LOP Effect on Memory Types

Memory and its complexity involve systematic processes intent on successfully accessing and retrieving information (Atkinson, & Shiffrin, 2016). The depth in which people process external information contributes to memory formation (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Moreover, the capacity for people to remember acquired knowledge depends on attention level, encoding level, and rehearsal level in which the information was processed (Craik & Tulving, 1975). types of memory (implicit and explicit) along with the level-of-processing (LOP) involved in each.

There is two types of memory implicit and explicit memory. Implicit memory can be described as habitually executing tasks that do not require intentional recall (Schacter, 1987). It has been suggested that implicit memory begins to develop in early infancy and remains constant in terms of improvement or deterioration through the progression of life (Vöhringer et al., 2017). Explicit memory can be described as intentionally executing tasks that require critical thinking and relies on the ability to recall (learned or experienced) information (Ullman, 2004). Explicit memory begins to develop after implicit memory and has a prolonged emergence (Richmond & Nelson, 2007). Both types of memory are crucial and each serves a purpose (Sun, 2012).

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Adding depth to the type of memory is practical in terms of improving people’s memory. For shallow processing, stimuli are analyzed regarding sensory characteristics. On the other hand, deep processing is involved with the analysis regarding the meaning of the stimuli (Galli, 2014). Material processed while interpreting the meaning behind it is better for explicit memory than items processed using shallow operations at any level of depth. As a result, the characteristics of shallow and deep LOP are associated with the significance of the memory. The deeper the LOP, the easier the information could be recalled. The shallow LOP involves superficial aspects of stimuli and leads to the formation of a fragile memory.

Conceptually-driven task and perceptually-driven task performance both depend on previously learned information pertaining to the stimuli in the task (Schwartz & Yovel, 2016). Perceptual information can be described as physical aspects of the stimulus such as color while conceptual information can be described in terms of the stimuli’s purpose or meaning (Schwartz & Yovel, 2016). Conceptual tests show implicit memory effect implying that only conceptually driven tests can affect the LOP. Perceptual reasoning only takes effect under explicit memory thus has no effect as far as LOP is concerned (Craik & Tulving, 1975). In determining factors with LOP effect, studies show that only implicit triggers have an association with LOP thus concluding that only conceptually driven tests can show significant LOP effects.

Major criticism on LOP and memory has been accounted by Craik (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Suggestions made that the conceptual framework of memory has advantages as it directs attention to the mental events and processes (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). However, the issue of LOP has posed major difficulties, as retention ability is a function of depth and spread of processing (Craik & Tulving, 1975). It offers no suitable criteria for indexing either depth or spread of the encoding. Craik also argues that encoding depth and spread appears to affect the retrieval ability to recall but are irrelevant in the determination of retrieval strategies.

Both explicit and implicit memories have core functions in human functioning (Richmond & Nelson, 2007). Different tests are carried out based on the two memories to determine their relationship with LOP. LOP should show strong effect with the explicit memory than implicit memory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). LOP is high for explicit memory as compared to implicit memory (Richmond & Nelson, 2007). The hypothetical analysis aimed to determine the number of words remembered under the two models (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Deeper LOP should allow for remembrance of many words as opposed to shallow LOP.

The purpose of the current experiment was to examine the LOP effect on the type of memory. It was hypothesized that deep LOP would result in the greater recall of words that were previously presented to participants during the deep LOP task compared to shallow LOP in both implicit and explicit memory. The main effect would occur and individuals in the deep LOP would remember more words in comparison to individuals in the shallow LOP and the outcome of LOP would be greater in the explicit memory task compared to implicit memory. It was further hypothesized that a dissociation between LOP and type of memory interaction effect would occur as deep LOP having a greater effect on the explicit condition.

Method

Participants

Participants in the experiment consisted of 242 psychology students, 46 were male and 196 were female. The age in years amongst participants ranged from 19 years old to 60 years old (M = 25.22). Of the participants, 5.8% were Asian, 10.7% were African-American, 19.4% were Caucasian, 59.5% were Latino and 4.5% identified with other. All participants were english speakers, drafted within the San Bernardino area in California, and were considered a convenient sample. No incentives were given to participants. All participants were treated in accordance with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2002).

