Handbool of research methods in human memory hajime otani, bennerr l schwartx, routledge, 2019 scan

Each chapter is written by prominent researchers and features cutting- edge research on human memory and cognition, with topics ranging from basic memory processes to cognitive neuroscie

METHODS IN HUMAN MEMORY

The Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory presents a collection of chapters on

methodology used by researchers in investigating human memory Understanding the basic cognitive function of human memory is critical in a wide variety of fields, such as clinical psychology, developmental psychology, education, neuroscience, and gerontology, and studying memory has become particularly urgent in recent years due to the prominence of a number

of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s However, choosing the most appropriate method of research is a daunting task for most scholars This book explores the methods that are currently available in various areas of human memory research and serves as a reference manual to help guide readers’ own research Each chapter is written by prominent researchers and features cutting- edge research on human memory and cognition, with topics ranging from basic memory processes to cognitive neuroscience to further applications The focus here is not on the “what,” but the “how” —how research is best conducted on human memory

Hajime Otani is a professor of psychology at Central Michigan University His current research

focuses on emotion and memory

Bennett L Schwartz is a professor of psychology at Florida International University He conducts

research on memory and metamemory He is currently Editor- in- Chief of New Ideas in Psychology.

HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH

METHODS IN HUMAN MEMORY

Edited by Hajime Otani and Bennett L Schwartz

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Hajime Otani and Bennett L Schwartz to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing

from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation

without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data

A catalog record for this title has been requested

ISBN: 978- 1- 138- 21794- 2 (hbk) ISBN: 978- 1- 138- 21795- 9 (pbk) ISBN: 978- 0- 429- 43995- 7 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo

by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Yo Otani and Foster Schwartz

List of Contributors x Foreword xiii Preface xv

1 History of Methods in Memory Science: From Ebbinghaus to fMRI 1

Hajime Otani, Bennett L Schwartz, and Abby R Knoll

2 Dependent Measures in Memory Research: From Free Recall to Recognition 19

Anne M Cleary

3 Measures of Forgetting 36

Benjamin C Storm

4 Accuracy and Bias in Episodic Memory 50

Aysecan Boduroglu and Aycan Kapucu

5 Response Time Measures in Memory Research 67

Motonori Yamaguchi and Richard Schweickert

6 Methods of Studying Working Memory 84

Zach Shipstead and Ashley Nespodzany

7 Methods of Studying Text: Memory, Comprehension, and Learning 104

Kathryn S McCarthy, Kristopher J Kopp, Laura K Allen, and

Danielle S McNamara

8 The Methodology of Metamemory and Metacomprehension 125

Deborah K Eakin and Jarrod Moss

9 Research Methods for Studying the Emotion- Memory Relationship 154

Hajime Otani, Terry M Libkuman, Abby R Knoll, and Cody J Hensley

10 Methods for Studying Memory Differences Between Young and Older Adults 178

Aslı Kılıç and Amy H Criss

11 Discovering Memory: Methods in the Study of Memory Development 192

P Douglas Sellers II and Karin Machluf

12 Assessing Autobiographical Memory Disruptions in Psychiatric Populations 205

Laura Jobson

13 Methods of Studying Memory Without Awareness 222

Neil W Mulligan

14 Methods of Studying False Memory 238

Henry Otgaar, Sanne T L Houben, and Mark L Howe

15 Methods of Studying Eyewitness Memory 253

Nadja Schreiber Compo, Jonathan Vallano, Jillian Rivard, Angelica Hagsand,

Michelle Pena, and Christopher Altman

16 The Assessment of Autobiographical Memory: An Overview of

Behavioral Methods 267

Adam R Congleton and Dorthe Berntsen

17 Methods of Studying Prospective Memory 284

Melissa J Guynn, Gilles O Einstein, and Mark A McDaniel

18 Face Memory 313

Karen Lander and Vicki Bruce

19 Challenges in Music Memory Research 330

Zehra F Peynircioğlu, Esra Mungan, and Bennett L Schwartz

20 A User’s Guide to Collecting Data Online 354

Kalif E Vaughn, Jeremy Cone, and Nate Kornell

21 Neuropsychological Methods in Memory Research 374

Kata Pauly- Takacs, Celine Souchay, Alastair D Smith, and Chris J A Moulin

22 Applications of Functional MRI in Memory Research 397

Joey Ka- Yee Essoe and Jesse Rissman

23 From the Laboratory to the Classroom: Challenges and Solutions for

Conducting Memory Research in Educational Contexts 428

John Dunlosky, Kayla Morehead, Amanda Zamary, and Katherine A Rawson

24 Methods of Studying Individual Differences in Memory 443

Kimberly M Wingert and Gene A Brewer

Index 459

Laura K Allen, Mississippi State University, USA

Christopher Altman, Florida International University, USA

Dorthe Berntsen, Aarhus University, Denmark

Gene A Brewer, Arizona State University, USA

Aysecan Boduroglu, Boğaziçi University, Turkey

Vicki Bruce, Newcastle University, UK

Anne M Cleary, Colorado State University, USA

Jeremy Cone, Williams College, USA

Adam R Congleton, Aarhus University, Denmark

Nadja Schreiber Compo, Florida International University, USA

Amy H Criss, Syracuse University, USA

John Dunlosky, Kent State University, USA

Deborah K Eakin, Mississippi State University, USA

Gilles O Einstein, Furman University, USA

Joey Ka- Yee Essoe, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Melissa J Guynn, New Mexico State University, USA

Angelica Hagsand, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Cody J Hensley, Central Michigan University, USA

Sanne T L Houben, Maastricht University, The Netherlands

Mark L Howe, Maastricht University, The Netherlands, and City, University of London, UK Laura Jobson, Monash University, Australia

Aycan Kapucu, Ege University, Turkey

Aslı Kılıç, Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Abby R Knoll, Central Michigan University, USA

Kristopher J Kopp, Arizona State University, USA

Nate Kornell, Williams College, USA

Karen Lander, University of Manchester, UK

Terry M Libkuman, Central Michigan University, USA

Karin Machluf, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Kathryn S McCarthy, Georgia State University, USA

Mark A McDaniel, Washington University, USA

Danielle S McNamara, Arizona State University, USA

Kayla Morehead, Kent State University, USA

Jarrod Moss, Mississippi State University, USA

Chris J A Moulin, Université Grenoble Alpes, France

Neil W Mulligan, University of North Carolina —Chapel Hill, USA

Esra Mungan, Boğaziçi University, Turkey

Ashley Nespodzany, Arizona State University, USA

Hajime Otani, Central Michigan University, USA

Henry Otgaar, Maastricht University, The Netherlands, and City, University of London, UK Kata Pauly- Takacs, Leeds Beckett University, UK

Michelle Pena, Florida International University, USA

Zehra F Peynircioğlu, American University, USA

Katherine A Rawson, Kent State University, USA

Jesse Rissman, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Jillian Rivard, Barry University, USA

Bennett L Schwartz, Florida International University, USA

Richard Schweickert, Purdue University, USA

P Douglas Sellers II, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Zach Shipstead, Alma College, USA

Alastair D Smith, Plymouth University, UK

Celine Souchay, Université Grenoble Alpes, France

Benjamin C Storm, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

Jonathan Vallano, University of Pittsburgh, USA Kalif E Vaughn, Northern Kentucky University, USA Kimberly M Wingert, Arizona State University, USA Motonori Yamaguchi, Edge Hill University, UK Amanda Zamary, Kent State University, USA

Finding Out How Our Memories Work Versus

How We Think Our Memories Work

In a chapter that Elizabeth Bjork and I wrote for a festschrift honoring William K Estes, we cussed what we referred to as “important peculiarities” of human memory (pp 36–41; Bjork &

dis-Bjork, 1992) We argued that certain characteristics of human memory are peculiar because they

differ so fundamentally from the corresponding characteristics of manufactured memory devices —such as a compact disk or the memory in a computer —and we argued that such characteristics are

important because optimizing one’s own learning, or one’s children’s or students’ learning, requires

understanding the unique functional architecture of human memory

This handbook, in addition to providing a survey of the current array of methods that researchers use to explore the complexities and mysteries of how our memories work (or fail to work), provides

a picture of the complexities (and important peculiarities) of human memory Collectively, and via the editors’ opening summary of the 133- year history of controlled research on human memory, this handbook summarizes the progress, pitfalls, and evolving methodologies that have characterized research on the complexities and idiosyncrasies of the human memory system

Individually, each chapter comprises an important resource for researchers and practitioners who have a particular research interest, but the book as a whole is indeed a “handbook” from mul-tiple perspectives There are chapters that focus on the basic encoding, retention, and competi-tive dynamics that characterize human long- term memory —and on the role short- term/ working memory plays in the functioning of our memories In addition, there are chapters that summarize the range of methodologies now being used to examine the behavioral and brain dynamics of more specialized topics, such as how our memories change across the life span, how our memories mal-function during amnesia or when we suffer from psychiatric disorders, how emotion and memory interact, and how some memories, such as autobiographical memories and memory for faces or music, have special properties Other chapters summarize research methods that let us explore meta-memory processes, such as judgments of learning, and other methods that let us explore aspects of memory functioning that are not accompanied by conscious awareness

What also comes through in this handbook is the real- world importance of research on human memory —for optimizing education, self- regulated learning, eyewitness- testimony procedures, and treatment of memory disorders Finally, this handbook also constitutes a kind of methodological toolkit for researchers There are chapters on the proper uses of alternative measures of memory and forgetting, such as accuracy and reaction- time measures, and there is a chapter on the potential and the problematic aspects of examining memory processes via online experimentation

In total, this handbook testifies to the importance of understanding how human memory works and to the complexity and the vitality of current research on human memory I cannot help wonder-ing what Hermann Ebbinghaus would think were he able to read this handbook today —133 years after he began exploring human memory by learning lists of nonsense syllables I assume he would

be amazed —but then again, given his insights and prescience —maybe not

Robert A Bjork

Reference

Bjork, R A., & Bjork, E L (1992) A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation In A

Healy, S Kosslyn, & R Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William

K Estes (Vol 2, pp 35–67) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This book is about the methods that researchers use to investigate human memory The story starts

a little over 100 years ago when Hermann Ebbinghaus began scientific research on human memory using a modest methodological invention called nonsense syllables Since then, memory science has made tremendous advances in understanding the working of memory We argue that such advances were not possible without creative methods researchers invented to uncover what some psychologists many years ago thought was hopelessly beyond the reach of science Of course, we fully acknowledge that research should be dictated by theories rather than methodology Nonethe-less, without methodology, theories cannot be empirically tested For example, educators often give advice to students about how to optimize learning However, without empirically testing these ideas, we will never know whether the advice is actually effective And, empirical testing requires methodology

How do scientists study human memory? At the beginning, methodology was simple; there

were nonsense syllables (e.g., käb, Ebbinghuas) and paired associates (e.g., Wez —319, Mary Whiton

