working memory appears to be so important for mental processes such as problem solving
and thinking, it is not surprising that these individual differences are associated with success in
academic examinations (such as the SAT tests) and the learning of new and complex cognitive
skills (such as computer programming). Indeed, some researchers have suggested that working
memory capacity is related to general fluid intelligence, defined as the ability to solve problems
and reason in novel situations (Kyllonen & Christal, 1990). An important question, then, is to
determine more precisely what varying component of working memory is critical for predicting
cognitive success and general intellectual ability.
B) ORGANIZATION OF LTM
Hierarchical network model by Collins and Quillian, 1969. They suggested that items stored in
semantic memory are connected by links in a huge network. All human knowledge, knowledge of
objects, events, persons, concepts, etc. are organised into a hierarchy arranged into two sets. The
two sets are superordinate and subordinate sets with their properties or attributes stored. These
properties are logically related and hierarchically organised.
In this hierarchically organised structure one can see that the superordinate of canary is bird, of
shark is fish and the superordinate of fish is animal. One can notice further that a property
characterizing a particular class of things is assumed to be stored only at the place in the
hierarchy that corresponds to that class. This assumption forms the basis of the cognitive
economy.
10 Nandini Pandey

For example, a property that characterizes all types of fish (the fact that they have gills and can
swim) is stored only at the level of fish. It should be noted that gills and other such features are
not stored again with the different types of fish (salmon, shark, etc.) even though they have gills.
Similarly, a bird which is the superordinate of canary is an animal. Specific properties are stored
only at appropriate levels in the hierarchy.

Given this hypothesized network structure, Collins and the Quillian’s next task was to determine
how information is retrieved from the network. To answer this question an experiment was carried
out in which subjects were asked to answer ‘yes’ or’ no’ to simple questions.
- Does a canary eat?
- Does a canary fly?
- Is a canary yellow?
The three questions mentioned above may be challenged by the semantic level at which the
information needed to answer them is stored. Consider the first question, “Does a canary eat?”
The information “eats” is stored at the level of animal, two levels away from canary. Likewise,
the information has “wings” and is “yellow” (needed to answer the second and third questions)
are stored at one and zero levels away from canary, respectively.

The major point of interest in this model of Collins and Quillian was the reaction time or time
taken to respond to the questions. Results of the experiment revealed that with the increasing
level of information it takes increasing amounts of time to retrieve the information. “in order to
answer the third question, the subject must first enter the level in memory that corresponds to
‘canary’ and here find the information that canaries are yellow. The question is, therefore,
answered relatively fast. To answer the second question the subject still enters the memory level
that corresponds to ‘canary’ but does not find any information at that level concerning whether
or not canaries fly.”

However, the subject moves up the hierarchy to the level where information about birds is stored
and there finds that birds fly. This is done by combining the information that canaries are birds
and that birds fly and then the question can be answered. Due to the extra step of moving up the
hierarchy, question two takes somewhat longer to answer than question three.

C) DIFF TYPES OF MEMORIES

1) Retrospective
Retrospective memory is long-term memory of people, words and events that happened in the past.
Retrospective memory makes up the largest part of your long-term memory. There are many
different types of retrospective memory. When memory loss occurs, retrospective memory is
11 Nandini Pandey

usually hit hard. However, it can be less frustrating to lose your retrospective memory because,
while it is frustrating, it does not affect your quality of life most of the time.
- Working memory
- Episodic memory is memories of things you have done or that have happened to you
throughout your life. Episodic memory includes autobiographical memory, such as
remembering your wedding day. Episodic memory is also responsible for being able to
remember what you ate for breakfast this morning or remembering opening a package you
got in the mail.
- Semantic memory is your memory of facts and knowledge that you have learned
throughout your lifetime. When you remember sitting in class and your professor saying
something specific about a topic, that is episodic memory. But when you don't recall
necessarily the actual gaining of the information, just the information itself, that is semantic
memory. For example, knowing all the state capitals is semantic memory.
- Procedural memory is your memory of how to do things. It is automatic and does not
require specific recall. Procedural memory is responsible for allowing you to remember
how to walk, talk, run, skip, ride a bike, and drive a car. You don't really have to think
about how to do these things because procedural memory steps in along with muscle
memory and your body just does them.
2) Prospective
Prospective memory (ProM) allows us to make plans, retain them, and bring them back to one's
consciousness at the right time and place. ProM is used for a variety of everyday tasks including
remembering to buy groceries en route home, picking up a child from daycare, keeping
appointments, watching a bathtub so it does not overflow, taking medication at bedtime, and
paying bills by the deadline. ProM is divided into several subdomains: episodic ProM (ProM
proper), vigilance/monitoring, and habitual ProM.
- Episodic ProM brings back to consciousness a previously formed plan at the right time or
place, in response to appropriate cues
- vigilance/monitoring maintains the plan in consciousness from the formation of the plan
until the right time or place for its performance
- Habitual ProM is similar to episodic ProM, but the time and place for performing the plan
repeats regularly with enough time between repetitions for the plan to leave consciousness
Moreover, ProM may be cued by events (event-cued or event-based) or by time (time-cued or
time-based).
- Time based prospective memory is the type of memory you use when you want to do
something at a specific time in the future. This type of prospective memory is usually the
first to fail in memory disorders. It requires attention and recollection of a set time and is
therefore more difficult to remember. Even people without memory deficits tend to test
lower on time based prospective memory tests.
12 Nandini Pandey

