I had to catch up and post something on this week’s readings on memory and forgetting, though I had read all or part of the following previously.
Ebbinghaus’s book-length treatment of the subject is surely included here because it is a groundbreaking work, a classic often referred to in educational theory and research courses which contains some findings still relevant and sound today. Ebbinghaus studied memory and learning and conducted learning experiments on himself which involved the random, nonsense syllables. He first documented the Forgetting Curve which suggests that most forgetting occurs quickly and exponentially.
Forgetting Curve
However, Ebbinghaus found that practice (both massed and distributed) affects learning/forgetting, as does regency or primacy of items. Ebbinghaus’s concept of
savings suggests that material learned perfectly, but then forgotten, can be relearned more easily.
George Miller’s paper on
bit is the information needed to distinguish between choices. A doubling of choices adds one bit. Miller refers to Pollack’s research on tone distinguishing which suggests that 2.5 bits is the channel capacity for this mental performance. “2.5 bits corresponds to about six equally likely alternatives. … if we know that there were N alternative stimuli, then his judgment enables us to narrow down the particular stimulus to one out of N / 6.” While Miller doesn’t explore why experts may be able to distinguish more, I’d suggest it’s either because their brains feature well-formed, refined, even economized network connections which are faster/easier to traverse (I have absolutely no basis for this except a novice’s understanding of neuronal recycling, which suggests that we can “rewire” our brain functions based on repetitive usage), or because they employ some sort of chunking based on prior knowledge to transform large quantities of items into small quantities of groups of items. My former hypothesis may be supported by some of the data Miller cites which suggests that less critical (or less used) sensory pathways facilitate fewer bits: taste is 1.9 bits, but vision allows for 3.25 bits.
up
IPT 564 Readings on Memory and Forgetting
I had to catch up and post something on this week’s readings on memory and forgetting, though I had read all or part of the following previously.
Ebbinghaus (1885) Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology
Ebbinghaus’s book-length treatment of the subject is surely included here because it is a groundbreaking work, a classic often referred to in educational theory and research courses which contains some findings still relevant and sound today. Ebbinghaus studied memory and learning and conducted learning experiments on himself which involved the random, nonsense syllables. He first documented the Forgetting Curve which suggests that most forgetting occurs quickly and exponentially.
Forgetting Curve
However, Ebbinghaus found that practice (both massed and distributed) affects learning/forgetting, as does regency or primacy of items. Ebbinghaus’s concept of savings suggests that material learned perfectly, but then forgotten, can be relearned more easily.
Miller (1956) The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information
George Miller’s paper on
bit is the information needed to distinguish between choices. A doubling of choices adds one bit. Miller refers to Pollack’s research on tone distinguishing which suggests that 2.5 bits is the channel capacity for this mental performance. “2.5 bits corresponds to about six equally likely alternatives. … if we know that there were N alternative stimuli, then his judgment enables us to narrow down the particular stimulus to one out of N / 6.” While Miller doesn’t explore why experts may be able to distinguish more, I’d suggest it’s either because their brains feature well-formed, refined, even economized network connections which are faster/easier to traverse (I have absolutely no basis for this except a novice’s understanding of neuronal recycling, which suggests that we can “rewire” our brain functions based on repetitive usage), or because they employ some sort of chunking based on prior knowledge to transform large quantities of items into small quantities of groups of items. My former hypothesis may be supported by some of the data Miller cites which suggests that less critical (or less used) sensory pathways facilitate fewer bits: taste is 1.9 bits, but vision allows for 3.25 bits.
Anderson & Schooler (1991). Reflections of the Environment in Memory
up