Understanding Research Articles - Assignment Example

? Understanding Research Articles Question General Information a) The of the article is ‘odor recognition Familiarity, Identifiability, and Encoding Consistency. b) The authors of the article are Michael D. Rabin and William S. Cain. c) The name of the journal is Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Its year of publication is 1984 with volume number 10, issue number 2 and page numbers are from 316 to 325. Question 2: Introduction a) The purpose of the research study is to recognise relation between the aim of the measure of identification of verbal encoding and subsequent learning of performance of odorants from one interval to another. The main purpose is to find a significant relationship between codability and recognition of performance stemmed entirely from the use of uncommon odorants. It showed how ‘‘odor recognition’’ differs among diverse age groups through various experiments conducted. It provides the importance of memory performance along with encoding name to odors for the appropriate acknowledgment of odors. The study brings out the importance of the various levels related to processing which is an important feature in ‘odor recognition’. In the ‘level of processing theory’ deep or semantic processing involves an imperative part in the recognition of odors. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of the research study is to recognise odor correctly and the competence to distinguish its previous occurrence in the past (Rabin, & Cain, 1984). b) The three research studies that confirmed the conclusion that odor and verbal relationship engages a minor role in recognition memory are as follows. Firstly, according to Schemper, Voss & Cain, (1981), it has been found that the person’s competence to encode names to odors is increasingly extraordinary under few definite conditions. Various experiments for identifying odor indicated that encoding of names rely mainly on previous experiences with the stimuli. Secondly, according to Lawless & Engen, (1977), developing new odor-verbal associations’ process is considered to be quite slow which makes it futile to study the relation subsisting amid verbal form of encoding and memory performance for uncommon odors. Lastly, according to Davis, (1975), people could learn to attach new names to moderately well-known odors with difficulty and thus it is reasonable that odor or verbal relationships played little role in recognition memory. c) The hypothesis statement relates towards the justification for a question with the intent of testing it. It is supposed to be the potential result of an experiment. In this context, a hypothesis statement is prepared on recognition performance. Null Hypothesis (H0): In the identification of odor with reference to specific names seems more impressive in certain conditions, but the identification of odor through naming is based on the preceding experiences with the stimulus, which is quite a lengthy process when it comes to uncommon odors. Therefore, encoding of names is not considered to be a vital factor in odor identification. Alternative Hypothesis (H1): In the identification of odor, effectual verbal encoding such as attaching good label to odor and repeated testing aids in detecting memory performance. Recognition performance is believed to be founded on the competence of naming an odor successfully. Question 3: Method a) The participants information presented in the participation section are 1, 4, 5, and 10. b) The participants lacked in obtaining any visual information about the stimuli as those were enclosed in solid white plastic jars along with screw lids. Gauze pads enveloped the items as well as concealed visual clues to recognise. During the session for performing an experiment all jars were stored behind an opaque screen and were informed to keep their eyes closed during inspection. c) Yes, the participants knew in advance that they would be tested regarding their recognition of odors. d) Trial Stimulus Response Categorisation 1 Target “old” Hit 2 Distractor “new” Correct Rejection 3 Target “new” Miss 4 Distractor “old” False Alarm Question 4: Results Quality of the labels during the initial representation of the target set was made use of as a sign about the way the participants encoded the assorted stimuli whereas rated awareness during preliminary exposure demonstrated a strong association with the label quality. In the result of the research, it can be seen that quality of label bore a strong relation to recognition memory. It aided in precisely detecting the odors. This reveals the connection between quality of label, recognition and rated familiarity. Question 5: Discussion a) Performance dropped as quality of label decreased from ‘veridical’ to ‘near miss’ to ‘far miss’ signifying that investigation did not reveal a firm relation between the knowledge of a participant about an odor and his/her ability to recognise its previous incidence. It normally refers to a participant’s inaccurate acknowledgment of odor, though it represented an item which is confusable with the stimulus or providing an incorrect generic or inappropriate name for the stimulus. A participant usually does not succeed to identify a past occurrence of the stimulus. It is easy to recognise the past occurrence of the stimuli in comparison to new ones. A participant while identifying odors, he/she names the odors relatively close to the ‘veridical’ name of the odor then it is a ‘near miss’ and if he/she names the odors incorrectly then it is a ‘far miss’. Therefore, from this statement it can be affirmed that if a participant incorrectly identifies the odor, the performance level experiences a dip (Rabin, & Cain, 1984). b) The level of processing theory generally emphasises on the procedures associated with memory. Psychologist Craik and Lockhart proposed that memory is just a by-product of the intensity of processing in relation to information and differences between short as well as long-term memory which can hardly be identified. The ‘level of processing’ is the way about encoding information and how it is remembered. The theory describes that at an early stage it begins with shallow processing and later on information processing is conducted more intensely. It mentions that information could be processed in various ways and the degree of strength with regard to the memory trace is a direct function of the intensity of processing involved. The level of processing model altered the course of memory research. It displayed that encoding is a complex and a straightforward process. Thus, Craik and Lockhart’s ideas led to many experiments, out of which mostly deep or semantic processing was established as superior for recalling information which is believed to be processed in three different ways and they are: Shallow Processing Shallow processing leads to weak memory trace which is subjected to rapid forgetting. It only thinks about the surface of something which could perish or be forgotten soon. This takes two forms which can be identified as follows: 1. Structural Processing- It is to encode simply the physical virtues of objects. 2. Phonemic Processing- It is to encode sound or audio messages. Shallow processing engages keeping up rehearsal and offering short-term preservation of information. 3. Semantic Processing- It is to encode the connotation of a word and to relate it with similar kind of words with identical meaning. 4. Deep Processing Deep processing guides to an increased enduring memory trace. It involves deep thinking about an aspect which causes the memory of it to be easily accessed. Deep processing entails detailed rehearsal of a more noteworthy analysis of information (McLeod, 2007). In the current study the role of identifiability in recognition performance is highlighted. The ability of people to attach names to odors is very impressive under certain conditions. The acknowledgment of a repetitive verbal stimulus relies on two different forms of memory processes. These forms are often signified as ‘familiarity’, which is influenced by ‘perceptual processing’ and ‘recollection’. This is again based on the repossession of ‘contextual information’. Familiarity decisions are considered with emphasis on feeling as well as on the recollection of required information which is supposed to be a complicated process. ‘Deep processing’ is deeper than processing of physical stimulus characteristics. The current study proves that in ‘odor recognition’ semantic stimulus quality result in better recognition performance. The participants themselves acknowledged to the experimenter about the importance of the semantic stimulus. c) In accordance to the study, a participant in ‘odor recognition’ needs to possess a semantic stimulus for the correct recognition of odors. The participant must have the ability to attach names to odor for proper recognition. The significance of identifiability along with recognition of performance is seen in this study. Semantic processing leads to enhanced memory performance. This study highlights the role of identifiability in recognition performance. The use of verbal encoding assisted in recognition memory for visually accessible objects of high identifiability. Under normal circumstances, a familiar stimulus is more likely to be recognised than an unfamiliar one. Therefore, for ‘odor recognition’ a strong union between recognition memory as well as identifiability is significant. In accordance to the figures ‘odor recognition’ memory scores (hits minus false alarms) for incorrectly and correctly named odors among the human age range which are shown separately. Results of consequent pair-wise contrast using Scheffe' post-hoc tests are also reported. (A) Incorrectly named odors are denoted as (far misses) and the recognition score among all age groups did not vary statistically (P > 0.05 for all pairs). (B) For correctly named odors (veridical naming) pair-wise Scheffe' post-hoc evaluation shown the following results: Young adults depicted the best memory performance in contrast to all other groups (all P < 0.03) apart from the middle aged adults (P> 0.6). Middle aged adults performed noticeably superior than elderly (P < 0.001), even though, there are quite less differences from both children groups (P > 0.6). Elderly adults acted noticeably poorer as compared to all other groups (P < 0.04 for all pairs) excluding the youngest children (P > 0.07). The two different clusters of children did not vary from each other (P > 0.9). The study was conducted to investigate human odor memory and the generated odor label which is categorised into ‘veridical label’, a ‘near miss’ and a ‘far miss’. Therefore, correctly named odors were termed as ‘veridical’ and incorrectly named odors were termed as ‘far misses’. Encoding of name to odors is a difficult task and varies as a function of age. Children and elderly adults displayed low identification precision while young and middle aged adults have better identification. In elderly people there may be a poor performance due to weaken memory of odor names. Correct recognition of previous odors and incorrect recognition of fresh odors are categorised depending on correctness of naming. The performance scores are corrected for, by subtracting fake alarms from hits. In figure (A) odors which are not correctly named is denoted as ‘far misses’ that elicited the same recognition performance across age groups. On the other hand, recognition of odor correctly has been denoted as ‘veridical’, which immensely relies on age. Young adults demonstrated a better memory performance for exactly named odors in comparison to elderly people who have the poorest performance. Both middle-aged adults as well as children groups have approximately a similar performance (refer to figure B) (Lehnar, Walla, Laska, & Deecke, 1999). The nature of code fundamental to ‘‘odor recognition’’ is significant for future research in odor memory. Recent studies have shown that ‘odor recognition’ with increased familiarity is in conflict with verbal and visual recognition memory experiments, as they show unfamiliar or infrequent stimuli being identified appropriately than well-known and frequent ones. Thus, this study, concerning ‘‘odor recognition’,’ brings out the importance of ‘memory performance’ in recognising odors correctly (Schab & Crowder, 1995). Question 6: Abstract The abstract of the article is provided with a 5 rating “excellent” because it demonstrates the way the identification of stimuli and the ability to distinguish the odors is investigated. Various experiments are conducted to comprehend the concept of ‘odor recognition’. It brings out the magnitude of various parameters which are important in identifying and recognising odors. It brings out the important connection linking ‘recognition memory’ as well as ‘rated familiarity’ and ‘identifiability’ and the capability to utilise an odor label constantly. It provides a study about the ‘level of processing theory’ and the importance of its forms. Among the three forms of ‘level of processing theory’, deep processing is one of the most important ones, which signifies that encoding is vital in the recognition and identification of odors correctly. The study also states the significance of ‘memory performance’ along with encoding for the correct recognition of odors. References Lehnar, J. P., Walla, P., Laska, M., & Deecke, L. (1999). Different forms of human odor memory: a developmental study. Neuroscience Letters 272, pp. 17-20. McLeod, S. (2007). Levels of processing. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/levelsofprocessing.html Rabin, M. D., & Cain, W.S. (1984). ‘Odor recognition’: familiarity, identifiability, and encoding consistency, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10(2), pp. 316-325. Schab, F. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1995). Memory for Odors. United Kingdom: Routledge. Read More