- Event based prospective memory is the type of memory you use when you want to do
something at a point in the future and you are reminded by an event. It can be a planned
event, such as going to bed or eating a meal, or it can be an unplanned event, such as seeing
the mailbox reminding you to send a letter. This is a much more common and easier to
remember type of prospective memory.
However, retrospective and prospective memory are not entirely independent entities, and certain
aspects of retrospective memory are usually required for prospective memory. Thus, there have
been case studies where an impaired retrospective memory has caused a definite impact on
prospective memory. However, there have also been studies where patients with an impaired
prospective memory had an intact retrospective memory, suggesting that to some extent the two
types of memory involve separate processes.
3) Differences
One of the big differences between prospective memory and retrospective memory is that they use
different parts of the brain to function. While there is some overlap, primarily these two types of
memory use completely different parts of the brain to operate. Therefore, some brain injuries may
affect prospective memory but not retrospective memory, and vice versa. It all depends on what
part of the brain is affected.
Prospective memory makes use of the frontal lobe, the parietal lobe, and the limbic system to
remember to perform future tasks. The frontal lobe is important because a certain amount of
episodic and semantic memory is required to remember to perform the task and in the performing
of the task itself. Specifically, the prefrontal cortex is directly involved in remembering event-
based prospective memory. The parietal lobe is responsible for recognizing the cues that remind
you to do something in the future. This is especially true when the cues are visual or spatial. The
inferior parietal cortex is however used in time-based prospective memory. Limbic system
structures are important for prospective memory because they allow you to create and remember
intentions.
Different parts of the brain are responsible for retrospective memory. Retrospective memory also
relies heavily on the hippocampus and the thalamus, as well as the prefrontal cortex. However,
retrospective memory also relies on the medial temporal lobe which is important for the creation
and retention of new memories. The amygdala is also highly important to retrospective memory.

D) IMPROVING MEMORY
A lot of research in the area of memory is focused on how to improve memory.

1) Mnemonics
A mnemonic is a memory aid, to improve memory. Most mnemonics involve first reducing the
amount of information to a minimum then elaborating this minimal information. However, studies
13 Nandini Pandey

indicate that cultural differences exist in the extent to which these mnemonic devices are
encouraged in different cultures. School going children in urban areas may use mnemonic devices
involving rehearsal and organization while those in rural areas may remember information in a
story form or proverbs.

- Acronyms which combine one or more letters (usually the first letter) to make a new words
- Acrostics: Combines letters (usually the first letter) but instead of making a new word, with
the letters make a sentence.
- ‘Methods of loci’ (‘loci’ means ‘places’ and pronounced as 'LOW sigh'): This method
associates the items (to be remembered or TBR) with already memorized places. The
person remembers a list of items by imagining walking through a familiar place, like her
house, and visualizing herself putting one of the items in each room. Later, to remember
the items, she merely imagines walking back through the house, recalling what item she
“left” in each room. This method uses imagery to improve memory. The Dual Coding
Theory of memory was proposed by Paivio (1971) to explain the powerful mnemonic
effects of imagery. This theory states that encoding information in both visual and verbal
codes improves memory. ‘Visual imagery’ evokes both visual and verbal codes and this
leads to a better recall.
- Numeric peg-words: Here numbers serve as ‘pegs’ on which memories of items (TBR) can
be hung. First create ‘numeric peg words’ which consists of the number and a rhyming
word: E.g. one is a bun, two is a shoe, three is a tree etc. Now associate each item in the
list (TBR) with the ‘peg word’. Suppose the first few names on the TBR list are Wundt,
James and Watson. You may create associations as follows: Wundt is on a bun, James with
two left shoes and Watson stuck in a tree.
- Narrative Chaining/story mnemonics/story linkage: This method involves a list of words
being linked together to form a story. Bower & Clark (1969) found that when subjects were
instructed to memorize a list of words by organising the words into a story their recall
increased by a least 50%. EXAMPLE OF NARRATIVE CHAINING (Bower & Clark,
1969): (words to be remembered are in capitals). There was a BREAK in the storm and the
LIGHT came back. A MOUSE came out of its hole to take a LOOK at the CAKE she was
eating. Its SPINE tingled so it ran away FAST to the haySTACK.
- The PQRS method: This mnemonic technique is used for study material. It consists of four
stages:
o (i) Preview - examine what you are reading, looking at headings, words in bold, etc,
so that you can grasp what topics are covered and get a general idea of what it is all
about.
o (ii) Question -formulate questions so you know what information you are aiming
to extract from whatever it is you are reading.
o (iii) Read - read the material, actively seeking the answers to your questions.
o (iv) Summarize -summarize what you have read, preferably in your own words.
14 Nandini Pandey