Calkins) However, a shift from the behavioristic approach to the information- processing approach necessitated the development of other, more refined, methods, from implicit memory tests to source monitoring to feeling- of- knowing judgments And more recently, ecological considerations have played a major role in expanding memory research methodology, such as diary recording and free narratives Adding to this is advancement in technology in neuroscience such as EEG and fMRI With the proliferation of studies on human memory and the hundreds of thousands of papers cur-rently available, going through the entire literature on human memory to determine the best meth-ods for a study is too laborious for any researchers Thus, for busy researchers and graduate students,

we thought a book cataloging the methods that are available would be tremendously useful In fact,

such a book was published in 1982 by C Richard Puff (Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition, Academic Press) This book has been valuable to graduate students (including

one of us, Otani, when he was a graduate student many years ago) particularly because it emphasized the “how to” of using these methods Furthermore, even for seasoned researchers it is difficult to know all the methods that are available, and therefore, this book was useful in introducing novel approaches to researchers entrenched in their own familiar methodology

Today, Puff’s handbook is still making valuable contributions; in fact, one of us (Otani) still assigns chapters from this book in his graduate seminar However, this book needs to be updated as new topics and methods have emerged since its publication For this reason, we brought together many of the most noted researchers in the field of human memory and asked them to describe in

detail the methodologies that they employ in investigating the myriad topics covered under the

umbrella of human memory As such, Research Methods in Human Memory covers such diverse topics

as working memory (Chapter 6 Shipstead and Nespodzany), false memory (Chapter 14 Otgaar, Houben, and Howe), autobiographical memory in psychiatric populations (Chapter 12 Jobson), how to measure forgetting (Chapter 3 Storm), memory without awareness (Chapter 13 Mulligan), and how to collect data online for memory experiments (Chapter 20 Vaughn, Cone, and Kornell) The emphasis is on behavioral methods, although several of the chapters discuss neuroscientific approaches to memory (Chapter 21 Pauly- Takacs, Souchay, Smith, and Moulin; Chapter 22 Essoe and Rissman) Many deal with strictly laboratory science (Chapter 5 Yamaguchi and Schweickert), whereas others discuss methodologies used in more applied settings (Chapter 23 Dunlosky, More-head, Zamary, and Rawson; Chapter 15 Schreiber Compo et al) We think that these chapters will

be helpful to anyone interested in doing or simply understanding the science of memory research

as it is practiced today

There are many people we need to thank for assistance in making this book become a reality We are particularly grateful to Paul Dukes for listening to our pitch and having the faith in us to take this book to Routledge We are also grateful to the following staff at Routledge for their input on this book (Marie Louise Roberts and Claudia Bona- Cohen) We also thank Abby Knoll, a graduate student, for lending her hand in reviewing some of the chapters We, of course, thank our authors

We also thank our families for being patient with all the time that we both needed to devote to these chapters to make this book the best it can be

We would also like to thank the late Dr C Richard Puff His seminal book inspired us to take

on this book project We hope that he would be pleased to see how much progress memory science has made in methodology since the publication of his book in 1982

Hajime Otani and Bennett L Schwartz

January 17, 2018

HISTORY OF METHODS IN

MEMORY SCIENCE

From Ebbinghaus to fMRI

Hajime Otani, Bennett L Schwartz, and Abby R Knoll

Hermann Ebbinghaus once said that psychology is a discipline with a long past but a short history (Shakow, 1930) It has a short history because psychology did not receive formal recognition as a unified and independent discipline until Wilhelm Wundt established his laboratory in Leipzig, Ger-

many in 1879 (Murray, 1983) A few years later in 1885, Ebbinghaus published his first book, On Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology, and introduced “an experimental and quantitative

approach” to investigate the “manifestations of memory” (Ebbinghaus, 1885/ 2011, p xiii; see also Nicolas, 2006) From the very beginning, Ebbinghaus knew that his approach was a radical depar-ture from the dominant, descriptive approach In fact, in the preface of his book, he pleaded with his readers to withhold judgment about the “practicability” of this approach Since then, memory science has flourished and knowledge has expanded; however, it is remarkable that all this was accomplished within a span of a little over 100 years By comparison, the natural sciences had a head start by at least 100 years; for instance, in physics, Nicolaus Copernicus proposed the heliocentric theory of the universe in 1543, and in chemistry, Antonie- Laurent de Lavoisier discovered the role

of oxygen in combustion in 1778

Nevertheless, as Ebbinghaus said, psychology indeed has a long past, and the topic of human ory is no exception According to Yates (1966), in antiquity, memory was considered a critical com-ponent of rhetoric, which was important for politics, religion, and art, for the reason that by training in the art of memory, orators could develop a skill to deliver a lengthy speech without making errors, not only to tell the truth but also to testify the divinity of the soul Three treaties became profoundly influ-

mem-ential as a textbook to spread the teaching of the art of memory (Yates, 1966): Ad Herennium mous, 86 to 82 BC), De Orator (Cicero, 55 BC), and Institutio Oratoria (Quintilian, 1 AD) These texts advocated the use of locations and imagery to create artificial memory, which are still mentioned in

(anony-psychology textbooks today as effective mnemonic techniques (e.g., the method of loci) Throughout the history of the Western world, the art of memory was practiced by many scholars (Yates, 1966), and a number of these scholars made contributions to the understanding of memory, including Aris-totle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Da Vinci, and Francis Bacon (Hermann & Chaffin, 1987) Accord-ing to Hermann and Chaffin (1987), the majority of these scholars took theoretical and/ or pragmatic approaches, even though some, such as Aristotle and Plato, took an empirical/ descriptive approach There is no doubt that the work of these scholars has provided insights and inspirations to the modern scholars of memory However, there is no denying that the modern scientific approach to memory began with Ebbinghaus, who showed that methodology can be developed to bring the “realm of men-tal phenomena” (Ebbinghaus, 1885/ 2011, p xiii) under scientific scrutiny In the present chapter, our

goal is to trace the development of research methods since Ebbinghaus to show that during the short history, memory science has made impressive advances in methodology in search for the answers to increasingly sophisticated questions However, our goal is not to create an exhaustive list of methods that have been developed since 1885, but rather to present the highlights of the methods that became familiar to many of us conducting empirical memory research.

Ebbinghaus: The Modest Beginning

Among his many contributions, Ebbinghaus became famous for developing nonsense syllables to

achieve simplicity and homogeneity in the materials that he used in his experiments He was aware

that these materials were not free of variations; however, he thought that these syllables were better suited for quantitative analysis of memory because, unlike poetry or prose, these syllables were less susceptible to various influences (such as content and style), more plentiful, and easy to break down into quantifiable pieces Thus, he tried to achieve scientific rigor by simplifying the materials, and

by doing so, he established the list- learning paradigm, which has been the workhorse of memory research ever since Furthermore, he learned lists of these syllables in the order of presentation, paced

by the stroke of a metronome or the ticking of a watch, the method referred to as the serial ing method The use of nonsense syllables received accolades from Ebbinghaus’ contemporaries; for example, Titchener said that the use of these syllables represented “the most considerable advance in this chapter of psychology, since the time of Aristotle” (Titchener, 1910, pp 380–381) However,

learn-Ebbinghaus also used stanzas from Byron’s Don Juan as comparison materials in at least one of his

experiments, indicating that he was interested in connecting what he found with nonsense syllables with real- world memory phenomena, a fact often missed in textbook descriptions of Ebbinghaus’ contributions He also invented a measure of memory, which he called a saving score, to quantify how much faster he could learn a list when he relearned it (expressed in percent time saved) relative

to how long it took for him to learn the list for the first time Although the saving score did not become as popular as nonsense syllables as a method in human memory research, it was a sensitive measure capable of revealing memory traces even after a 31- day retention interval

Using these methods, Ebbinghaus (1885/ 2011) investigated issues that are still pertinent today: the repetition effect, overlearning, massed versus distributed practice, forgetting, and remote asso-ciations What was remarkable about Ebbinghaus was that he used himself as the sole participant

in his experiments, learning a total of 84,590 nonsense syllables in 6,609 lists during the mately 832.6 hours he spent on testing (Hoffman, Bringmann, Bamberg, & Klein, 1987), a feat that

approxi-is unthinkable for any modern researcher to replicate Happroxi-is experiments consapproxi-isted of three phases, which are familiar to any modern memory researcher: a learning phase, a retention interval, and a recitation phase Furthermore, he was careful about controlling extraneous variables, such as time

of day, fatigue, and any extreme changes in the “outer and inner life” (Ebbinghaus, 1885/ 2011,

p 26) that might have influenced the results of the experiments In these experiments, he learned a list to the criterion of perfect learning, and when he investigated the issue of retention, he relearned the list to compute saving scores It is important to note that despite his reputation as a pioneer of the associationistic tradition in psychology, his research was not strictly focused on the nature of associations (see Verhave & van Hoorn, 1987, for many misrepresentations about Ebbinghaus) In fact, Ebbinghaus defined memory broadly as “Learning, Retention, Association and Reproduction” (Ebbinghaus, 1885/ 2011, p xiii)

Post Ebbinghaus: Calkins, Behaviorists, and Bartlett

Newman (1987), who described the development that took place in memory research immediately after Ebbinghaus (1985/ 2011), said that between 1885 and 1905, 44 memory papers were published,

and of these, 11 referenced Ebbinghaus However, Newman’s comment for the period between

1891 and 1895 is noteworthy; he said that he was surprised by “the variety of methods” (p 81) that appeared during this period, such as memory span, serial reconstruction, paired- associate learning, free recall, recognition, and card sorting (for studying transfer and retroactive interference) Thus, soon after Ebbinghaus, some of the methods that we are familiar with in today’s laboratory were already at work

Mary Whiton Calkins (1894, 1896a, 1896b) developed the paired- associate learning paradigm

to study the formation of associations, even though she did not name the method or provide the rationale for the method (Madigan & O’Hara, 1992) In this paradigm, participants were presented with pairs of items during learning, and their memories of associations were tested when the first items of the pairs were presented, and participants were asked to recall the second items of the pairs

In her 1894 paper, Calkins described that she conducted experiments with ten participants at the Harvard University Lab with the average of 80 experiments per participant and with 25 participants

at Wellesley College with the average of 16 experiments per participant Apparently, Calkins lowed Ebbinghaus’ example of extensive within- subjects investigation, except that she did not use herself as the sole participant in her experiments Furthermore, following Ebbinghaus, she adopted the list- learning paradigm by presenting lists of nonsense syllable- digit pairs when she investigated auditory memory and lists of color strip- digit pairs when she investigated visual memory to study the laws of associations: frequency, recency, primacy, and vividness In her 1896a paper, she intro-duced two ways of visually presenting pairs of items, successive (that is, the first item is presented first followed by the second item) and simultaneous (both the first and second items are presented

fol-at the same time), with the lfol-atter becoming the standard way of studying verbal learning over many subsequent years

