Let's Explore our Memory: Depth of Processing

As we've seen in my recent blog-isodses, Stage theorists thought of short-term and long-term memory like memory stops in a traffic system where information moved from a small short-term loading area to a bigger long-term storage space.

Source

Currently, however, the majority of theories hold that the formation of long-term memories is a more active process in which the subject's own methods of encoding and organizing the information are crucial.

Because of this, they view short-term memory more as a mental workbench where different "experience items" are stored as they are sorted, altered, and arranged, rather than as a place for temporary storing.

Simply put:

Whether things stay in memory and can be recalled later doesn't rely on a simple move from one storage place to another. It depends on how this information is worked on (encoded). The more detailed the processing, the better the chance of remembering it later.

These kinds of considerations caused many psychologists to give up on the idea that short-term memory is only a storage facility. Additionally, it caused a lot of them to dislike the term "short-term memory" and instead choose prefer terms like "working memory," "active memory," or "William James's primary memory."

The newer words concentrate on how memories are dealt with(processed), rather than on the imagined structures that hold these memories.

Looking at it this way, the main difference is between the parts of our memory system that are currently in use (active memory) and those that are currently not in use (long-term memory). This new idea can easily explain the discoveries that initially made people think there is a short-term memory storage with a limited capacity.

Do you see how the two theories are connected?

When today's scientists consider it, what's restricted isn't the space for storing things but the ability to handle information(processing capacity). The cognitive system can only do a certain amount of thinking or mental work at once, because active memory focuses on what's currently being thought about and managed.

This might be something we need to recall, even if only for a short while, like we saw yesterday with a phone number before dialing it. Or it could be some mental task, like multiplying two numbers in our heads, where we will have to keep track of the numbers, the partial products, and the point we're at in the problem.

If this is right, the suitable comparison for the limited capacity of the working memory system isn't exactly a platform that can only hold a certain number of items. Instead, it's like a busy worker at the memory workbench who can only handle a specific number of tasks – can only do a limited amount of chunking, organizing, and connecting materials to past memories at any given time. It's as if they have only so many mental hands.

Got it?

Okay, let's discuss how memory processing and organizing are actually done, according to modern scientists who reject the short and long-term ideas of the stage theorists.

Ready?

Now certain methods of remembering(encoding)things (like chunking) clearly helps with memory better, while others (like maintenance rehearsal, which we discussed yesterday) are not very helpful.

Question is:

What do the more useful ways of encoding have in common?

An effort to clarify why certain ways of remembering(encoding) are more effective than others suggested that the key factor lies in how deeply the incoming information is processed. Supporters of this "depth of processing approach" have conducted numerous studies comparing the impact of "shallow" and "deep" processing on later recall.

We usually use "shallow" to talk about encoding superficial things like sound, and "deep" is used when we're talking about the meaning.

In a well-known study, am the subjects were quickly shown 48 words as part of an experiment about how we see things(perception) and how fast we react. They were asked one of three questions for each word.

One question focused on the word's physical appearance ("Is it printed in capital letters?"), another on the word's sound ("Does it rhyme with train?"), and a third on the word's meaning ("Would it fit into the sentence: The girl placed the ____ on the table?").

The initial question would likely result in the shallowest encoding, while the third would lead to the deepest. After going through all 48 words, the subjects were given a surprise last task:

They had to jot down as many words as they could recall.

The results truly aligned with the depth of processing hypothesis. Words that involved the least profound processing or the shallowest processing (typeface) were remembered the least, those requiring an intermediate level (sound) were recalled somewhat better, and words that necessitated the deepest level (meaning) were remembered the best.

So yeah, dear students! If you genuinely understand something and it has some meaning, you won't have a hard time remembering it during exams.

I should note that some early ideas about the "depth of processing hypothesis" have faced criticism. Critics, for instance, argue that there isn't a clear definition of what depth means. Nevertheless, a fundamental idea from this approach remains true: what you remember is significantly influenced by how it was first encoded.

The Bus Stops Here for today:

Thanks for joining me once again in another blog-isode. I hope you found it as interesting as yesterday's. I always appreciate hearing your thoughts on these blogs because I love doing this, and I want to ensure you enjoy reading. Until tomorrow, stay safe.