Materials

A computer compatible with Microsoft powerpoint software and testing booklets was needed. The computer program included two types of orienting tasks (shallow and deep LOP). Each oriented task included 10 positive words and 10 negative words (see Appendix1). Shallow LOP task contained 20 words, 10 were positive, 10 were negative, half were presented in red and half were presented in green. The deep LOP task contained 20 words all presented in black. The experimental booklets included instructions for completing the test along with a consensus form for participants to mark giving consent to the experiment, a designated area containing several common traits used to identify or describe participants’ demographics in terms of gender, age and ethnicity. The experimental booklets included a distracter task of fill-in the blanks by beginning with the number 725 and counting backward by threes until all blanks were filled. The booklets designed to evaluate shallow LOP contained a word stem completion task. The word stem task contained partial words that were presented during the computer task. Participants were instructed to recall the words and complete the word stem. The booklets designed to measure deep LOP contained blank spaces and participants were instructed to fill in the blanks relying solely on the ability to recall the words presented to them on the computer task. The last piece of material provided participants with the debriefing statement and contact information for the corresponding coordinator.

Procedure

All participants were first invited to participate in the experiment. They were randomly assigned to one of four groups (DLEM, DLIM, SLEM, SLIM). Participants were placed in an environment without distractions while they carefully read the instructions. If they were in agreeance, participants were asked to mark the informed consent sheet and fill in the demographic information that best described them. Once participants were ready to begin, they initiated the start of the computer task. On the computer screen, participants were asked to respond to the given stimuli as fast as possible without the ability to regress and given two practice rounds. The participants in groups DLEM and DLIM were presented with deep LOP stimuli on the computer. While, participants in groups SLEM and SLIM, were given shallow LOP stimuli on the computer. Following the computer task, participants had to complete the distracter sheet. The final step to the packet was for either measuring implicit memory (participants had a word stem completion task) or for measuring explicit memory (contained blank spaces for participants to fill in the blanks). Before participants departed they were handed a copy of the debriefing statement and simultaneously thanked for their participation in the study.

Design

A two-factorial design was implemented for the current study. The independent variable in the experiment was the LOP and qualifies as a categorical, qualitative variable with two levels (shallow and deep). The other independent variable of the experiment was the type of memory and qualifies as a categorical and qualitative variable that contained two levels (implicit memory and explicit memory). The dependent variable was the number of words correctly completed or correctly recalled meaning it was a quantitative variable. The main effect of the LOP on the total number of words completed or recalled correctly and the interaction effect between LOP and the type of memory on the total number of words completed or recalled correctly. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine significance (p < .05) along with t-test to further examine significance (p < .05).

Results

The purpose of the current study was to examine LOP and types of memory with the intention to measure the difference between deep LOP and shallow LOP. It was expected that participants in deep LOP would recall more words than participants in the shallow LOP. The study found that there was a significant main effect of LOP, F(1, 238) = 68.05, p = .000, this had a large effect size (Np²=.22).This means that deep LOP (M = 5.24) was better at word recall when compared to shallow LOP (M = 2.88). There was a significant interaction effect between LOP and type of memory, F(1, 238) = 12.51, p < .00 the partial eta showed a small effect size (Np² = .05). The effect of the deep LOP was greater on explicit tasks (M = 6.00) when compared to implicit tasks (M = 4.34). While shallow LOP had a greater effect on implicit tasks (M = 3.03) compared to explicit tasks (M = 2.73). Furthermore, two t-test showed that deep LOP was significantly better for explicit tasks, t(124) = 8.38, p < .00 and implicit tasks, t(114) = 3.32, p < .00, (see Figure 1). This means that participants in deep LOP remembered more words in comparison to participants in shallow LOP as expected.

Discussion

The purpose of the experiment was to establish whether different LOP would have an influence on types of memory. The LOP examined were shallow LOP and deep LOP along with the type of memory implicit and explicit memory. It was hypothesized that deep LOP would have a higher amount of recalled words compared to shallow LOP in terms of implicit memory and explicit memory. The results show the effect of deep LOP was greater on explicit tasks in comparison to implicit tasks this illustrations clear distinction with shallow LOP resulting with a greater effect on implicit tasks compared to explicit tasks. Additionally, it was further hypothesized that a dissociation would occur as an interaction effect between LOP and type of memory the results were as expected and the effect was greater at deep LOP and was reflected in the explicit condition.

The current experiment expected that more words would be recalled at the deep LOP. The logic behind the hypothesis was that tasks involving deep LOP would require interpretation of the stimuli. As a result, in order to correctly interpret stimuli, individuals must concentrate on the task. Consequently, inciting deep LOP would force participants to pay more attention and would result in higher number of recalled words for the deep LOP task compared to the shallow LOP task. Deep LOP provides an opportunity to learn because it demands attention and if undivided attention is given to a task the deeper the LOP (Treisman, 1964).