Despite the impressive series of experiments that she conducted, Calkins did not receive ognition for developing the paired- associate paradigm (Madigan & O’Hara, 1992), even though Titchener (1901) referenced her name and included her experiments as exercise experiments in his instructor’s manual of laboratory practice (but not in the textbook itself) Indeed, Harvard Univer-sity ultimately rejected a petition to grant her a doctoral degree, and when Radcliff College offered her a doctoral degree, Calkins refused to accept it; thus, she never was able to call herself Dr Calkins (Furumoto, 1979; Madigan & O’Hara, 1992) The paradigm, however, was adopted by behaviorists, and according to Madigan and O’Hara (1992), Thorndike (1908) was the earliest to

rec-use the term paired associate but also did not reference Calkins’ work It is well- known that

behav-iorally oriented researchers (see Kausler, 1966) made extensive use of the paired- associate learning paradigm because this paradigm was well suited for analysis within the framework of stimulus- response associations, particularly for the issues regarding transfer of learning and interference For instance, Osgood (1949) developed a model of transfer of training (transfer and retroaction surface) based on a paradigm consisting of two lists of paired- associate items that shared or did not share stimulus and response terms This paradigm was later referred to as an A- B, A- C paradigm because both lists shared the stimulus terms (A) but the response terms were different (B and C) After learning both lists, participants were presented with the stimulus terms (A) and were asked to reproduce the response terms from List 1 (B) to test for retroactive inhibition/ inference and from List 2 (C) to test for proactive inhibition/ interference (Crowder, 1976) According to Hintzman (2011), the popularity of the paired- associate paradigm peaked in the middle of the 1960s and has been on a precipitous decline since, with only a small number of recent publications mentioning

the keywords paired associate However, the demise of paired- associate paradigm may have been

over exaggerated because the modern equivalent of this paradigm is the cued recall method, which played a crucial role in studying phenomena, such as encoding specificity (Tulving & Thomson, 1973), the generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978), and judgments of learning (Nelson & Dun-losky, 1991) during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and beyond

While verbal learning research inherited Ebbinghaus’ list- learning tradition, another tradition was emerging Bartlett (1932) broke away from Ebbinghaus because using nonsense syllables in his experiments led him to “disappointment” and “a growing dissatisfaction” due to the artificial-ity of the experiments His remedy was to select the materials that people commonly dealt with in their “daily activities” to make the experiments more “realistic” (p xvii, Bartlett, 1939/ 1995) It is

well known that Bartlett used a prose passage, The War of the Ghosts, to investigate repeated recall

attempts over time However, what is less known is that he used many other prose passages, such

as The Son Who Tried to Outwit His Father (see Appendix) Furthermore, he developed methods to

study picture memory, such as presenting simple line drawings to examine how the reproduction

of these drawings changed over time Bartlett’s approach did not become influential, at least in the United States, until the everyday memory movement began during the 1970s

Emergence of Information Processing Approach in the 1960s

Toward the end of the 1950s, a sufficient number of psychologists became dissatisfied with the inance of the behavioristic approach and began constructing a new approach based on an informa-

dom-tion processing analogy This so- called cognitive revoludom-tion resulted in a new set of quesdom-tions that led to

the development of new methods to answer these questions Among the major developments ing this era was the Brown- Peterson paradigm, developed to study short- term memory The notion that immediate memory is somehow different from long- term memory was already suggested by William James (1890), who described that primary memory was different from secondary memory because we have conscious awareness of the former and not the latter The distinction received increased attention after Miller (1956) published his paper titled “The Magic Number Seven, Plus

dur-or Minus Two: Some Limit on Our Capacity fdur-or Processing Infdur-ormation.” In this paper, he sented the capacity limitation in absolute judgments and immediate memory from the perspective

pre-of information theory However, what was important for memory researchers was that despite the

limitation, recoding of information could increase transmitted information by increasing the amount

of information per chunk Miller defiantly proclaimed that experimental psychologists had little to say about the recoding phenomenon because it is “less accessible to experimental manipulation than nonsense syllables or T mazes” (Miller, 1956, p 96)

Against this backdrop, Brown (1958) and Peterson and Peterson (1959) developed their methods

to investigate how the memory trace decayed immediately following its creation It is interesting to note that Brown (from the United Kingdom) said in his paper that he was inspired by a lecture given

by Bartlett in 1950, even though he also mentioned Hull (Hull et al., 1940), a famous behavioral theorist, in the introduction section Peterson and Peterson (from the United States) did not men-tion Bartlett but mentioned Hull (1952) and Underwood (1949) Although these researchers were motivated by different perspectives, their aim was the same: to prevent participants from rehears-ing following the presentation of a stimulus Their approach was similar in that Brown presented

a series of five digit pairs after presenting stimuli (pairs of consonants), and Peterson and Peterson asked participants to count numbers backwards by threes after presenting a trigram The critical part of both methods was that the distractor activity had to be intense enough to prevent rehearsal Brown accomplished this by presenting the digit pairs at a rate of one per 0.78 seconds, and Peterson and Peterson asked participants to count the numbers at a rate of twice per second Both methods showed rapid forgetting immediately after a stimulus was presented, and based on the results, Brown concluded that the memory trace decays rapidly without rehearsal, whereas in keeping with the functional tradition, Peterson and Peterson carefully avoided a theoretical conclusion The Brown- Peterson paradigm became important over the years because toward the end of the 1960s, Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) proposed a formal model of memory based on the information processing per-spective, which included the short- term memory store as one of three separate memory systems

The assumption that humans are an information processing system also led to a new emphasis on free recall and how participants organize recall outputs Unlike paired- associate learning, free recall allows participants to recall items in any order, and if participants are actively processing informa-tion, it is reasonable to assume that free recall outputs would reflect the active role participants play

in remembering information Bousfield (1953) reported evidence showing that participants were actively organizing information, in line with the notion of recoding mentioned by Miller (1956) He presented a list consisting of words from four different categories (e.g., animals) followed by a free recall test Then, he analyzed the recall output in terms of repetitions of words from the same cat-

egory (e.g., zebra followed by otter) The results showed that these repetitions occurred significantly

more frequently than expected by chance, indicating that participants were actively clustering words from the same category in their recall output A similar organization of recall output was reported by Tulving (1962) in his experiment using a list that did not have a categorical structure like Bousfield’s Because the list was not categorized, Tulving used multiple study- test trials to count the number

of the same two words being recalled together (e.g., desk followed by dog) on two successive test

trials The results showed that such repetitions increased across 16 study- test trials, indicating that participants organized their recall even though the study list did not have obvious structure, a phe-nomenon referred to as subjective organization Over the next decade, there was a flurry of activity

in developing appropriate measures of organization (Puff, 1979), as reflected in the popularity of free recall, which peaked shortly after 1970 (Hintzman, 2011) The subsequent decline in the popularity

of free recall also corresponded with a sudden decline in the investigation of organization

Nevertheless, the analysis of free recall protocols has shown a resurgence in recent years For instance, Kahana, Howard, Zaromb, and Wingfield (2002) analyzed free recall outputs in terms

of the probability of first recall and the conditional response probability as a function of lag They analyzed free recall outputs after the first item was recalled and showed that the probability of recall was higher among the items from neighboring serial positions, revealing, yet again, the usefulness

of analyzing free recall Brainerd, Reyna, and Howe (2009) also developed a method based on Markov chains to decompose the free recall protocol, which enables predictions as to which patients with mild cognitive impairment would progress to Alzheimer’s dementia To promote some of the organization measures, Senkova and Otani (2012, 2015) developed spreadsheet calculators to make these measures more accessible to researchers because computing these measures is prohibitively laborious

Another topic worth mentioning for this era was pioneered by Hart (1965) and Brown and

McNeill (1966), who began conducting experiments in a field that later became known as nition Hart conducted experiments on feeling of knowing (FOK), or a feeling that one knows the

metacog-answer even though for the moment, one is unable to retrieve it Brown and McNeil investigated the tip- of- the- tongue (TOT) state, in which one experiences an intense feeling that the sought- after answer is on the verge of being retrieved Psychologists have written about these phenomena since William James (1890); however, for many years, these phenomena have not attracted attention of empirical researchers, with the only exception being a German researcher, Wenzl (1932, 1936) The method Hart developed was later referred to as the RJR (recall- judgment- recognition) paradigm because in this paradigm, participants are asked to answer a series of questions (e.g., “Which planet is the largest in our solar system?” Jupitar), and if they fail to answer a question, they are asked to make

an FOK judgment by being asked whether they know the answer (even though at the moment they cannot recall it) and whether they will be able to recognize the answer if it is presented among distractors The results showed that participants were more likely to recognize correct answers when they had an FOK than when they did not have an FOK Brown and McNeil elicited TOTs by pre-

senting the definitions of rare words (e.g., apse, nepotism, cloaca), and when participants indicated that

they were experiencing a TOT, they were asked to write down partial information about the target word (number of syllables, initial letter, similar sounding words, words sharing similar meaning)

The results indicated that when participants experienced a TOT, they showed generic recall, which

consisted of the partial information of the target word Over the years, research on metacognition became a major field in human memory research because FOK and TOT represent monitoring and control of cognition (Nelson & Narens, 1994; Schwartz & Brown, 2014)

1970s Levels of Processing, Multiple Memories, Emergence of

Ecological Approach, and Working Memory

During the 1970s, a new perspective, the levels of processing framework (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), had emerged, and a new method was developed to test new hypotheses The core assumption of this framework was that processing proceeds from shallow (perceptual analysis) to deep (semantic analysis) and that memory becomes more durable as the depth increases Researchers relied heavily

on the incidental learning method with orienting tasks to test this hypothesis The assumption of this method was that by asking participants to perform an orienting task (e.g., check whether the word is printed in capital letters), it would be possible to manipulate the depth at which they pro-cess information Hyde and Jenkins’ (1969) paper is often cited as the study that inspired the levels

of processing hypothesis, even though the goal of their experiments was to investigate the effect

of orienting tasks on organization in free recall In Hyde and Jenkins’ study, the researchers used three orienting tasks: (1) rate the pleasantness of each word, (2) check whether each word included

a letter E, and (3) estimate the number of letters in each word These tasks were administered with

an incidental and/ or intentional learning instruction The results showed that the E checking and number of letter tasks reduced both recall and organization The relation between the orienting tasks and levels of processing was formalized by Craik and Tulving (1975), who used the orienting tasks to test the notion that encoding at a deep level would produce more durable memories than encoding at a shallow level These researchers asked participants orienting questions that directed them to process structural (“Is the word in capital letters?”) and phonemic (“Does the word rhyme with WEIGHT?”) information in the shallow condition and categorical (“Is the word a type of fish?”) or semantic (“Would the word fit the following sentence?”) information in the deep condi-tion The results supported the level of processing hypothesis, and numerous other studies used this method and replicated the effect However, soon, the notion of levels of processing was challenged (e.g., Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977), and alternative notions have been proposed as a replace-ment, such as elaboration (Bradshaw & Anderson, 1982), transfer appropriate processing (e.g., Mor-ris et al., 1977), distinctiveness (e.g., Jacoby & Craik, 1979; Hunt & Mitchell, 1982), and relational and item- specific processing (e.g., Einstein & Hunt, 1980) Nevertheless, to this day, the incidental learning method has remained the primary method of studying encoding processes in memory.Another approach that emerged during the 1970s was the system approach, which was the exten-sion of the information processing model of memory proposed by Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) The assumption of this approach was that memory consists of distinct systems that can be dissoci-ated Endel Tulving was the pioneer of this approach, and among the many contributions he made

