Memory Recall Experiment - Research Paper Example

? Memory Recall Experiment Objective: To compare the difference in the amount of information recalled with immediate recall versus delayed recall, and to study the effect of the relatedness of a set of words, on the quantity of words that can be recalled. Methods: Experimental study with 16 subjects, these were divided into different groups, with some given Easy 16-item word lists to recall (having related words) and the others given Difficult word lists (unrelated words). Each subject was tested for immediate recall, and recall after a delay of 10 seconds of counting back from 184. The mean number of words recalled in each group was calculated. Results: Fewer words could be recalled with the Difficult list compared with the Easy list. Fewer words could be recalled when a delay was present, compared with immediate recall. Conclusion: A delay in recall reduced the quantity of information that can be readily recalled; finding a similarity between a group of words allows a larger number to be recalled. Introduction This experimental study was done to test the following hypotheses regarding the recall of a group of objects with immediate and delayed memory: 1. Immediate recall of a group of objects allows a higher number to be recalled, as compared to when recall is delayed. 2. With both immediate and delayed recall, a greater number of objects can be recalled if they are related to each other in some way, compared to recall for a group of unrelated objects. Methods This was an experimental study based on the between-groups design. It involved sixteen study subjects, that were randomly assigned into two groups of eight. The subjects were tested for the recall of a set of words under different experimental conditions. The independent variables were the presence or absence of delay before recall, and the level of difficulty of the word list. The dependent variable was the average number of words recalled by the subjects. Sixteen volunteers were recruited from among the undergraduate students by advertising on the college noticeboard, and invited to be study subjects. Informed consent to participate in the experiment was taken. The experiment was conducted over 5 hours in the university premises. Among the participants, 7 were male and 9 were female. All the participants were white, American, with mean age 19.4 years. Four word lists, each consisting of 16 common everyday words, were prepared: 2 lists that were Difficult (Lists A and B), and 2 lists that were Easy (Lists C and D) (see Appendix 1). The Difficult lists consisted of seemingly unrelated words, while the Easy lists had words that were all related to ‘food’. One group was tested for recall with the Easy word lists, and the other with the Difficult word lists. It was hypothesized that words in lists C and D would be easier to recall as they were all related to one topic, compared to lists A and B. Each subject in each group was tested twice: once for immediate recall, and once for delayed recall. This was done in order to compare between the two groups the effect of the independent variable, the delay, on the dependent variable, the number of words recalled. Immediate recall involved reading the 16-item list and then immediately reciting all the words from the list that they could recall. Delayed recall involved reading the 16-item list, then going through a delay of 10 seconds during which their concentration was diverted by asking them to count backwards from 184 by 3’s. They were asked to recall as many words as they could remember after this 10-second delay. Among the eight subjects that were tested with lists A and B (difficult), the conditions of the experiment were different for each subject: four were tested for immediate recall first, and then tested for delayed recall, while the other four were tested for delayed recall first. Also, within each sub-group of four, two were given list A on the first test and list B on the second, while the other two were given list B on the first test and list A on the second test (see Appendix 2). This random and varying allocation of testing conditions to different subjects was done to eliminate any possible confounding effect of the first testing condition on the second, and thus to make the results reliable. The number of words recalled by each subject for each test was noted. The mean number of words recalled for each experimental condition was calculated (Table 1). This experiment tested the effect of a delay in recall on the quantity of information that could be recalled. It also tested the effect of a similarity between objects on the ability of subjects to recall them. Results Table 1 shows the calculated mean number of words recalled for each experimental condition by the study subjects. The table shows the following: Overall, fewer words were recalled by the subjects given the Difficult list compared to those given the Easy list (4.1 vs 8.6). Also, overall, fewer words were recalled by the subjects under the ‘delayed recall’ test, compared to when they were tested with ‘immediate recall’ (7.3 vs. 5.3). The maximum number of words were remembered by the group with the Easy list under immediate recall: in these circumstances, a maximum of 14 out of 16 words were recalled. The minimum number of recalled words was 0, in the group with the Difficult list under delayed recall. Among the subjects given the Easy lists, the mean number of words recalled was approximately equal whether a delay was made in recall or not (8.875 vs. 8.375). In contrast, among subjects given the difficult list, the delay caused fewer words to be remembered (5.8 vs. 2.3). Discussion This experiment confirmed the initial working hypothesis and demonstrated how the recall of a set of objects or words is affected by two factors: the presence or absence of delay in recalling, and the similarity between the objects. It showed that immediate recall is more efficient than delayed recall. These results are useful for any setting where efficient recall is needed, and give evidence that recall would be better if the memory was made sooner rather than later. It also shows that associating various objects can assist in the ability to recall them. These results can be applied to examination preparation tactics: they lend support to the concept that the preparation material would be better remembered if the person could associate or relate them together in some way. Also, material would be recalled better if reviewed very recently, as compared to if reviewed more time ago in the past. This experiment had several limitations. First, the sample size was small, a larger size could have been taken. Second, the sample was limited in terms of representing the population: all the subjects were of similar age, and all were white, no other ethnic groups were included. Third, the effect of the independent variables on the dependent was noted, but not measured by any statistical test. Using statistical tests would have given more credibility to these results. Also, the degree to which ‘delay’ affects memory was not assessed: the experiment could have involved more subjects, tested with increasing durations of delay, such as 20 seconds and 30 seconds, as well. This could be done in a future study. Table 1. Mean number of words recalled by subjects in each group (n=8). No Delay Delay Mean Easy List Subject #1: 12 Subject #2: 7 Subject #3: 6 Subject #4: 8 Subject #5: 5 Subject #6: 11 Subject #7: 14 Subject #8: 6 Cell Mean: 8.875 Subject #1: 9 Subject #2: 8 Subject #3: 4 Subject #4: 8 Subject #5: 8 Subject #6: 10 Subject #7: 11 Subject #8: 9 Cell Mean: 8.375 8.62 Difficult List Subject #1: 5 Subject #2: 4 Subject #3: 5 Subject #4: 6 Subject #5: 3 Subject #6: 9 Subject #7: 6 Subject #8: 9 Cell Mean: 5.875 Subject #1: 0 Subject #2: 2 Subject #3: 3 Subject #4: 3 Subject #5: 2 Subject #6: 5 Subject #7: 2 Subject #8: 2 Cell Mean: 2.375 4.125 Mean 7.37 5.375 1 Appendix 1 List A: Drum, Curtain, Bell, Coffee, School, Parent, Moon, Garden, Hat, Farmer, Nose, Turkey, Color, House, River, Shirt. List B: Desk, Ranger, Bird, Shoe, Stove, Mountain, Glasses, Towel, Cloud, Boat, Lamb, Gun, Pencil, Church, Sweater, Fish. List C: Drill, Plums, Vest, Parsley, Grapes, Paprika, Sweater, Wrench, Chives, Tangerines, Chisel, Jacket, Nutmeg, Apricots, Pliers, Slacks List D: Toaster, Cherries, Halibut, Ginger, Pineapple, Spatula, Oregano, Flounder, Sage, Lemons, Cod, Skillet, Peaches, Salmon, Cinnamon, Bowl Appendix 2 Read More