- Rhyme: A rhyme has similar distinctive sounds at the end of each line. Studies have shown
that rhyming makes things easier to remember because it can be stored with acoustic
encoding. Example: In fourteen hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue.
- The keyword strategy is based on linking a new word to keywords that are already encoded
in LTM. A keyword is a word that sounds like the new word and is easily pictured. The
keyword method has been especially pushed as an effective strategy for learning foreign
vocabulary. For example, to help remember that ‘barrister’ is another word for ‘lawyer’:
o First create a keyword (e.g. bear).
o Create a picture of the keyword and the new word doing something together: a bear
who is acting as a lawyer in a courtroom, pleading his client's innocence.

Why Do Mnemonics Devices Work?

• Provide structure for learning
• Provide durable trace (less interference)
• Provide retrieval structure

2. Depth of processing
Levels of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) suggests that ‘deeper’ the processing better the
memory. Shallow processing involves analyzing the material in terms of structure or how the
material appears (e.g. is it written in capital or small letters). “Deep” processing involves
analyzing the stimulus more abstractly in terms of its meaning. So to improve memory one
should process the material more deeply by understanding its meaning.

3. Rehearsal
The Levels of processing theory suggest that elaborative rehearsal (which involves rehearsing the
material by understanding its meaning) is better than maintenance rehearsal (or rote learning).

4. Chunking
For most people the capacity of WM is 7+-2 chunks. However, we can enlarge the size of a chunk
and thereby increase our memory capacity. Ericsson et al,(1980) managed to improve the digit
15 Nandini Pandey

span of a learner S.F. from 7 to almost 80. Method used was chunking and hierarchical
organization. S.F.a long distance runner devised the strategy of recoding digits into running
times.eg 3429 recode as 3:42.9 meaning world class time for a mile.

5. Organization of memory
This view emphasizes the importance of memory organization (specifically in LTM). Organization
can occur either at storage or at retrieval. There have been a large number of studies investigating
the effects of organization on recall. Bower & Clark (1969) found that the list, which was organized
hierarchically was recalled two to three times better than the list arranged randomly.
Bousefield (1953) claimed that organizing in categories (semantically - in terms of meanings) is
the natural way to process information in LTM. He gave subjects a list of 60 items to learn. Within
this list (mixed up) were 15 names of animals, 15 names of people, 15 professions and 15
vegetables. Subjects were asked to recall in any order they liked. He found that subjects tended to
remember the words in clusters of words all belonging to the same category. For example, once
they had remembered ‘dog’ then other animals would follow. He concluded that categorical
clustering is indicative of semantic organization in memory.
6. Value of multiple retrieval cues
A retrieval cue is a stimulus (similar to a clue) whether internal or external that activates
information in long term memory. A good retrieval cue is one which re-instates the original
learning context. The more the cues, the better the recall (Timo Mantyla, 1986). n this study Ss
were told to write three words (e.g. peel, fruit ice cream) or one word (e.g. peel) they associate
with the word ‘banana’. After a while they were given a memory test in which they asked to
recall the original word (i.e. banana) and were given the cues generated by them. Multiple cues
were better than single cues for recall of the word.

7. Distinctiveness
Distinctive material leads to better recall so highlighting the study material may improve
memory.

8. Arousal and emotions

Emotionally arousing events may be better remembered than neutral stimuli. It has been suggested
that this happens because emotions cause the release of a neurotransmitter which in turn activates
amygdala in the brain that leads to better memory. However, just because an emotionally arousing
event is vivid it does not mean that it will be more accurate.