Chapter I-VII PDF

Preview

Summary

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTIONIn daily life, memory is used all the time. When we go to buy things, we would remember the list of items what we are going to buy. At school, we would also need to have revision in order to remember the materials for examination. Or even, when we meet friends, we would also nee...

Description

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION In daily life, memory is used all the time. When we go to buy things, we would remember the list of items what we are going to buy. At school, we would also need to have revision in order to remember the materials for examination. Or even, when we meet friends, we would also need to recall their names. Thus it is important to know and understand how we remember such things so that we can effectively recall them when necessary. Obviously, we do not need to remember the exact position or order of things in daily life. The process of using memory is as natural as breathing yet there is a great deal of processing that occurs to keep us functioning properly. The journey information takes as it is processed into memories is complex and has many stages. Memory is not as simple as a room full of file cards or video clips that the individual can pull out as needed. It is a concept of how the mind works when humans process information and solve problems. The human capacity for memory is unknown, and the process for remembering is an invisible, and therefore, an unsubstantiated concept.

Psychology and neuroscience theorize that the human brain uses three different memory systems to function. Long-term, short-term, and working memory functions in concert to form a complex system that facilitates sensory processing, problem solving, encoding, and retrieval. Information that finds its way to long-term memory references events from the distant past. Short term memory holds recent events. The theoretical memory readily available and actively working to enable the individual as he strives to understand the complexity of a problem and the simplest solution is working memory. Short-term memory is the memory for a stimulus that lasts for a short while (Carlson, 2001). In practical terms visual short-term memory is often used for a comparative purpose when one cannot look in two places at once but wish to compare two or more possibilities. Tuholski and colleagues refer to short-term memory as being the concomitant processing and storage of information (Tuholski, Engle, & Baylis, 2001). They also highlight the fact that cognitive ability can often be adversely affected by working memory capacity. It is particularly important to be clear on the normal capacity of short term memory as, without a proper understanding of the intact brain’s functioning it is difficult to assess whether an individual has a deficit in ability (Parkin, 1996).The review outlines of George Miller’s historical view of short-term memory 1|Page

II capacity and how it can be affected, before bringing the research up to date and illustrating a selection of ways of measuring short-term memory capacity. The short-term memory store is in storage capacity and length of storage. Capable of storing a few characters for roughly fifteen seconds it allows us to investigate information we process and decide on its greater worth. Items like a phone number for a support line we may only recall. In classroom encounters, taking any surprise quizzes would involve on mentioning ad recalling the recent discussions.

Language comprehension involves a complex interaction between the transmitted message and the receiver’s background knowledge and experiences. As a result of this complexity, differences in presentation styles can clearly influence the efficiency of our language comprehension processes. Comparison and contrast focuses on the similarities and differences between two or more separate things. Comparing (finding similarities) and contrasting (finding differences) is a process of analysis which helps you to understand things in greater depth. This tackles the acoustic and semantic similarity of words. The acoustic similarity is the tendency for a list of similar-sounding words to be more difficult to remember. Semantic similarity is a phenomenon and is demonstrated by the fact of list of different sounding words to be easier to recall. An intuitive way of visualizing the semantic similarity of words is by grouping together terms which are closely related and spacing wider apart the ones which are distantly related. Moreover, in visualizing acoustic similarity of words is by grouping together terms which are not closely related have similar sounds.

Forgetting is a common process that occurs near enough every day. The general definition of forgetting is the inability to recall or recognized something that has been previously learned. Forgetting occurs in both short and long term memory, and several explanations have been put forward as to why forgetting occurs. Forgetting in short-term memory may only occur if the mind is overused and at high stress level. If there is also disruptions and disturbances such as immediate phone calls, cannot focus well because of bodily discomfort, and unable to recall due to lack of sleep and rest. Sometimes, when recalling word pairs, there is an intrusion. Intrusion is an error that participants make when they attempt to recall word based on a cue of that pair or word pair. When two items are similar specifically in sounds, an intrusion may occur. We would have our own pattern for remember and retrieve information (Ashcraft, 2010). This is named as free recall, which items

2|Page

III recalled in any order (Francis, Neath, MacKewn and Goldthwaite, 2004). However, many researchers found that the probability of recalling items (such as words, letters, or numbers) does in fact depend on the items position in a list. The most striking finding is that words at the beginning and end of the list are often easier to recall than those words in the middle of the list. Thus, when the results of a free recall experiment are plotted on a graph; a u-shaped serial position curve can be obtained. This is often referred to as the serial position effect that is affecting our memory (Smith, n.d.). In the early primacy portion of the serial position effect, there was a direct positive relationship between the frequency of rehearsal and the probability of recall. That is to say, the primacy effect was entirely dependent on rehearsal. The early items can be rehearsed more, and thus recalled better. The recency effect, was viewed as recall from short-term memory, which is why they were recalled so well even if being rehearsed so little (Ashcraft, 2010).