in human memory research was the distinction between episodic and semantic memory systems Tulving (1972) conceptualized episodic memory as a type of memory studied by the list- learning paradigm in the laboratory and semantic memory as a type of memory needed to use language Regarding the methods to study semantic memory, the prominent methods have been sentence verification and semantic priming Collins and Quillian (1969) used a sentence verification task to test their hierarchical network model, which assumed that sematic memory consists of an associative network organized in a hierarchy and that the time it takes to verify a sentence reflects the distance one must travel in this network They presented sentences such as “Animal has skin” and “Canary

is canary,” and asked participants to verify each sentence The results showed that as predicted, ticipants took longer to verify some sentences than others, providing initial support for the model

par-However, as evidence contrary to the model accumulated, Collins and Loftus (1975) proposed a revised model, the spreading- activation theory, which assumed that in semantic memory, concepts are linked with other concepts with varying degrees of distance based on relatedness The core assumption, which was supported by the sematic priming phenomenon, was that once a concept is activated, the activation would quickly spread to nearby concepts, increasing the accessibility of these concepts Rosch (1975) conducted a series of experiments using the semantic priming paradigm, in

which pairs of words or pictures (e.g., chair- dresser) were presented, and participants were asked to

decide whether both items belonged to the same category The critical manipulation was whether a

prime category (e.g., furniture) or a blank preceded the pair The results showed that presenting a

cat-egory name as a prime reduced the decision time, showing evidence of semantic priming Although Rosch did not present these results as evidence to support or refute any particular model of semantic memory, Loftus (1975) in her rejoinder article argued that Rosch’s results were consistent with the spreading- activation theory, which became enormously influential over the years

While the levels of processing framework continued the list- learning tradition of Ebbinghaus, the tradition of Bartlett received renewed attention during the 1970s because of the dissatisfaction of a sizable number of researchers that traditional laboratory investigation had not yielded useful infor-

mation Reflecting such sentiment, at the conference on Practical Aspects of Memory, Neisser (1978)

lamented that “If X is an interesting or socially significant aspect of memory, then psychologists have hardly ever studied X” (p 4) This movement was referred to as the everyday memory movement, and a collection of papers representing this movement was published in an edited book by Neisser (1982), and the second edition of this book was published by Neisser and Hyman (2000) By reading the first edition, one would be impressed with the eclectic nature of this movement Furthermore, many of the topics from this movement, such as eyewitness memory, autobiographical memory, flashbulb memory, and prospective memory, have developed into major fields of research today.During the 1970s, researchers also took another look at short- term memory, focusing more on its wider function than its storage capacity and forgetting curve Baddeley and colleagues (e.g., Bad-deley, Grant, Wight, & Thomson, 1975; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; see Baddeley, 1986, for an exten-sive review) began asking about the importance of short- term memory in cognitive functioning and found that even when participants were asked to repeat digits, which presumably filled up short- term memory, there was no dramatic decline in cognitive performance Based on their findings, these researchers proposed the notion of working memory, which consists of three subsystems that are semi- independent of each other: the central executive, the phonological loop, and the visual- spatial sketch pad (VSSP) The method they used to test these systems was a concurrent memory task, based on the assumption that if a proposed system is important, disabling it by a concurrent memory task would create disruptions in performance A concurrent memory task they used to test the phonological loop system was an articulatory suppression task, in which participants were asked

to say something repetitive such as “the, the, the” while performing a main task The results showed

that robust phenomena in a memory span task, the phonological similarity and word- length effects, were disrupted, showing the involvement of the phonological loop in these phenomena The VSSP system was examined using a spatial suppression task, in which participants were asked to perform

a pursuit rotor task while memorizing five spatial or nonsense sentences The spatial sentences

described the locations (left, right, up, and down) of digits in a 4 × 4 matrix, whereas the nonsense sentences replaced the location words with nonsense words (quick, good, bad, and slow) The results

showed that when participants did not perform the pursuit rotor task, remembering of the spatial and nonsense sentences was similar; however, when participants performed the pursuit rotor task, remembering of the spatial sentences, but not the nonsense sentences, was disrupted (Baddeley et al., 1975) These results led the researchers to conclude that remembering the spatial sentences required the VSSP system Baddeley (1986) described that the central executive was the most elusive system among the three subsystems He speculated that this system is similar to the supervisory attention

system proposed by Norman and Shallice (1980), which is assumed to be responsible for attentional control of various actions, such as reasoning, reading comprehension, and encoding into long- term memory.

Baddeley and colleagues took a system approach to working memory; however, other ers conceptualized working memory as an individual difference variable and began developing tasks to measure working memory capacity (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Engle, Canter, & Carullo, 1992) These tasks were referred to as complex memory span tasks, and it has been shown that working memory capacity measured by these tasks is associated with performance on a variety

research-of cognitive tasks that tap into fluid intelligence Working memory has become a major area research-of research today because it is assumed to play a critical role in executive functions, such as planning, monitoring, focusing, directing attention, and inhibiting distractions

1980s Unconscious Memory, Dissociation, and Dual Processing

During the 1980s, researchers began questioning the role of consciousness in remembering, which led to the distinction between implicit and explicit memory (Schacter, 1987) Explicit memory requires conscious retrieval of memory, whereas implicit memory does not Explicit memory has been studied since Ebbinghaus using measures such as recall and recognition, whereas implicit mem-ory is studied by asking participants to respond with the first word that comes to mind or in a man-ner that they do not consciously access their memories (Schacter, 1987) A number of tasks have been developed to investigate implicit memory For instance, Jacoby and Dallas (1981) presented

a list of words and manipulated encoding conditions using the incidental learning paradigm These researchers then tested explicit memory using a standard yes- no recognition test and implicit mem-ory using a perceptual recognition test In the latter test, a target or distractor word was presented for 35 milliseconds followed by a mask, and participants were asked to simply identify the word The assumption was that the exposure to these words during the study phase would increase the likelihood that these words would come to mind quickly, even without making a retrieval effort,

a phenomenon referred to as repetition priming (Schacter, 1987) The results showed that explicit memory was sensitive to encoding manipulations such as levels of processing and difficulty of pro-cessing, whereas implicit memory was not The difference in sensitivity to manipulations between implicit and explicit memory was referred to as a dissociation, which was considered as evidence that implicit and explicit memory represent two separate memory systems During the 1980s, there was

a flurry of research to find a dissociation using a variety of implicit memory tasks, such as word- stem completion (e.g., Graf, Mandler, & Haden, 1982; Graf, Squire, & Mandler, 1984), word- fragment completion (Tulving, Schacter, & Stark, 1982), and lexical decision (e.g., Duchek & Neely, 1989; Moscovitch, 1982) Furthermore, these implicit memory tests were classified to be perceptually driven or conceptually driven (see Toth, 2000, for a complete list)

Another distinction that became important during the 1980s was the distinction between

remem-ber and know judgments (Tulving, 1985) Tulving conceptualized rememremem-bering as the subjective rience of retrieving information from episodic memory and knowing as the subjective experience

expe-of retrieving information from semantic memory However, in subsequent years, these judgments were used to test the dual- process theory of recognition memory, which proposes that recognition can be accomplished by two processes: familiarity and recognition (e.g., Mandler, 1980) Familiarity

is a feeling that one has encountered an item in the past even though contextual information rounding the encoding of the item is absent (know), whereas recollection is recognition of an item that is accompanied by the retrieval of contextual information (remember) In studies investigating familiarity and recollection, participants are asked to take a recognition test in which they are asked

sur-to recognize an item and indicate whether they have a remember or know experience ous studies using this method showed that remember and know judgments can be dissociated (see

Numer-Gardiner and Richardson- Klavehn, 2000, for an extensive list of variables that have been shown to influence remember and know judgments).

Researchers have also made extensive use of the signal detection theory (SDT) to test the dual- process theory of recognition memory During the 1950s and 1960s, SDT was used by researchers interested in sensation and perception; however, it also became useful in memory research because

it enabled researchers to separate the accuracy and response criterion components of recognition memory (Banks, 1970; Egan, 1958) The detail of SDT is beyond the scope of this chapter; how-ever, methodologically, participants are asked to provide a confidence rating (e.g., a 4- point scale) when deciding on whether a test item is old or new The advantage of this method is that hits can

be plotted against false alarms at each confidence level, allowing researchers to analyze receiver ating characteristics (ROC), which provide a complete picture of recognition performance The ROC analysis has been a valuable tool in discriminating various theories of recognition memory, including the dual- process theory (Yonelinas & Parks, 2007) Furthermore, using SDT, researchers can compute sensitivity measures, such as d’ (d- prime), as well as response criterion measures, such

oper-as β (beta) These measures inform researchers whether a manipulation truly influenced memory

or merely the willingness of participants to accept a test item as old There is no doubt that SDT is responsible for the popularity of recognition memory, which, according to Hintzman (2011), has been on the rise particularly since the middle of the 1980s

1990s Process Dissociation, False Memory, Forgetting,

and Prospective Memory

During the 1990s, a number of important methodological trends emerged The first notable one was the further expansion of the everyday memory movement from the 1970s, which crystal-

ized its approach in a series of papers in American Psychologist in 1991 (e.g., Conway, 1991; Loftus,

1991) Foremost among the trend of taking practical issues into the laboratory was the focus on false memories We argue here that the strong growth in the interest in false memory was made possible

by the development of methodological techniques that allowed for detailed examination of this phenomenon (Loftus, Coan, & Pickrell, 1996; Roediger & McDermott, 1995) Second, another research trend, enabled by the developing methodologies, was a focus on the relation of memory to consciousness, as opposed to the previous decade’s focus on non- conscious memory The particular methodology that brought this about was the process- dissociation technique (Jacoby, 1991) Third, two other important methodological advances made in the 1990s are the technique to examine retrieval- induced forgetting (Anderson, Bjork, & Bjork, 1994), and a set of techniques developed to examine prospective memory (e.g., Einstein & McDaniel, 1990)

Turning first to false memory, there were a number of high- profile criminal cases in the late 1980s and early 1990s that involved claims of recovered memories, some of which were later revealed not to be recovered memories but false memories (Loftus & Ketcham, 1991) This led memory researchers to turn their attention to this interesting and practical problem in memory; that

is, how could the issue of false memory be studied under controlled conditions in the psychology laboratory One of the powerful and flexible tools developed was the Deese- Roediger- McDermott technique (DRM), adapted to examine false memory by Roediger and McDermott (1995) The paper, which was first presented at Psychonomics in 1994 and then published in 1995, has been cited now over 3,000 times Based on earlier work by Deese (1959), the DRM provides a quick and easy- to- manipulate manner in which to induce false memories in the laboratory

