Homeworks academic service


An overview of the memory system and the stages of development by craick and lockhard

ABSTRACT Although the levels of processing framework have evolved over its nearly 40 years of existence, the essence of the idea has not changed from the original. The depth processing is associated with high levels of retention and long-term memory traces. After extensive research and criticism, the authors added several concepts that aided in a better understanding of levels of processing framework and the items that subjects can recall such as transfer-appropriate processing and robust encoding.

However, there are still some gaps in this framework that call for new scientific investigations, ranging from experimental paradigms with lists of words with healthy or pathological conditions subject to neuroimaging studies to confirm, refute or improve the framework. The aim of this article is to review the publications articles and book chapters dating from the original article to the present day to better understand the mnemonic process in terms of levels of processing and to highlight some of its contributions.

Introduction In everyday life, among the many strategies used to remember things are repeating or reading the same content several times and seeking to establish relationships among the information to be stored, for example, by drafting a short story or creating a mental image. But where do these strategies come from?

Early Evidence of Memory Impairment with Age

What helps us retrieve the information we want to remember? The aim of this article is to review the literature and answer these questions in terms of levels of processing LOPwhich is a widely used concept in memory studies. According to Tulving 2002LOP is a framework, not a theory; a framework is much broader and can be more vague than a theory.

Richardson-Klavehn, Gardiner, and Ramponi 2002 noted that few concepts have proven to be as robust as this one. Table 1 shows a summary of the evolution of this framework. In the original article, Craik and Lockhart 1972 suggest that it is not the intention to memorize something, but the stimulus-encoding process that is important for future retrieval of the stimulus.

For a better understanding of this, we must assume the widely accepted idea that memory consists of three main stages: Craik and Lockhart 1972 stated that in the encoding stage there is a series of processing hierarchies.

Levels of Processing

During the shallower processing level perceptual processingthe subject initially perceives the physical and sensory characteristics of the stimulus; the deepest level semantic processing is related to pattern recognition and extraction of meaning, with a greater emphasis on semantic analysis than in shallow processing.

Memory traces are formed as a result of these processes. To direct the different levels or degrees of processing, tasks are employed during encoding that are preferentially oriented to a perceptual or semantic processing of stimuli.

Craik 2002 proposed that semantic analysis, i. The idea of LOP emerged as an attempt to explain the mnemonic system. In these experiments, lists of words were shown to the subject; for each list, different guided tasks were adopted to control the "depth" of processing used to encode the words. For example, in shallow processing, the subject answered questions concerning the word's typeface for example, is the word "HOUSE" written in capital letters?

The results of the experiments made the authors realize that when the answer of the processing was compatible, for example, "PEN is an object used to write? The LOP framework can also be explored using only two levels: For example, in the study by Vaz et al.

The closed spaces counting task required the subjects to focus on the physical or perceptual characteristics of the stimuli while the significance task required them to focus on their meaning.

At the end of each list, the subjects were asked to freely recall the words presented. The group who performed the deeper processing task recalled significantly more words than the group who used shallow processing.

Theories of Memory and Aging: A Look at the Past and a Glimpse of the Future

Morris, Bransford, and Franks 1977 showed that semantic processing is better than phonological processing, but only when the retrieval task requires the remembrance of meaning. When the retrieval task requires rhyme recognition, phonological processing gives superior results. At the end of the guided task, a memory task is carried out with cues that show only the phrase of the semantic task so that the subject recalls the target word; for example, BIRDor only the phrase of the phonetic task so that the subject recalls the target word; for example, HAT.

Thus, if the recall task is congruent with the guided task, the memory is facilitated, even for subjects who perform the shallower, phonetic task. That is, the best processing level is the one that fits the requirements of the retrieval task. Or, in other words, it is better to test what the subject was induced to learn.

Following this principle, Morris et al. This issue, that was initially a criticism of LOP, was later added to this framework. Similarly, Tulving 1979 developed the encoding specificity principle, which is an idea that focuses on the compatibility of the cue used in recall with the processing done in encoding i. According to Tulving 1979this idea is compatible with LOP because the recall of graphic, semantic or phonetic elements is superior when encoded by physical, phonetic or semantic characteristics, respectively.

However, the adoption of an encoding type that is compatible with recall does not prevent the LOP effect; i. Lockhart and Craik 1990 introduced the term "robust encoding" to explain that levels of processing influence the transfer-appropriate processing in the sense that a more deeply encoded trait becomes accessible to more cues at the time of recall.

Thus, Craik 2002 states that the idea of transfer-appropriate processing is complementary to LOP, i. As Craik 2002 presented, one of the major contributions of the LOP framework is the understanding of recall as a process and an activity of the mind as opposed to structural ideas in which memory traces are entities that should be searched for and reactivated.

This may explain the old adage that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth. Craik 2002 points out that deeper processing does not necessarily require more time than shallow processing. A question was raised by an experiment by Vaz et al. The perceptual guided instruction led to a poorer performance as expected, but the semantically guided instruction produced the same level of performance as no instruction at all.

These results are an overview of the memory system and the stages of development by craick and lockhard as a the standard way of processing words is semantic; b the perceptual task divides attention from meaning and thus decreases recall.

So, once the subject understood the meaning of the word, deep processing is not necessary. This latter issue can be appreciated under the heading of elaboration, further incorporated by Craik 2002. Ekuni, Vaz, and Bueno manuscript in preparation carried out an experiment with healthy young subjects using LOP manipulation and perceptual manipulation some words were written in colored ink.