With all these being said, this study is being conducted to identify how the similarity of words, may it be acoustic or semantic, through visual and audio presentation can affect an individual’s short-term memory. The researchers aim to know whether what type of similarity of words and presentation can greatly affect the short-term memory of the qualified respondents of MSU-IIT College students.

3|Page

IV

Significance of the Study

The foremost desire of the researchers is to determine the effects of acoustic and semantic similarity on short-term memory among college students of MSU-IIT ages 16-21. Additionally, it determines the level of presentation regarding the similarity of words.

This study highlights the level of presentation of similarity of words through audio and visual presentation. It also includes the comparison on the said presentation and the similarity of words- acoustic and semantic similarity. The study will provide on which between similarity of words can greatly affect short-term memory.

`Findings of this study would raise the knowledge and awareness of people and researchers on how to work well the short-term memory. Moreover, the data and information from this study may reflect the participants’ performance on recalling words.

Lastly, through this study, some researchers in the future may get to deal to write studies related to this topic.

4|Page

V

Statement of the problem

The main thrust of the study is to determine the effects of acoustic and semantic similarity through audio and visual presentation on short-term memory among college students ages 16-21 years old. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions through the aid of Presurvey Questionnaire:

1. What is the profile of the respondents based on: a. Demographic Profile 

Gender



Age



Year level



Previous GPA

b. Recent impairment 

Hearing impairment



Eyesight problem



Memory loss



Unable to read

c. Preference

5|Page



Font style



Font size



Kind of Paper

VI 

Brand of Pencil

2. Does similarity and differences of words or term characteristics of the information sender and information receiver result in higher information transmission efficiency?

3. Does the level of presentation greatly affect the participants recall performance?

6|Page

VII

Hypothesis

H0 Similarity of words words does not affect short term memory. H1 Kind of presentation does not affect short term memory. H2 There is no relationship between similarity of words and kind of presentation on short term memory.

Scope and limitations

This study dwells mainly in the effects of acoustic and semantic similarity of words on the short-term memory of 120 College students of Mindanao State University -Iligan Institute of Technology. The participants are focused to those students who are physically efficient such that they have no any impairment on hearing or eyesight and has a GPA of 1.00 – 2.00. The levels of the researchers’ Independent Variable are audio presentation and visual presentation which are limited on the usage of speakers and flat-screen TV monitor of room 306 located in the 3 rd floor of CASS. The results were collected last May 3, 2017, from 3:00 to 5:30pm.

7|Page

VIII

Theoretical Framework

Acoustic similarity and interference in short-term recognition memory: Some results of a decision-theory analysis

J. D. Ingleby The following three studies of single-probe recognition memory set out to show the effect on the signal-detectability measures of d′ and β (Tanner and Swets, 1954) of variations in the acoustic similarity of interfering material, which may either precede or follow the item to be remembered (proactive or retroactive interference –-PI or RI). The first experiment studies a situation employed by Wickelgren (1966 a), who reported that acoustically similar RI substantially reduced d′. It is shown that this effect could have been due to biases in Wickelgren's original designs, and that when a bias-free design is used, the fall in d′ is only of borderline significance. To investigate this problem further, a design was evolved in which two items were presented for memorizing, which varied in acoustic similarity to each other, and (after a distracting task) a probe was presented with one of three questions: Was this the first item of the pair? Was it the second? or, Did it occur in either position? In the first case, recognition-memory with RI of varying acoustic similarity was being studied, and as in the first experiment, it was found that similarity slightly reduced d′. With the second question, PI effects were being studied, and here negligible differences were found. With the third type of question, a “location-free” test, no effects of similarity were found. The last result rules out Posner's (1967) “acid-bath” explanation of similarity effects in interference: an explanation in terms of “differentiation” (or “filtering”) was also invalidated by the results of a third experiment, in which the same effects were found even though similarity varied only between stimulus items and interference, and not between these and the probe. 8|Page

IX Wickelgren's (1966b) associative model appears to have least difficulty in accommodating these results, though even this needs certain ad hoc assumptions to be able to do so.

Acoustic and semantic similarity effects on repetition avoidance in produced sequences

Authors: Authors and affiliations S.Wiegersma

The question of whether repetition avoidance in sequential response production depends on the phonetic or the semantic encoding of previous responses was investigated by varying the acoustic and semantic similarity among the response alternatives. The results indicated that acoustic similarity affected repetition avoidance with six alternative words and a production rate of one per second, but not with four alternative letters and a rate of one per 2 sac. Semantic similarity between words was also studied, and was not seen to affect repetition avoidance. Results were explained by means of a model in which comparisons between a memory set of admissible responses and a memory set of recent responses are made at a phonetic level of response representation.

Semantic and Acoustic Coding in Short- and Long-Term Memory Michael

M.

Gruneberg, Robert

N.