In the DRM procedure, participants are presented with a list of words that are all related to a

common but unpresented word For example, the words bed, drowsy, rest, yawn, and dream may be presented Not presented is the word sleep, which links them all However, many participants will report that sleep was on the list and often recall it with much confidence (Arndt, 2012; Roediger &

McDermott, 1995) The DRM has several methodological advantages First, it can be given taneously to a large number of participants, thereby generating large numbers of false memories Second, the parameters of the task are easily manipulated Lists can be made longer or shorter, the list can be read slower or faster, the words can be substituted with pictures depicting the same concept

simul-or object, the level of association between items can be varied, the wsimul-ords can be read simul-or listened to, and the source of the words can be varied, just to name a few (Roediger, Watson, McDermott, & Gallo, 2001) Third, because all of these variables are easily manipulated, the DRM allows for the mechanisms underlying false memories to be explored, rather than simply demonstrating the phe-nomenon For these reasons, the DRM has become a workhorse of false memory research with over 2,000 papers that we could locate that use the methodology or discuss the methodology (using the term Deese- Roediger- McDermott as the key term in Google Scholar)

However, one of the potential limitations for the DRM is its generalizability to the kind of real- world false memories that are of public concern Most explanations of the DRM center around associative networks; that is, the critical intrusion is the result of its contextual associations to the words actually presented, and therefore, it is possible to think of this illusion as really being based

in semantic memory, rather than episodic memory For this reason, other researchers in the 1990s introduced the false- memory induction procedure (Loftus, Coan, & Pickrell, 1996)

In the false- memory induction procedure, participants are told that they experienced an event, such as being lost in the mall or having spilled punch on the bride at a wedding when they were young children In fact, interviews with participants’ relatives confirm that no such events occurred Repeated questioning about the event, however, shows that for some participants, false memories

of the event may occur For example, both Loftus and Pickrell (1995) and Hyman, Husband, and Billings (1995) found that about 25% of participants remembered details of memories for events that never occurred This method is more difficult and time consuming to conduct than the DRM, but

it creates false memories that are clearly episodic and subjectively similar to the kinds of false ries that the legal system and psychotherapists are concerned about

memo-Although we think it is fair to say that the interest in false memories dominated the field of memory throughout the decade of the 1990s, there were some other methodological innovations that changed the focus of the field One was the development of the retrieval- induced forgetting methodology (Anderson et al., 1994) This methodology allows us to see how the act of retrieving some informa-tion can inhibit the retrieval of other information, typically related information For example, constant practice studying the first ten presidents of the United States inhibits the retrieval of the next ten presi-dents In the retrieval- induced forgetting methodology, participants are given word lists within a par-ticular category to study and asked to practice retrieval with them (Anderson et al., 1994) For instance,

if the category was tools, the participants might study hammer, wrench, cutters, and sander The retrieval practice includes repeating the retrieval of certain items several times Thus, a participant may see

tools: wre _ and tools: san and have to retrieve the words wrench and sander In the same category, there are also unpracticed items, such as vacuum and grinder As a control, the list also includes other categories (e.g., fish) for which no retrieval practice takes place on any items Anderson et al (1994)

were interested in whether the repeated retrieval of some items would later inhibit the later retrieval of related items for which retrieval practice had not taken place Thus, participants were later asked to free recall the examples from each category, both practiced and unpracticed The findings from the original study and many others are that relative to the unpracticed category, items in the practiced category that were not practiced themselves showed lower rates of recall The original finding prompted a wave of research to examine the causes of this effect

Another important methodological advancement in the 1990s was the development of the process- dissociation technique (Jacoby, 1991) The process- dissociation technique allows research-ers to tease apart two different cognitive processes that go into producing task performance Jacoby points out that any given task is not process pure because performance on a task may be based on

input from a number of cognitive processes Jacoby focused on processes that fall along the lines

of conscious and controlled on the one hand, and non- conscious and implicit on the other hand These different processes may be habit versus intention, unconscious versus conscious processing,

or most relevant, familiarity versus recollection The process- dissociation technique is based on the logic of opposition; when conscious and unconscious processes are put in opposition to each other, the different influences of each one on memory can be teased out In the methodology, there is one condition in which the two processes yield a similar response This is then compared to a condition

in which the two processes yield different responses Let us consider a more concrete example.Consider an experiment in which people are given a list of words to examine (including the word,

blockade) The procedure induces a temporary increase in the familiarity of those words (Jacoby & ley, 1992) Later, people are given a stem- completion task, in which they see part of a word (bloc _)

Kel-and have to fill in the stem Participants are put into two groups: an inclusion condition Kel-and an sion condition In the inclusion condition, one can fill in the stem with anything that comes to mind,

exclu-including the previously seen word, but also with other words that might come to mind (e.g., blocker, blockage, etc.) In the inclusion condition, one can complete the task either through implicit or non-

conscious means or via consciously selecting a word seen earlier in the study Thus, the inclusion condition allows any response that fits the stem In the exclusion condition, if an item is consciously recalled from earlier in the list, it should be avoided Thus, subtracting the performance on the exclu-sion condition from performance on the inclusion task yields an estimate of the conscious contribution

to the process Jacoby (1991) in effect had developed a method for clearly distinguishing between conscious and non- conscious contributions to memory (but see Graf & Komatsu, 1994)

Prospective memory was another topic that researchers began tackling in earnest during the 1990s Prospective memory is remembering of the events that will happen in the future, such as remembering to pick up milk after getting out of work During the 1970s, Meacham and Leiman (1975) explored this topic as a part of the everyday memory movement; however, the approach these researchers took was to ask participants to mail back a postcard, which made it difficult to achieve adequate experimental control Accordingly, Einstein and McDaniel (1990) developed a laboratory method to study this phenomenon In this method, participants were asked to perform

an ongoing task (a short- term memory task of remembering a set of words), and while ing this task, they were asked to carry out a pre- specified task of pressing a key whenever they

perform-saw a target word among the set of words This task was referred to as an event- based prospective

memory task because the initiation of a prospective action (e.g., pressing a key) was prompted by

a cue The results were surprising because remembering to carry out the prospective task, while being busy performing the on- going task, did not show a typical age- related decline Subsequently, Einstein, McDaniel, Richardson, Guynn, and Cunfer (1995) modified the task such that there was no cue to prompt the action, and instead, participants were asked to perform the action when

a pre- specified time had elapsed This time- based prospective task showed an age- related decline,

presumably because this task emphasized self- initiated processing The development of laboratory methods to study prospective memory provided researchers with the opportunities to investigate many aspects of this phenomenon, from basic processes to applied issues

2000s Proliferation of Neuroimaging and Other Physiological Measures

A cliché about the study of history is that the closer one looks to the present, the harder it is to cern historical trends Nonetheless, there are a few trends in memory research that stand out strongly

dis-as we progress towards the present As the 1990s shifted into the 2000s, a number of already existing trends became more accentuated in memory research First, throughout the 1990s, the cognitive- neuroscience approach to memory was gathering steam We include the cognitive- neuroscience approach here in the 2000s because it was during this decade that it became a “can’t- avoid” topic for

all cognitive scientists interested in memory Another trend that was strengthened in the 2000s was the highlighting of educational concerns in memory research (Carpenter, Pashler, & Cepeda, 2009) Since the beginning of memory science, practical concerns have been important in the field (Dewey, 1910; Ebbinghaus, 1885; Munsterberg, 1907) We saw this in the 1990s with the attention to practical applications of false memory But, in the 2000s many theoretically oriented memory researchers began seriously thinking about and designing their studies with educational applications in mind, particularly with regards to the testing effect (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), which we will discuss shortly.The strongest trend we see starting in the 2000s is the reliance on fMRI and related techniques for basic information about our understanding of the role of the brain in memory processes Neuroscience approaches were already advancing in the 1980s and 1990s, but the reduction of cost in fMRI led to a tremendous growth in this area (Yeung, Goto, & Leung, 2017) In 1999, according to Google Scholar, only 274 papers used the term “fMRI.” By 2009, according to Google scholar, there were about 28,600

articles containing the word fMRI Most of those papers are not about memory research, but that’s a

100- fold increase from the beginning of the 1990s to the end of the 2000s This trove of research has focused on the neural pathways in the brain responsible for various components of memory

The typical methodology in fMRI research is to ask people to engage in a standard memory task while being monitored by fMRI technology The specific behavior in the task can then be corre-lated to the differential activation in various areas of the brain For example, Maril, Simons, Weaver, and Schacter (2005) asked participants to recall general- information questions, such as “Who wrote

the opera Carmen (Bizet)?” Maril et al recorded from the brain while people were answering those

questions and then later divided the responses into those that were successfully recalled, those that were given “don’t know” responses, and those described as TOT states Maril et al found different patterns of brain activation in each of the three states For example, activity in the anterior cingulate was significantly higher during TOT states than it was for correct recall or don’t know responses In this way, Maril et al concluded that because of the correlation between the anterior cingulate and TOT states, that area of the brain may be important in producing TOT states

As appealing as fMRI research is and as valuable as it is in discovering the circuitry of the brain,

it is still just a methodological tool and must be approached with caution and understanding First,

it is necessarily correlational; that is, when an area of the brain lights up during a memory task, it does not mean that area is primarily responsible for it Second, because of the way fMRI studies are usually conducted, they run a very high risk of Type 1 errors, which must be considered when interpreting data (Bennett, Wolford, & Miller 2009) Third, fMRI is limited in terms of temporal resolution even though it has a good spatial resolution That is, each scan takes just over a second to complete due to the speed of hemodynamic responses, which is fast enough to distinguish areas that are activated or non- activated in reaction to a stimulus but hardly fast enough to distinguish different stages of cognitive processing, which happens within milliseconds (Banich, 2004)

Indeed, in terms of understanding functional approaches to memory, growing research using brain- stimulation methods may be more valuable With brain- stimulation methods, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), it is possible to do true experiments, in which one controls the region receiving stimulation across conditions (Rossi et al., 2009) Like fMRI, there were only 330 publica-tions using the term in 1991, but the number had risen to about 5,800 by the year 2009 (and up to about 7,690 in 2016) across all fields Our point is that because researchers can control the level, loca-tion, and timing of stimulation in TMS, this technique lends itself to more experimental approaches.Within the cognitive psychology approach to memory, one of the big trends in the 2000s concerned the investigation of the testing effect, also known as the retrieval practice effect (Chan McDermott, & Roediger 2006; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) The testing effect is the basic finding that the act of engaging in retrieval of a to- be- remembered item strengthens the representation of that item in memory

to a greater extent than does restudying the item For example, Roediger and Karpicke (2006) pared the learning of textual information One group re- studied the passages whereas another group

com-engaged in self- testing on the same material One week later, the self- tested participants outperformed the re- studiers by a significant amount Although the basics of the testing effect have been known for some time (e.g., Slamecka & Graf, 1978), the current approach emphasizes its importance to education Indeed, many applied studies have shown how critical retrieval practice is in any number of school and other learning situations (Chaffin, 2007) The interest in retrieval practice continues with as much vigor now as it did ten years ago (e.g., Agarwal, Finley, Rose, & Roediger, 2017).

