Regarding the first baddeley 1978 and eysenck 1978a

This preview shows page 29 - 31 out of 35 pages.

Regarding the first, Baddeley (1978) and Eysenck (1978a) questioned the hierarchy of levels (from shallowest to deepest), suggesting that there is not a fixed series of processing stages. Baddeley (1978) also pointed out that there is not an independent method that researchers can use to measure how deep or shallow the processing is in an experiment. However, Lockhart and Craik (1978, 1990) claimed that the most important aspect is not the sequence of processing stages but the achieved analysis patterns. In accordance with Roediger and Gallo (2002), the term "levels of processing" is currently used more generally to emphasize the fact that the use of different types of processing during encoding provides different levels of memory performance. Another criticism from Eysenck (1978b) is that LOP is not compatible with the transfer- appropriate processing (Morris et al., 1977) or encoding-specificity principle (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) because the LOP framework does not makes references to retrieval conditions. As seen above, this type of criticism was responded to by incorporating the conditions of retrieval in the LOP framework. Nelson (1977) criticized the LOP framework because, theoretically, repetition does not influence recall when considering the same level of processing, but his experiments showed that repetition at the phonemic level facilitates memory. During his experiment, three groups of subjects processed words at the phonemic level: a) one repetition of 12 items; b) two massed repetition; c) two spaced repetition. The massed and distributed repetition was better than one repetition. For Lockhart and Craik (1990), repetition itself does not facilitate recall, but there are qualitative
29 types of reverberation that may influence memory. Although the second argument is solid, for repetition there is sufficient evidence that it does facilitate recall. REVIEW OF LITERATURE : Toichi, M, & Kamio, Y. (2002) studied the effect of Long-term memory and levels-of- processing in autism, wherein prior studies reported that long-term memory (LTM) was basically unimpaired in individuals with autism. However, people with autism have been found to perform worse than ability-matched controls when verbal materials to be remembered are semantically related. In normal subjects, semantic processing of verbal materials facilitates LTM better than ‘shallow’ (phonological or pe rceptual) processing, which is known as the levels-of-processing effect. In this study, the relationship between LTM and semantic processing was investigated using a levels-of-processing task. In Study 1, a levels-of-processing task was conducted on healthy volunteers, which confirmed the levels-of-processing effect with our task. In study 2, the same task was conducted on autistic subjects with mild or no mental retardation and ability-matched controls. The levels-of-processing effect was confirmed in the control group. Although overall performance in the two groups was comparable, the levels-of-processing effect was not found in the autistic group. LTM resulting from perceptual processing was better in the autistic group than in the control group, indicat ing superior ‘rote memory’ in individuals with autism. Furthermore,

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture