Exam 6: Section 3: Memory

Scenario II Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery. -(Scenario II) The hippocampus is crucial for:

Scenario II Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery. -(Scenario II) As a result of the surgery, HM could NOT:

Scenario I Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study: Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121 In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory. Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad. Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance. Figure 6.1 -(Scenario I) If interested only in the effects of individual or collaborative encoding on subsequent retrieval, one should examine the:

Scenario I Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study: Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121 In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory. Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad. Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance. Figure 6.1 -(Scenario I) Which statement is true?

Scenario I Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study: Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121 In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory. Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad. Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance. Figure 6.1 -(Scenario I) This experiment examined which type of memory?

Scenario I Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study: Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121 In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory. Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad. Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance. Figure 6.1 -(Scenario I) It can be inferred that the experimenters inserted the maze task between encoding and recall to:

Scenario II Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery. -(Scenario II) Based on the information provided, this scenario best illustrates which psychological research method?

Scenario I Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study: Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121 In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory. Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad. Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance. Figure 6.1 -(Scenario I) One possible explanation of collaborative inhibition is social loafing, or the established phenomenon that people do not exert as much effort on a task when studied as part of a group relative to when studied individually. A careful examination of the procedure and results, however, suggests that social loafing does not explain collaborative inhibition because:

Scenario I Scenario I is based on and provides fabricated data consistent with the following study: Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., & Fox, E. B. (2012). Learning and remembering with others: The key role of retrieval in shaping group recall and collective memory. Social Cognition, 30(1), 121-132. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.1.121 In a typical experiment on collaborative memory, participants first encode information individually and later attempt to recall the information either individually or in a small group (collaboratively). While the recall of the collaborative group is better than that of any individual, the summed recall of individuals typically is better than the recall of the collaborative group, a phenomenon termed collaborative inhibition. Barber, Rajaram, and Fox (2012) investigated this phenomenon during both the encoding and retrieval stages of memory. Participants created sentences out of a word bank, which provided for the opportunity to encode this information. After completing this task, participants engaged in an unrelated task-solving mazes-for 10 minutes. Then, in a surprise memory test, they were asked to recall as many words from the word bank as possible (retrieval). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In the first group (Alone-Alone), participants were studied individually during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the experiment. In the second group (Alone-Collaborative), participants were studied individually during the encoding phase and studied as part of a three-member team (triad) during the retrieval phase. In the third group (Collaborative-Alone), participants were studied in a triad during the encoding phase but individually during the retrieval phase. Finally, in the fourth group (Collaborative-Collaborative), participants completed both phases of the experiment as part of a triad. Fabricated results illustrating the major finding of Barber et al. (2012) are presented in Figure 6.1. This figure shows the percentage of words from the word bank accurately recalled as a function of group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase individually, scores represent the summed retrieval of the individuals comprising the group. For the two groups that experienced the retrieval phase as part of a triad, scores simply represent the collaborative performance. Figure 6.1 -(Scenario I) Some degree of collaborative inhibition was observed:

Scenario II Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery. -(Scenario II) Suppose that researchers attempted to teach a patient with the same condition as HM how to ride a unicycle. Researchers probably would find that the patient would:

Scenario II Famous within psychology, Patient HM had parts of his temporal lobes-including his hippocampus-removed to stop incurable and life-threatening epileptic seizures. The surgery was successful; however, Patient HM was left with a severe case of anterograde amnesia. Subsequent tests found that his short-term and implicit memory systems were not affected by the surgery. -(Scenario II) Which of these memory processes were severely impaired by the surgery?