20- Teens and Beyond

As we pass the mid- way point of the teens, there are a few discernible trends that we can see in memory science for this decade Although our view may be clouded by our immersion in the cur-rent period in research, here are some of the trends that we see in the current decade First, we emphasize that the cognitive approach to memory is still strong A look at the 2016 program of the Psychonomics program shows that the theoretical issues that have motivated cognitive science for decades are still receiving much attention and that many memory researchers still rely on behavioral measures We see this as a good thing; as can be inferred from the chapters in this book, we still think psychological methods have a big place at the table of scientific research However, behavioral measures will have to share that table with a number of developing trends For example, memory science continues to be influenced by neuroscience With respect to neuroscience, memory research

is entering the age of big science, in which knowledge about how the brain produces memory is often a smaller part of a bigger project under the banner of neuroscience (e.g., LePort et al., 2012) Another trend —also placing memory research and its methodology in the service of big science —is the increasing trend to study memory phenomena in clinical populations (e.g., Kofler et al., 2014) Indeed, as neuroscientists and clinical researchers explore memory, we hope that they find the chapters in this book useful We hope that the methodologies and combined years of wisdom accu-mulated in these chapters can help serve as a guide for people interested in and drawn to memory processes, but whose training and expertise lie elsewhere

Finally, looking to the future, there are two enormous challenges for memory researchers The first lies in the domain of memory enhancement Many cognitive psychologists might argue that we have uncovered a number of means whereby the ordinary person can learn more information in less time and remember more of what he or she has learned (Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013; Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham,2013) Schwartz and Efklides (2012) have called this memory efficiency, because of increased learning per unit of time These include but are not limited to such findings as the testing effect, distributed learning, effective use of judgments of learning, and survival processing,

to name a few However, we think the 2020s and beyond will force memory researchers into ing the positive and negative effects on memory of various drugs designed to prevent memory loss and therefore enhance memory in both impaired and later normal individuals Again, being able to draw on strong methodological tools, such as those described in this volume, will be crucial for this endeavor.The second enormous challenge for memory researchers in the 2020s and beyond is to pull various methods together to understand the relation of memory processes to consciousness This will require combining numerous methodologies from both behavioral science and neuroscience

delineat-in ways that are still not formulated But if this endeavor is to be successful, it will be built on the legacy of the methodologies developed in the 132 years since Ebbinghaus started reciting German nonsense syllables in his attic in Berlin

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have highlighted the methodological development since Ebbinghaus started the scientific study of memory As we indicated at the beginning of this chapter, our goal is not to

create an exhaustive review but rather to show how methodological sophistication has increased during the short history of memory science in response to ever growing complexity in theoretical as well as practical questions As such, there is no doubt that we have omitted some of the important methodological advancements, which the readers may feel we should have covered Nevertheless,

we hope that we accomplished our goal, and we will now turn the table to other authors in this volume to tell the rest of the story

Acknowledgment

We thank James Pate for helpful comments on the draft of this chapter

References

Agarwal, P K., Finley, J R., Rose, N S., & Roediger, H L III (2017) Benefits from retrieval practice are

greater for students with lower working memory capacity Memory, 25, 764–771.

Anderson, M C., Bjork, R A., & Bjork, E L (1994) Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval

dynam-ics in long- term memory Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 1063–1087 Arndt, J (2012) The influence of forward and backward associative strength on false recognition Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 747–756.

Atkinson, R C., & Shiffrin, R M (1968) Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes In

K W Spence & J T Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory

(Vol 2, pp 742–775) New York: Academic Press

Baddeley, A D (1986) Working memory Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Baddeley, A D., Grant, S., Wight, E., & Thomson, N (1975) Imagery and visual working memory In P

M A Rabbitt, &, S Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp 205–217) London: Academic Press Baddeley, A D., & Hitch, G J (1974) Working memory In G Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and

memory (Vol 8, pp 47–90) New York: Academic Press.

Banich, M T (2004) Cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychology Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Banks, W P (1970) Signal detection theory and human memory Psychological Bulletin, 74, 81–99.

Bartlett, F C (1932) Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology Cambridge: Cambridge

Uni-versity Press

Bennett, C M., Wolford, G L., & Miller, M B (2009) The principled control of false positives in

neuroimag-ing Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4, 417–422.

Bjork, R A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N (2013) Self- regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions

Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.

Bousfield, W A (1953) The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates Journal of

General Psychology, 49, 229–240.

Bradshaw, G L., & Anderson, J R (1982) Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 165–174.

Brainerd, C J., Reyna, V F., & Howe, M L (2009) Trichotomous processes in early memory development,

aging, and neurocognitive impairment: A unified theory Psychological Review, 116, 783–832.

Brown, J (1958) Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 10, 12–21.

Brown, R., & McNeill, D (1966) The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon Journal of Verbal Learning & Behavior,

5, 325–337.

Calkins, M W (1894) Association I Psychological Review, 1(5), 476–483.

Calkins, M W (1896a) Association: An essay analytic and experimental Psychological Review: Monograph

Sup-plements,1(2), 1–56.

Calkins, M W (1896b) Association II Psychological Review, 3, 32–49.

Carpenter, S K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N J (2009) Using tests to enhance 8th grade students’ retention of

U S history facts Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 760–777.

Chaffin, R (2007) Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorization Music Perception, 24,

377–393

Chan, J C K., McDermott, K B., & Roediger, H L (2006) Retrieval- induced facilitation: Initially non-

tested material can benefit from prior testing of related material Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,

135, 553–571.

Collins, A M., & Loftus, E F (1975) A spreading- activation theory of semantic processing Psychological

Review, 82(6), 407–428.

Collins, A M., & Quillian, M R (1969) Retrieval time from semantic memory Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 240–247.

Conway, M A (1991) In defense of everyday memory American Psychologist, 46, 19–26.

Craik, F I M., & Lockhart, R S (1972) Levels of processing: A framework for memory research Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.

Craik, F I M., & Tulving, E (1975) Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268–294.

Crowder, R G (1976) Principles of learning and memory Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P A (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.

Deese, J (1959) On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22.

Dewey, J (1910) Science as subject- matter and as method Science, 31, 121–127.

Duchek, J M., & Neely, J H (1989) A dissociative word frequency X levels- of- processing interaction in

episodic recognition and lexical decision tasks Memory & Cognition, 17, 148–162.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K A., Marsh, E J., Nathan, M J., & Willingham, D T (2013) Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychol-

ogy Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.

Ebbinghaus, H (1885/ 2011) Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino

Publishing

Egan, J P (1958) Recognition memory and the operating characteristic (United States Air Force Operational

Appli-cations Laboratory Technical Note Nos 58, 51, 32)

Einstein, G O., & Hunt, R R (1980) Levels of processing and organization: Additive effects of individual-

item and relational processing Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 588–598 Einstein, G O., & McDaniel, M A (1990) Normal aging and prospective memory Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 717–726.

Einstein, G O., McDaniel, M A., Richardson, S L., Guynn, M J., & Cunfer, A R (1995) Aging and

prospective memory: Examining the influences of self- initiated retrieval processes Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 21, 996–1007.

Engle, R W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J J (1992) Individual differences in working memory and comprehension:

A test of four hypotheses Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 972–992.

Furumoto, L (1979) Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) fourteenth president of the American Psychological

Association Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 15, 346–356.

Gardiner, J M., & Richardson- Klavehn, A (2000) Remembering and knowing In E Tulving & F I M

Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp 229–244) New York: Oxford University Press.

Graf, P., & Komatsu, S (1994) Process dissociation procedure: Handle with caution! European Journal of

Cogni-tive Psychology, 6, 113–129.

Graf, P., Mandler, G., & Haden, E E (1982) Simulating amnesic symptoms in normals Science, 218,

1243–1244

Graf, P., Squire, L R., & Mandler, G (1984) The information that amnesic patients do not forget Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 164–178.

Hart, J T (1965) Memory and the feeling- of- knowing experience Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 208–216.

Hermann, D J., & Chaffin, R (1987) Memory before Ebbinghaus In D S Gorfein & R R Hoffman (Eds.),

Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp 35–75) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hintzman, D L (2011) Research strategy in the study of memory: Fads, fallacies, and the search for the dinates of truth.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 253–271.

“coor-Hoffman, R R., Bringmann, W., Bamberg, M., & Klein, R M (1987) Some historical observations on inghaus In D S Gorfein and R R Hoffman (Eds.), Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference

Ebb-(pp 57–76) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Hull, C L (1952) A behavior system New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hull, C L., Hovland, C I., Ross, R T., Hall, M., Perkins, D T., & Fitch, F B (1940) Mathematico- deductive

theory of rote learning New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hunt, R R., & Mitchell, D B (1982) Independent effects of semantic and nonsemantic distinctiveness Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 81–87.

Hyde, T S., & Jenkins, J J (1969) The differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a

list of highly associated words Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 472–481.

Hyman, I E., Jr., Husband, T H., & Billings, F J (1995) False memories of childhood experiences Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 181–197.

Jacoby, L L (1991) A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory

Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513–541.

Jacoby, L L., & Craik, F I M (1979) Effects of elaboration of processing at encoding and retrieval: Trace

distinctiveness and recovery of initial context In L S Cermak & F I M Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in

human memory (pp 1–21) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jacoby, L L, & Dallas, M (1981) On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual ing Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 306–340.

learn-Jacoby, L L., & Kelley, C M (1992) A process- dissociation framework for investigating unconscious

influ-ences: Freudian slips, projective tests, subliminal perception, and signal detection theory Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 1, 174–179.

James, W (1890) The principles of psychology: Vol 1 New York: Holt.

Kahana, M J., Howard, M W., Zaromb, F., & Wingfield, A (2002) Age dissociates recency and lag recency

effects in free recall Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 530–540 Kausler, D H (1966) Readings in verbal learning: Contemporary theory and research New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kofler, M J., Alderson, R M., Raiker, J S., Bolden, J., Sarver, D E., & Rapport, M D (2014) ing memory and intraindividual variability as neurocognitive indicators in ADHD: Examining competing

Work-model predictions Neuropsychology, 28, 459–471.

LePort, A K R., Mattfeld, A T., Anson, H., Fallon, J H., Stark, C E L., Kruggel, F R., Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J L (2012) A behavioral and neuroanatomical investigation of highly superior autobiographical

memory (HSAM) Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 98(1), 78–92.

Loftus, E F (1975) Spreading activation within semantic categories: Comments on Rosch’s “cognitive

repre-sentation of semantic categories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 234–240.

Loftus, E F (1991) The glitter of everyday memory research and the gold American Psychologist, 46, 16–18.

