von Dr. Jennifer L. Moore
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Jm/Fragment 027 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-02-18 20:49:21 Hindemith | BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, Jm, Nadel 2008, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 27, Zeilen: 1-25 |
Quelle: Nadel 2008 Seite(n): 10, 11, Zeilen: 10: r.col: 27-40, 11: r.col: 1-26 |
|---|---|
| [Nadel and colleagues] interpreted these results as indicative that the reminder presented prior to List 2 learning reactivated the memory trace for List 1, and thereby triggered an “update” mechanism which caused the subject to confuse the List 2 and List 1 objects. In the absence of the reminder, the subjects treated List 2 learning and List 1 learning as separate episodes and intrusions did not occur.
This research team, more recently, has begun to explore exactly what kinds of reminders play a critical role in initiating this “update” mechanism (Hupbach et al., 2008). In the original study the reminder involved returning the subject back to the same context, with the same Experimenter, who asked a leading question about the List 1 training experience. The no-reminder group was brought to a different context, with a different Experimenter, and was not asked about List 1 training. In the most recent of such work, these authors systematically manipulated the nature of the “reminders” available to the subjects prior to learning List 2. In one set of studies, only one of the three reminder cues was presented: the original training context, the original Experimenter, or the leading question about the basket in which List 1 objects were kept. Results revealed that only the group that received a context reminder showed the memory updating effect. The other two groups showed few if any intrusions of List 2 items into List 1 memory, thereby indicating that updating had not occurred in these groups. Furthermore, in a second set of studies, two of the three cues were provided, either context plus Experimenter, context plus question, or Experimenter plus question, with the intention of investigating the possibility that the failure of the Experimenter or Question to initiate an updating process might have reflected that fact that these are weak cues compared to context, and that by combining these two weaker cues, updating would be demonstrated. Once again, only the provision of a context reminder, in combination with either the Experimenter or the Question, elicited updating. |
[page 10]
We interpret these results as showing that the reminder prior to list 2 learning reactivates the memory of list 1, and triggers an “update” mechanism that causes the subject to conflate the list 2 and list 1 objects. Absent the reminder the subjects treat list 2 learning and list 1 learning as separate episodes and intrusions do not occur. We have more recently started to explore exactly what kinds of reminders play a critical role in initiating this “update” mechanism (Hupbach et al., submitted). In the original study the reminder involved bringing the subject back to the same context, with the same experimenter, who asked a leading question about the list 1 training experience. The no-reminder group was [page 11] brought to a different context, with a different experimenter, and was not asked about list 1 training. In our most recent work we systematically manipulated the nature of the “reminders” available to the subjects prior to learning list 2. In one set of studies we provided only one of the three reminder cues: the original training context, the original experimenter, or the leading question about the basket in which list 1 objects were kept. Figure 1-2A shows the results of these manipulations: only the group that received a context reminder showed the memory updating effect. The other two groups showed few if any intrusions of list 2 items into list 1 memory, indicating that updating had not occurred in these groups. In a second set of studies we provided two of the three cues, either context plus experimenter, context plus question, or experimenter plus question. We wanted to explore the possibility that the failure of the Experimenter or Question to initiate an updating process might have reflected the fact that these are weak cues compared to context, and that by combining these two weaker cues we would be able to demonstrate updating. Figure 1-2B shows that this was not the case. Once again, only the provision of a context reminder, in combination with either the Experimenter or the Question, elicited updating. |
It is clear from the text that here the work of Nadel et al. is described. It is not clear to the reader at all, that this description follows the structure and many formulations of Nadel (2008). |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Hindemith, Zeitstempel: 20140218205050