It also showed a facilitation effect of perceptually manipulated words on free recall, but no interaction between type of processing and perceptual manipulation. These results suggest that perceptual aspects of a stimulus that distinguish it from others in the same set may have an auxiliary role in free recall of the set, but the key issue is the meaning of these stimuli, suggesting that the hierarchy of LOP is important. With the advent of new technologies, Nyberg 2002 conducted a review in which levels of processing were analyzed in relation to neuroimaging and computed tomography CT -positron emission tomography PET scan studies were used to verify the correlation between these studies and the LOP framework.

As previously stated, Craik and Lockhart 1972 argued that the memory trace is a consequence of processing during encoding; Nyberg 2002 states that according to the overlap of encoding-retrieval when information is recovered, the same brain area that was activated during encoding should be reactivated. Nyberg 2002 presented evidence suggesting that some brain regions that are activated during encoding are reactivated during retrieval.

Thus, as in the study by Craik and Lockhart 1972the memory trace depends on how the content was encoded. Nyberg 2002 verified that activity in the prefrontal cortex and the medial temporal region is associated with deeper levels of processing and better performance on memory tests.

  • Craik and Tulving 1975 Aim To investigate how deep and shallow processing affects memory recall;
  • Rumelhart and McClelland 1986 Key Concepts The basic idea of Information processing theory is that the human mind is like a computer or information processor — rather than behaviorist notions that people merely responding to stimuli.

They used two guided tasks for this: A greater activation of the lower left prefrontal cortex in the semantic tasks was seen, indicating involvement of this cortical area in semantic decision tasks. Criticism of the lop framework Lockhart and Craik 1990 suggested two main types of criticism of the LOP framework: Regarding the first, Baddeley 1978 and Eysenk 1978a questioned the hierarchy of levels from shallowest to deepestsuggesting that there is not a fixed series of processing stages.

Baddeley 1978 also pointed out that there is not an independent method that researchers can use to measure how deep or shallow the processing is in an experiment.

However, Lockhart and Craik 1978, 1990 claimed that the most important aspect is not the sequence of processing stages but the achieved analysis patterns. In accordance with Roediger and Gallo 2002the term "levels of processing" is currently used more generally to emphasize the fact that the use of different types of processing during encoding provides different levels of memory performance.

Another criticism from Eysenk 1978b is that LOP is not compatible with the transfer-appropriate processing Morris et al. As seen above, this type of criticism was responded to by an overview of the memory system and the stages of development by craick and lockhard the conditions of retrieval in the LOP framework. Nelson 1977 criticized the LOP framework because, theoretically, repetition does not influence recall when considering the same level of processing, but his experiments showed that repetition at the phonemic level facilitates memory.

During his experiment, three groups of subjects processed words at the phonemic level: The massed and distributed repetition was better than one repetition. For Lockhart and Craik 1990repetition itself does not facilitate recall, but there are qualitative types of reverberation that may influence memory. Although the second argument is solid, for repetition there is sufficient evidence that it does facilitate recall.

Mnemonic strategies As mentioned earlier, wanting to remember something is not the most important factor in being able to remember something. In 1975, Craik and Tulving conducted an experiment in which subjects were paid for every word they could recall. Three blocks of 20 words were presented; for each block, the subject read the word and responded to a question based on the processing used: The words that were processed more deeply categories were recalled more often than those that were processed in a shallow way perceptually, or using rhymeeven when the subjects received more money to recall words in the shallow group.

Some subjects reported that they wanted to recall the words that were worth more but recalled more words that had been processed more deeply. The former refers to the qualitative type of processing performed levels-extension: Regarding the strategy of creating a story around the content to be remembered, Bellezza et al.

One group had to read the word and form a sentence, whereas the other group read the word and formed a coherent sentence related to a sentence created earlier, thus forming a story with the sentences.

Information Processing Theory

The group who formed the story recalled more words than the group who formed unrelated sentences. In addition, Einstein and Hunt 1980 argued that organization theory directs attention to the relationship between list items, whereas the LOP framework requires that the subject focus on items individually. For Mandler 2002LOP partially incorporates the basic processes of organization.

As Bellezza et al. These studies often aim to answer questions about the levels of processing framework or to see how it behaves in certain situations and even for understanding the memory process as in the study by Sheridan and Reingold in press. They found that deep processing increased both "remember" and "know" proportions. LOP manipulation was very useful in this study to prove the authors' hypothesis. Other studies sought to understand the mnemonic process such as the study by Loaiza, McCabe, Youngblood, Rose and Myerson 2011.

These authors used working memory and episodic memory tasks and found that LOP influences both immediate and delayed recall, which can help researchers understand some models of memory. Hamann and Squire 1996 conducted a study using amnesic patients and a control group. These authors observed that compared with the control group, amnesic patients did not exhibit LOP effects during priming tasks for completing words. Thus, this study with amnesic patients verified that LOP does have an effect on the priming of perceptual tasks.

Toichi and Kami 2002 studied autistic patients with the LOP manipulation. Such studies aim to verify how LOP behaves in certain situations.

Real Life Applications

In this study, the authors verified that there is no LOP effect in autism, and that the autistic subject's episodic memory performance was superior to that of the control group. Final considerations Throughout nearly 40 years of existence, the original concept of Craik and Lockhart 1972 has undergone changes and evolution. The contribution of the LOP framework to the study of human memory cannot be dismissed. Such contributions consider remembering as a processing and as the LOP predict, the processing used during encoding stage is more important to remember, so memory is seen as pure construction Tulving, 2001.

However, some questions remain unanswered. We can hypothesize about possible answers.