Loftus, E F., Coan, J A., & Pickrell, J E (1996) Manufacturing false memories using bits of reality In L M

Reder (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp 195–220) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Loftus, E F., & Ketcham, K (1991) Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who puts

memory on trial New York: St Martin’s Press.

Loftus, E F., & Pickrell, J E (1995) The formation of false memories Psychiatric Annals, 25(12), 720–725.

Madigan, S., & O’Hara, R (1992) Short- term memory at the turn of the century: Mary Whiton Calkins’s

memory research American Psychologist, 47, 170–174.

Mandler, G (1980) Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence Psychological Review, 87, 252–271.

Maril, A., Simons, J S., Weaver, J J., & Schacter, D L (2005) Graded recall success: An event- related fMRI

comparison of tip of the tongue and feeling of knowing NeuroImage, 24, 1130–1138.

Meacham, J A., & Leiman, B (1975, September) Remembering to perform future actions Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL Also in U Neisser (Ed.) (1982) Memory

observed: Remembering in natural contexts San Francisco: Freeman.

Miller, G A (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing

information Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

Morris, C D., Bransford, J D., & Franks, J J (1977) Levels of processing versus transfer- appropriate

process-ing Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.

Moscovitch, M (1982) Multiple dissociations of function in amnesia In L Cermak (Ed.), Human memory and

amnesia (pp 337–370) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Munsterberg, H (1907) On the witness stand Garden City, NY: Page Doubleday.

Murray, D J (1983) A history of western psychology Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.

Neisser, U (1978) Memory: What are the important questions? In M M Gruneberg, P E Morris, & R N

Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp 3–24) London: Academic Press.

Neisser, U (1982) Snapshots or benchmarks? In U Neisser (Ed.), Memory observed: Remembering in natural con texts (pp 43–48) New York: W H Freeman.

-Neisser, U., & Hyman, I E (2000) Memory observed: Remembering in natural contexts New York: Worth Publishers.

Nelson, T O., & Dunlosky, J (1991) When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at

predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed- JOL effect.” Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.

Nelson, T O., & Narens, L (1994) Why investigate metacognition? In J Metcalfe & A P Shimamura (Eds.),

Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp 1–25) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Newman, S E (1987) Ebbinghaus’ On Memory: Some effects on early American Research In D S

Gor-fein & R R Hoffman (Eds.), Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp 77–87) Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Nicolas, S (2006) La mesure de la mémoire L’essentiel cerveau & Psycho, 6, 1–4.

Norman, D A., & Shallice, T (1980) Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior Chip report 99,

San Diego, CA: University of California

Osgood, C E (1949) The similarity paradox in human learning: A resolution Psychological Review, 56,

132–143

Peterson, L., & Peterson, M J (1959) Short- term retention of individual verbal items Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 58, 193–198.

Puff, C R (Ed.), (1979) Memory organization and structure New York: Academic Press.

Roediger, H L., & Karpicke, J D (2006) Test enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long- term

retention Psychological Science, 17, 249–255.

Roediger, H L., & McDermott, K B (1995) Creating false memories: Remembering words that were not

presented in lists Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 803–814.

Roediger, H L., Watson, J M., McDermott, K B., & Gallo, D A (2001) Factors that determine false recall:

A multiple regression analysis Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 385–407.

Rosch, E (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,

104, 192–233.

Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P M., Pascual- Leone, A., & Safety of TMS Consensus Group (2009) Safety, ethical considerations and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical

practice and research Clinical Neurophysiology, 120, 2008–2039.

Schacter, D L (1987) Implicit memory: History and current status Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Memory, and Cognition, 13, 501–518.

Schwartz, B L., & Brown, A S (2014) Tip- of- the- tongue states and related phenomena Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Schwartz, B L., & Efklides, A (2012) Metamemory and Memory efficiency: Implications for Student

Learn-ing Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 145–151.

Senkova, O., & Otani, H (2012) Category clustering calculator for free recall Advances in Cognitive Psychology,

8, 292–295.

Senkova, O., & Otani, H (2015) Subjective organization calculator for free recall SAGE Open, 5(4), 1–5 Shakow, D (1930) Hermann Ebbinghaus American Journal of Psychology, 42, 505–518.

Slamecka, N J., & Graf, P (1978) The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604.

Thorndike, E L (1908) Memory for paired associates Psychological Review, 15, 122–138.

Titchener, E B (1901) Experimental psychology: A manual of laboratory practice (Vol 1, Qualitative experiments, Part

II, Instructor’s manual) New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Titchener, E B (1910) A text- book of psychology New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Toth, J P (2000) Nonconscious forms of human memory In E Tulving & F I M Craik (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of memory (pp 245–261) New York: Oxford University Press.

Tulving, E (1962) Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated” words Psychological Review, 69, 344–354 Tulving, E (1972) Episodic and semantic memory In E Tulving & W Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of

memory (pp 381–403) New York: Academic Press.

Tulving, E (1985) Memory and consciousness Canadian Psychology, 26, 1–12.

Tulving, E., Schacter, D L., & Stark, H A (1982) Priming effects in word- fragment completion are

independ-ent of recognition memory Journal of Experimindepend-ental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 8, 336–342 Tulving, E., & Thomson, D M (1973) Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory Psy-

chological Review, 80, 352–373.

Underwood, B J (1949) Experimental psychology New York: Appleton- Century- Crofts.

Verhave, T., & van Hoorn, W (1987) The winds of doctrine: Ebbinghaus and his reputation in America In D

S Gorfein & R R Hoffman (Eds.), Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp 89–102)

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Wenzl, A (1932) Empirische und theoretische Beiträge zur Erinnerungsarbeit bei erschwerter Wortfindung

Archivfür die gesamte Psychologie, 85, 181–218.

Wenzl, A (1936) Empirische und theoretische Beiträge zur Erinnerungsarbeit bei erschwerter Wortfindung

Archivfür die gesamte Psychologie, 97, 294–318.

Yates, F A (1966) The art of memory London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Yeung, A W K., Goto, T K., & Leung, W K (2017) The changing landscape of neuroscience research,

2006–2015: A bibliometric study Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 210.

Yonelinas, A P., & Parks, C M (2007) Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory:

A review Psychological Bulletin, 133, 800–832.

A son said to his father one day: “I will hide, and you will not be able to find me.” The father replied: “Hide wherever you like,” and he went into the house to rest The son saw a three- kernel pea- nut, and changed himself into one of the kernels; a fowl coming along picked up the pea- nut, and swallowed it; a wild bush- cat caught and ate the fowl; and a dog met and chased and ate the bush- cat After a little time the dog was swallowed by a python, that, having eaten its meal, went

to the river, and was snared in a fish- trap The father searched for his son, and not seeing him, went

to look at the fish- trap On pulling it to the river side, he found a large python in it He opined

it, and saw a dog inside, in which he found a bush- cat, and on opening that he discovered a fowl, from which he took the pea- nut, and breaking the shell, he then revealed his son The son was so dumbfounded that he never again tried to outwit his father

From Bartlett (1932) Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.

THE SON WHO TRIED TO OUTWIT

HIS FATHER

DEPENDENT MEASURES

IN MEMORY RESEARCH

From Free Recall to Recognition

Anne M Cleary

Dependent Measures in Memory Research: A Brief History

There are many ways to study human memory Perhaps the oldest established experimental method

is the list- learning approach, whereby participants first study a list of items and later receive a test of their memory for those items The study phase is known as the encoding phase and the test phase as the retrieval phase The list- learning approach allows for highly controlled experimental investiga-tions of many variables, at encoding or at retrieval, to examine what factors help or harm encoding

of information into memory as well as what factors help or harm later retrieval or access to memory

It has led to a great many discoveries about human memory over the past century

The list- learning approach originated with Ebbinghaus (1885/ 1913), who carried out memory experiments on himself using lists of nonsense syllables and the relearning method, measuring how many fewer trials it took to relearn a list to criterion compared to the number required to learn

it the first time and computed a savings score Ebbinghaus’ work spawned a future generation of memory researchers during the behaviorist era known as the verbal learning researchers Focusing

primarily on verbal materials and publishing in outlets such as the Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, verbal learning researchers developed and expanded the repertoire of list- learning measures

beyond the savings score Their measures of memory performance ranged from free recall to paired- associate learning to cued recall to recognition; however, the general methodology still consisted of

an encoding phase, a retention interval, and a retrieval phase How memory was measured depended

on the type of test used to assess memory in the retrieval phase (e.g., free recall performance, cued recall performance, or recognition performance) The measures of memory used in list- learning paradigms were further expanded after the emergence of cognitive psychology as a formal field of research, and the measures of free recall, cued recall, and recognition are well- reviewed in Puff’s

(1982) Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition, for that point in time

There-fore, this chapter aims to cover new developments in measures of free recall, cued recall, and ognition since that time

rec-It is first important to provide a comment about theory Although this is a methods chapter aimed

at reviewing the methodologies and methodological issues that need to be considered in memory research that uses free recall, cued recall, or recognition paradigms, it is impossible to completely disentangle methodology from theory As will be apparent in the methodological reviews below, many (if not most) methodological approaches are theory- driven, and many have basic theoretical assumptions that can be questioned Rather than get caught up in the theoretical debates themselves,

I have tried to focus on the aspects of theory that are most relevant for methodological tions and what particular critical assumptions are made with certain methodological approaches.

considera-Free Recall

Free recall is perhaps the simplest of the list- learning methodologies for studying human memory Following a time period after studying a list of items (such as a list of words), the participant is instructed to report as many of the studied items as possible The participant is free to conjure up the items from memory in any order, with the goal of trying to get as many as possible The reporting can be done by writing the items down onto a blank piece of paper, typing them into a computer,

or reciting them aloud Though the mean number recalled is sometimes used as the dependent measure, researchers often prefer to compute the proportion recalled (total number recalled/ total possible to recall), as it provides more information to a reader (such as whether there may be ceil-ing effects) Also, it is important to note that in addition to measuring the total amount of list items correctly recalled, measuring the intrusions (falsely or incorrectly recalled items) is also important; methods for this will be discussed below

The free recall method of measuring memory performance is especially useful for attempting

to understand participant- initiated retrieval strategies or participant- initiated self- cuing tendencies Basically, it is useful for attempting to understanding how people tend to go about trying to retrieve information from memory themselves and what this might suggest about basic human memory pro-cesses and organizational structure An alternative recall method discussed later is cued recall, which imposes externally presented cues for guiding the participant to recall, and although external cuing

is advantageous to memory in many respects, it can disrupt the internal retrieval approach that a participant might otherwise use Thus, if the researcher’s goal is to understand how participants go about retrieving on their own when not presented with external cues, free recall is a useful method.Historically, free recall has been a favored measure for examining participant- generated order-ing in recall output such as clustering (Murphy & Puff, 1982; Pellegrino & Hubert, 1982) Dur-ing free recall, participants have a tendency to exhibit clustering according to semantic relatedness (e.g., Bousfield, 1953; Bousfield & Sedgewick, 1944; Cofer, Bruce, & Reicher, 1966) In short, after studying a randomly ordered list that contains some semantically related words (e.g., words from the fruit category, words from the furniture category, words from the vehicle category, etc.), but in a random order, the participant’s recall order tends not to be random, even though the study list order was random For example, when a participant retrieves one item from the list (such as

