von Dr. Jennifer L. Moore
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Jm/Fragment 026 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-02-18 19:07:17 Hindemith | BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Jm, Nadel 2008, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 26, Zeilen: 1-25 |
Quelle: Nadel 2008 Seite(n): 9, 10, Zeilen: 9: r. col: 40-55, 10: r.col: 1-26 |
|---|---|
| [When subsequently asked to recall the event quite often the] misinformation rather than the original detail is remembered. One thing that distinguishes this work on human memory from the animal work discussed previously is the absence of any systematic manipulation of specific reminders.
With the intention of merging these two animal and human based findings, Nadel and colleagues recently developed a paradigm to study reconsolidation in human episodic memory that depends upon reminding subjects about what they previously learned (Hupbach et al., 2007). In this paradigm, subjects are initially trained on a “list” of objects. These everyday objects are kept in a blue basket and presented one by one to the subject. After all 20 objects are presented, the subject is asked to verbally “recall” the list. This training sequence is continued until the subject recalls at least 18 of the 20 objects (in any sequence). Typically this takes fewer than four training trials. Two days later subjects return to the laboratory and are divided into two groups. Subjects in one group are reminded of their previous training experience, whereas subjects in the other group are not. Subsequently, a second “list” of objects is learned, albeit in a different manner. The objects on this second list are laid out on a table instead of being contained in a basket. Following the learning of this second list recall for both lists is tested either immediately or two days later. In one study, recall of List 1 was tested first, followed by List 2, and in another study recall of List 2 was tested first, followed by List 1. In both studies retrieval performance of subjects that had been reminded was contrasted with subjects that had not. The results emanating from this research stream can be summarized as follows (see Hupbach et al., 2007 for a more detailed account): if, and only if, a reminder was given prior to the learning of List 2, subjects inter-mixed items from List 2 into List 1 when asked to recall List 1. In another study these authors showed that this result is found only when recall is tested 2 days later. Intrusions from List 1 into List 2 recall were never observed, whether List 2 is recalled first or second, immediately or 2 days later. |
[page 9]
When subsequently asked to recall the event quite often the misinformation rather than the original detail is remembered. One thing that distinguishes this important work on human memory from the animal work just discussed is the absence of any systematic manipulation of specific reminders. In the hope of bringing these literatures together we have recently developed a paradigm to study reconsolidation in human episodic memory that depends on reminding the subjects about what they previously learned (Hupbach et al., 2007). Subjects are initially trained on a “list” of objects. These objects -- such things as a pencil, comb, or other similarly sized common object -- are kept in a blue basket and presented one by one to the subject. After all 20 objects are presented the subject is asked to verbally “recall” the [page 10] list. This training sequence is continued until the subject recalls at least 17 of the 20 objects (in any order) or for a maximum of four learning trials. Two days later subjects return to the laboratory and are divided into two groups. Subjects in one group are reminded of their previous training experience, subjects in the other group are not. Then, a second “list” of objects is learned, but in a different way. The objects on this second list are arrayed on a table instead of being contained in a basket. Following the learning of this second list we test for recall of both lists either immediately or 2 days later. In one study we tested recall of list 1 and in another study we tested recall of list 2. In both studies we contrasted subjects twho had been reminded with subjects who had not. The results can be summarized as follows (see Hupbach et al., for a full description of this study): if, and only if, a reminder is given prior to the learning of list 2, subjects will “intrude” items from list 2 into list 1 when asked to recall list 1 (Fig. 1-1A). Additionally we showed that this result occurs only when recall is tested 2 days later (Fig. 1- 1B). It is not observed when recall is tested immediately. Intrusions from list 1 into list 2 recall are never seen, regardless of whether list 2 is recalled immediately or second, immediately or 2 days later (see Fig. 1-1C). |
It is clear from the text that the work of Nadel et al. is described here. It is not clear from the text, however, that this is done following the same structure and many formulations of Nadel (2008). |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Hindemith, Zeitstempel: 20140218190801