Transcription
You know, one can spend a long time figuring out who proposed, who exactly proposed this word, the key word. But, apparently, key coding, the second type, or specific coding, is a fact, first described by the same Tulving. Specific coding. Coding by memory context. Contextual coding. It must be said that the first and second types of coding can be externally related to each other. Well, for example, they distinguish so-called internal coding, specific, but also semantic. Coding by internal context. Coding by internal context means a semantic connection of the memorized material. A typical method is paired associates. We are given pairs of words. And then, in response to the first, we must name the second. The same Tulving, with another researcher named Thompson, distinguish so-called weak and strong. weak and strong associative connections. Well, let's say a weak association can be quite random and not directly related to the content of what we are memorizing. A random superficial connection. Words are taken from different contexts. Let's say a noun, for example, a train. Color, for example, black. A black train. A weak type of association. And a strong type of association belongs to one context. Both there and there. Both the first and second words relate, for example, to colors: white dash black. Looking a little ahead, Tulving and Thomson showed a simple fact in a special experiment. It seems to me that it is obvious even in everyday terms. If subjects are presented with pairs of both the first and second types, and weak and strong coding, association, then they will then reproduce the second words by the first, by the coded keys. As they coded, so they reproduce. However, in addition to internal coding, there is also external coding. It is interesting that here we again recall a person who, generally speaking, is best known for research on working memory. This is a researcher named Baddeley. It was Baddeley who distinguished precisely internal and external memory context. Internal, as already mentioned, by content, and external by place and time. Where was it memorized? Under what conditions was it memorized? Baddeley has an interesting experiment. I will mention it, well, as if a little to show that there are quite exotic hypotheses in cognitive psychology. For example, the type of external coding, where the material was memorized. Baddeley, in the late seventies, conducted an interesting experiment where he asked subjects to memorize lists of words on land and underwater. I will have to say later, since I started, what is an even more interesting result here. But for now, this is just the type of external coding, where the material was memorized. It is interesting that the hypothesis, the hypothesis related to information retrieval, suggests this: where the material was memorized, it is precisely there that it will be reproduced better. When we talk about specific or semantic coding, there is one general rule: the reproduction of material is a function of the complexity of the context. A function of the complexity of the sentence, if the word is determined by the context of the sentence. In other words, one wants to notice an almost obvious thing. We then retrieve not individual storage units, but along with their context, together or following certain keys. Speaking of coding, let's add the following. They talk about the specificity of coding and its depth. Coding specificity can be internal and external, as we have already said, and depth is related to another concept. Using the word depth, we are delving a little, moving forward a little. Our second question, so we will limit the material a little for now. But depth in this case is the degree of development of the trace, the degree of development of the mnemonic trace. The degree of development of the mnemonic trace can be related to the fact that not only purely cognitive factors can serve as context for memorization. The subject himself with his biography can be a context for memorization. The subject's expectations, attitudes, emotional states, age, and so on can be a context. All this can serve as an explanation for the facts of coding and subsequent information retrieval. The main question in Baddeley's experiment. Which keys are most specific? Baddeley conducts such an experiment. His subjects, over, say, a year and a half, at different times, visited the psychological laboratory for, say, conducting research, participating in testing. Baddeley conducts such a survey. Recall the date, recall when, at what time the subject visited the laboratory. Well, and again, he is interested not only in the result. The result, by the way, here will never be completely accurate. There will always be an error. In Baddeley's case, this error always tended towards underestimating the time. The subject, as it were, brings events closer to himself. But here the researcher is interested in the nature of the key. How do we retrieve information? Baddeley lists such keys in terms of their effectiveness. The most effective key, according to Baddeley, is a special atypical event. An event that, as it were, falls out of the measured course of time. In contrast, it may surprise many, the least effective key turns out to be an attachment to habitual, typical, measured, daily events. Here we definitely recall Anatoly Alexandrovich Smirnov, who, on completely different material, obtained something similar. We remember what differs from the existing scenario. Let's put it in the language of cognitive psychology. We remember what differs from the existing scenario. And somewhere in between, keys with low effectiveness, but still present, are those such as linking to the time of year, the season, the time and day of the week. These are good keys. They can be effective, but not to the same extent as what has already been said. Let's remember that it was Baddeley, and now a slightly exotic fact will follow. It was Baddeley who distinguished between internal and external context. And then, as an exotic fact, let's mention the following. Both contexts, external and internal, influence reproduction, while only the internal context influences recognition. It turns out that when we recognize material among other things, we no longer need external context. Baddeley showed this in that very original experiment when subjects memorized lists of words either on land or underwater. If they were asked to reproduce these lists, they reproduced them better in the same external conditions. But if they were asked to recognize lists of words, then in this case the external conditions did not affect the recognition results. Well, and finally, the last, fifth characteristic of this block. forgetting.