It was further hypothesized that a dissociative interaction effect would occur between LOP and type of memory with deep LOP having a greater effect on explicit memory. The logic behind the hypothesis is that dissociations are to be expected between conceptual and perceptual tasks (Weldon, Roediger, Beitel, & Johnston, 1995). Moreover, unlike explicit memory, previous research has distinguished that aging has a small effect on implicit memory (Parkin, 1993). This means that it is possible for implicit memory to remain constant with permanency prevailing while explicit memory declines through the progression of age (Vöhringer et al., 2017). Such studies indicate that there are dissociative characteristics between processes and dissociative characteristics between the types of memory.

The experimental results were expected. However, limitations of the experiment manifested in the form of intangible measures. Such measures include the difficulty of separating the depths of processes and systems. For instance, explicit memory also involves conceptual processes (Weldon et al., 1995). Future research must contribute to the formation of fixed stages of processing with corresponding thresholds. Doing so would mean a framework that theorizes on the overlapping of interaction between mental processes and types of memory.

The current experiment could have implications in the mental health field. As mental disorders interact with types of memory much like amnesiac patients showing little impairment on implicit memory while demonstrating impairment on explicit memory (Warrington & Weiskrantz, 1970). The experiment can aid in the interaction LOP could have on memory related mental disease. Such as a study involving diagnosed Alzheimer’s patients, which reported that Alzheimer patients showed little impairment in implicit test (Scott, Wright, Rai, Exton-Smith, & Gardiner, 1991). Exercising procedures that incorporating implicit memory should help and improve mental state, however, because of the nature of the disease the benefits could be brief (Scott et al., 1991).

In closing the current experiment has provided valuable information and insight into LOP and memory. The results indicate that deep LOP of explicit tasks could aid in memory improvement for explicit tasks and could be essential for critical thinking and strategic decision making when using this type of memory.

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologist and code of

conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2016). Human memory: A proposed system and its control

processes. In R. J. Sternberg, S. T. Fiske, D. J. Foss, R. J. Sternberg, S. T. Fiske, D. J.

Foss (Eds.), Scientists making a difference: One hundred eminent behavioral and brain

scientists talk about their most important contributions (pp. 115-118). New York, NY,

US: Cambridge University Press.

Challis, B.H. & Brodbeck, D. R. (1992). Level of processing affects priming in word fragment completion.

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

research. Journal Of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.

doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

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

memory. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268

Galli, G. (2014). What makes deeply encoded items memorable? Insights into the levels of

processing framework from neuroimaging and neuromodulation. Frontiers In Psychiatry,

5 doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00061

Parkin, A. J. (1993). Implicit memory across the lifespan. In P. Graf, M. J. Masson, P. Graf, M.

J. Masson (Eds.), Implicit memory: New directions in cognition, development, and

neuropsychology (pp. 191-206). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Richmond, J., & Nelson, C. A. (2007). Accounting for change in declarative memory: A

cognitive neuroscience perspective. Developmental Review, 27(3), 349-373. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.04.002

Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal Of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, And Cognition, 13(3), 501-518. doi:10.1037/0278-

7393.13.3.501

Schwartz, L., & Yovel, G. (2016). The roles of perceptual and conceptual information in face

recognition. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1493-1511. doi:10.1037/xge0000220

Scott, L. C., Wright, G. K., Rai, G. S., Exton-Smith, A. N., & Gardiner, J. M. (1991). Further

evidence of preserved memory function in Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal Of

Geriatric Psychiatry, 6(8), 583-588. doi:10.1002/gps.930060806

Sun, R. (2012). Memory systems within a cognitive architecture. New Ideas In Psychology,

30(2), 227-240. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.003

Treisman, A. (1964). Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in selective attention.

Journal Of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 3(6), 449-459. doi:10.1016/S0022-

5371(64)80015-3

Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural

model. Cognition, 92(1-2), 231-270. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008

Vöhringer, I. A., Kolling, T., Graf, F., Poloczek, S., Fassbender, I., Freitag, C., & … Knopf, M.

(2017). The development of implicit memory from infancy to childhood: On average

performance levels and interindividual differences. Child Development,

doi:10.1111/cdev.12749

Warrington, E. K., & Weiskrantz, L. (1970). Amnesic syndrome: Consolidation or retrieval?.

Nature, 228(5272), 628-630. doi:10.1038/228628a0

Weldon, M. S., Roediger, H. L., Beitel, D. A., & Johnston, T. R. (1995). Perceptual and

conceptual processes in implicit and explicit tests with picture fragment and word

fragment cues. Journal Of Memory And Language, 34(2), 268-285.

doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1012

Appendix #

(Title for it)

HAPPY WORDS: Kindness, Intelligent, Wisdom, Hero, Lucky, Creative, Pleasure, Beauty, Calm, Success

SAD WORDS: Hate, Ugly, Poverty, Anger, Murder, Pain, Disaster, Slavery, Damage, Awful

Placed above

Figure 1:

Table