Sykes ,

First

Published December

1,

1969

This paper considers the evidence for semantic processing in STM. It is concluded that there is sufficient evidence of semantic processing in STM to make it impossible to dichotomize between long- and short-term memory on the basis of semantic coding being exclusively employed by longterm memory.

9|Page

X

Definition of Terms

Independent Variable 

Acoustic Similarity

A. Conceptual Definition: This term refers to lists of similar-sounding words to be more difficult to remember than lists of dissimilar-sounding words. B. Operational Definition: Homonym 

Semantic Similarity

A. Conceptual Definition: This term refers to the list of words that are spelled differently but are similar in meaning. B. Operational Definition: Synonym

Dependent Variable 

Visual Presentation

A. Conceptual Definition: It is the expression of ideas about some matter using visual aids (Course Hero, 2011) B. Operational Definition: It is the type of presenting pair of words using visual aids that is clear and visible to the eyes.

10 | P a g e

XI



Audio Presentation A. Conceptual Definition: It is the expression of ideas about some matter using audio instruments B. Operational Definition: It is the type of presenting clearly pair of words using audio instruments with a moderate level of volume and high clarity of pronunciation.

11 | P a g e

XII

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter the researchers show the related literature of the study the background of the related terms for the benefit of the researchers to completely understand the study.

The researchers acquired important documents, sources and researches that are relevant to the study of acoustic and semantic similarity on short-term memory among college students. Most of it discussed on which of the two can greatly affect short-term memory. Meanwhile, other documents contained the effects of the different measures of similarity of words through visual and audio materials. And it also entails how the short-term memory can work well in terms of recall.

1. Acoustic and Semantic Similarity

The coding system used by A.D. Badeley in his account, Effects of Acoustic and Semantic Similarity on Short-term Memory Paired-Associate Learning, that in short-term paired-associate learning was investigated by studying the effects of acoustic and semantic similarity. Performance was affected by acoustic similarity (Expts. IV, V and VI), while semantic similarity had no reliable effect (Expts. II and III). Serial position curves suggested that the primary and secondary memory components of the task were equally affected by acoustic similarity. The implications of this for the relationship between acoustic similarity and short-term memory are discussed.

The notion about Semantic coding and short-term memory of Baddeley together with her colleague Betty Ann Levy. They examined the suggestion that the absence of semantic-similarity effects in most short-term memory studies is due to the difficulty of semantically encoding unrelated 12 | P a g e

XIII words. The effect of semantic similarity on minimal paired-associate learning of semantically compatible (e.g., priest-religious) or incompatible (e.g., priest-delicious) noun-adjective pairs was examined in 56 undergraduates. An adverse effect of similarity was found for compatible but not for incompatible pairs. Serial recall and attempts to distinguish primary and secondary memory components by comparing immediate recall with recall after a 20-sec distractor task were studied in 24 undergraduates. The semantic-similarity decrement again occurred with compatible lists, but only after delay. This result suggests that semantic coding was limited to secondary memory. (15 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

Another notion proposed by Baddeley on short-term memory through acoustic and semantic similarity. It entitles: Short-term memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic and formal similarity. Experiment I studied short-term memory (STM) for auditorily presented five word sequences as a function of acoustic and semantic similarity. There was a large adverse effect of acoustic similarity on STM (72·5 per cent.) which was significantly greater ( p < 0·001) than the small (6·3 per cent.) but reliable effect ( p < 0·05) of semantic similarity.

Experiment II compared STM for sequences of words which had a similar letter structure (formal similarity) but were pronounced differently, with acoustically similar but formally dissimilar words and with control sequences. There was a significant effect of acoustic but not of formal similarity.

Experiment III replicated the acoustic similarity effect found in Experiment I using visual instead of auditory presentation. Again a large and significant effect of acoustic similarity was shown.

Furthermore on similarity of words (Acoustic and Semantic Similarity), Semantic and acoustic information in primary memory, it is widely believed that verbal items are coded in primary memory (PM) in an acoustic or articulatory fashion, there is some evidence to indicate that PM may be a flexible system using the most salient characteristics of stored items. According to Craik and Levy, the possibility that semantic-associative attributes could facilitate free recall from

13 | P a g e

XIV PM was explored with 85 undergraduates. Clusters of 6 words, related either acoustically or semantically, were placed in the middle or at the end of free recall lists. From Ss' recall scores, pure PM functions were calculated for acoustic, semantic, and control lists. It was found that while both acoustic and semantic similarity facilitated total recall, this facilitation was limited to secondary memory (SM). Recall from PM was poorer for semantic than for control words; it is suggested that Ss sometimes retrieved semantic clusters from SM, even though the clusters occupied terminal list positions. (18 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved). On the contrary there is a study that attempts to discover why items which are similar in sound are hard to recall in a short-term memory situation. How does acoustic similarity influence shortterm memory? The input, storage, and retrieval stages of the memory system are examined separately. Experiments I, II and III use a modification of the Peterson and Peterson technique to plot short-term forgetting curves for sequences of acoustically similar and control w...