“apple”), the next few items that the participant generates are likely to be related to that item, such

as other fruits (e.g., “pear, peach, banana”) As described by Murphy and Puff, methodological siderations have included assessing the degree of relatedness among the list items that were intended

con-to be related, assigning and tracking study list presentation order, manner of presentation, tions, counterbalancing, and finally, how to deal with intrusions (items generated during free recall that were not actually studied)

instruc-An area that has changed substantially since the reviews in Puff’s (1982) book is how relatedness

is assessed Assessing semantic clustering requires theoretical assumptions regarding how study list words relate to one another in an average participant’s mind Many metrics for assessing semantic relatedness have been devised since the time of Murphy and Puff’s review Some of them rely

on large databases for assessing the co- occurrence of pairs of words, such as from co- occurrences gleaned from existing text on the internet, whereas some rely on data from free association experi-ments For example, latent semantic analysis (LSA) uses analysis of co- occurrences of words from

a pre- existing large text database (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) to assess semantic similarity between two words, as do other internet- based methods (e.g., Calibrasi & Vitanyi, 2005; Milne & Wit-ten, 2008) Experimentally sourced indices include the Nelson Word Association Norms (Nelson,

McEvoy, & Schreiber, 1998, 2004) and the Word Association Spaces (WAS) method (Steyvers, Shiffrin, & Nelson, 2004) These use norms created by having large numbers of participants gener-ate, for each cue word on a list, the first word that comes to mind When pooled together from many participants, such data may indicate the likely degree of association between two words in

an average person’s mind Thus, similarity indices acquired from these methods can also potentially index pre- experimental semantic relationships among words used in a study list Finally, some have suggested that combining pre- existing database methods with experimentally sourced methods may provide the best indices (Heath, Norton, Ringger & Ventura, 2013)

Regarding measuring the degree of clustering shown in a free recall experiment, Polyn, Norman, and Kahana (2009) developed a semantic clustering score intended to quantify the degree of seman-tic clustering exhibited by a participant in a free recall task Manning and Kahana (2012) described simulations intended to better understand participants’ internal semantic similarity Additionally,

on the topic of attempting to better understand individual participants’ internal semantic ity indices, some researchers have employed cognitive neuroscience methodologies for inferring relations between subjective associations in the mind and later clustering in free recall tasks For instance, Manning, Sperling, Sharan, Rosenberg, and Kahana (2012) found evidence that neural patterns associated with actively thinking about a particular pair of words were predictive of the later likelihood of successively retrieving one of those words after the other when those two words had appeared separately on an earlier randomly ordered study list

similar-Another area that has changed substantially since Puff’s (1982) review is how intrusions are handled At the time of their review, intrusions were largely treated as a nuisance in studies of free recall Recommendations at that time included treating them as errors and ignoring them when tallying the number of items recalled or treating them as correct recall responses for the purposes

of examining clustering tendencies Although Puff acknowledged that intrusions can be interesting

in their own right, and that most intrusions tend to be associates of studied items, not much was known about this at the time Today, intrusions in free recall tasks have become research domains

in and of themselves

Perhaps the best example of intrusions in free recall now being an important research area is the Deese- Roediger- McDermott (DRM) false memory paradigm Roediger and McDermott (1995) resurrected an older study by Deese (1959) in which participants studied sets of related words that were presented together in succession (e.g., bed, rest, awake, dream, pillow, blanket, nap, slumber, etc.) When given a free recall test, participants demonstrate a high probability of falsely “recalling”

a non- studied word that is a high associate of the studied set known as the critical target (e.g., sleep) Roediger and McDermott’s study led to an explosion of research on the topic of false memory in free recall paradigms, and on the types of relatedness and other factors that lead to false recall For counterbalancing purposes, in these paradigms, the probability of falsely reporting recalling a critical target can be compared to the probability of reporting a non- critical target (from an unstudied set

of related words)

Another example of a research focus on intrusions concerns research on patterns of intrusions from prior study lists on recall for a current study list and the implications for memory For example, Zaromb et al (2006) found that repetitions that led to successful recall in earlier lists were more likely to be falsely recalled as having been on a later list when given a subsequent study list followed

by a free recall test The authors argued that participants form temporal, contextual associations during study and recall, which can then contribute systematically to intrusions on a later test Thus, studying intrusions serves as one method of theory testing regarding contextual associations and their role in driving the recall of one item to the next in free recall tasks

Along these same lines, whereas earlier research on free recall tended to focus on semantic tering, later research has focused on temporal contiguity For example, Kahana (1996) presented a method of studying associative processes at retrieval during free recall tasks He used conditional

clus-response probabilities in the recall order among items produced by each participant to show that there was a relationship between the order produced by the participant during recall and their rela-tive positioning in the study list —an effect that has come to be known as the temporal contigu-ity effect Basically, when people recall one item, it is thought to serve as a reminder or cue for another item, which in turn, serves as a reminder or a cue for yet another item, and so on Indeed,

a meta- analysis of free recall studies suggests that recalling one item leads to retrieval of mental states previously associated with that item; these previous mental states are thought to blend with the immediate context to cue the next item to be retrieved in a process called compound cuing (Lohnas & Kahana, 2014)

Finally, another more recent development in free recall measures concerns the study of recall termination (Miller, Weidemann, & Kahana, 2012) Miller et al analyzed the termination prob-ability across 14 existing free recall studies plus a newly carried out experiment of their own and found that the probability of recall termination increased as more time passed across the span of the recall phase and was more probable after an incorrect than a correct recall response They also found that the type of error mattered: Participants were more likely to terminate their recall attempts after intrusions from prior lists or after generating items that had already been recalled than after extra- experimental intrusions

Cued Recall

Cues Aid Memory Retrieval

Another way to elicit recall in a list- learning paradigm is to provide participants with cues to use in generating their responses at the time of test Generally, providing cues at test leads to a greater like-lihood of successful recall than providing no cues (e.g., Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966; Wood, 1967) Given the same study conditions across participants, participants who are given cues, such as cat-egory names at test (e.g., fruits) for items that had appeared at study (e.g., apple, banana, pear), tend

to recall a higher proportion of items from the study list than participants asked to engage in free recall In short, cues help in accessing information from memory This principle has been apparent from numerous studies of encoding specificity and context reinstatement as well (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, 1975)

Associative Cues in Paired- Associate Learning

There are different methods of studying cued recall One of the oldest methods of studying cued recall, stemming from the verbal learning research era, is the paired- associate learning method (e.g., Postman & Underwood, 1973; Underwood, 1957; Underwood & Schulz, 1960) In this method, participants study a list of pairs of words (e.g., apple- pencil, dog- book, shoe- table, etc.) Later, they are cued with the first member of each pair to retrieve the second member of the pair (e.g., apple- _, shoe- _) The method was originally used to study the associative nature of memory and the role of interference in forgetting For example, to study proactive or retroactive interference, a researcher might present a list of pairs with one particular pairing between the first term and the target word (A- B pairs), such as apple- pencil and dog- book Some participants would later study a list of pairs with a different pairing of the first term and the target word (A- C pairs), such as apple- sock and dog- flower Proactive interference would be shown by a lower proportion of

C targets recalled in response to the A cues when A- B pairs had been studied first relative to when only A- C pairs were studied Retroactive interference would be shown by a lower proportion of B targets recalled in response to A terms when a list of A- C pairs followed the A- B pairs than when it had not (for reviews see Crowder, 1976 or Neath & Suprenant, 2003)

At present, paired- associate learning paradigms are still in use and quite common as a method

of investigating cued recall Today’s paired- associate learning paradigms have expanded beyond the use of mere verbal materials For example, some researchers pair faces with words (e.g., Aue, Criss, & Novak, 2017; Depue, Banich, & Curran, 2006) or faces with pictures (Depue et al., 2006), but the general idea is the same: One item in the studied pair is later used to cue retrieval of the target item with which the cue had been paired at encoding In recent years, the paradigm has gone beyond examining interference as a mechanism of forgetting and has been used to examine a range of theoretical issues, including retrieval- induced forgetting (Anderson, Bjork & Bjork, 2000), the notion of memory suppression (Anderson & Green, 2001; Depue et al., 2006), and proactive facilitation (Aue et al., 2017), as well as other mechanisms of memory (Aue, Criss, & Fischetti, 2012) Note that applications of this general paradigm include new- and foreign- language vocabu-lary learning

Item- Based Cues

There are other methods of studying cued recall that are item- based, rather than association- based That is, instead of being an actually studied item that had been paired with the to- be- recalled target

at encoding, the cues are unstudied items (that is, items that were not themselves studied) that in some way relate to a particular studied item A simple example is when participants study a list of words containing some categorically related words in a randomized order The cue at test might be the category name (e.g., fruit), and the recalled items from the study list might be “apple, orange, plum, banana” (e.g., Patterson, 1972; Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966) Other item- based methods

of cued recall use feature overlap to the target item as the cue (e.g., Blaxton, 1989; Cleary, 2004; Ryals & Cleary, 2012) In these methods, the test items are new items that did not themselves appear at study, but that share some of their features with a studied item For example, Blaxton (1989) used graphemic cues (e.g., CHEETOHS) that each potentially resembled a studied item (e.g., CHEETAH) in lettering and pronunciation, as well as semantic cues that each resembled

a studied item (e.g., CHEETAH) semantically (e.g., JAGUAR) Cleary (2004) additionally used cues (e.g., LAUGHED) that only rhymed with studied targets (e.g., RAFT), and Cleary, Ryals, and Wagner (2016) used semantic feature overlap between studied items (e.g., birch) and test cues (e.g., cedar) This item- based cued recall method is not limited to verbal stimuli and in fact, has been used with many different kinds of stimuli For example, Cleary et al (2012) used immersive virtual reality scenes at encoding (e.g., aquarium, bowling alley) and then novel unstudied scenes (e.g., reception area, subway station) with identical spatial configuration at test to cue recall of studied scenes Kostic and Cleary (2009) used isolated features of studied piano songs, like rhythm and tonal aspects, as cues for recalling the songs Cleary, Winfield, and Kostic (2007) used spliced phonemes from spoken words as cues for recalling words that were spoken at study

Not All Cues Are Equal

An important methodological consideration in work with cued recall paradigms is that cues differ

in their effectiveness in ways that have been studied empirically First, there may be differences between the recall of items from subsets of their features and the recall of items from associated contexts (e.g., Humphreys, 1978) Therefore, the type of cued recall method (associative cues versus item- based cues) that would best serve a researcher’s needs depends on the theoretical goals of the researcher

Second, even within these two general cued recall approaches, cues can systematically differ from one another in their effectiveness One known factor that affects cue effectiveness is the strength of the association between the cue and the target (Watkins & Gardiner, 1982) Generally, cues with