How to Improve Your Memory Recall

The purpose of this study is to find a correlation between interference and short-term memory recall. The research paper examines interference as a factor affecting memory recalling of 20 English words through free, cued, and serial recall. Two groups of undergraduate students participated in the study. The control group was made up of 23 participants while the experimental group was made up of 21 participants. Interference or the lack of interference was the independent variable while the number of words made the dependent variable. In the experimental group, the researcher read the book for two minutes while the participants listened and tried to recall the words once the two minutes were over. In the control group, the participants read the book for two minutes on their own in silence. Findings indicated that interference affects memory recall of English abstract and concrete words. The control group had a median score of 11.87 while the experimental group had the average score of 8.90. The study concludes that interference has a significant effect on memory recall. There was a noticeable difference between the scores for the control and experimental group to suggest that one is less likely to recall something when there are interruptions. 

1.0 Introduction 

Recollection of information is contingent on a number of aspects. Some of them are such as accurac of an individual’s memory, existence of contextual cues to boost memory acquisition, mental health, among others. Thus, it becomes rather important to understand how such factors as the ones mentioned, undermine the quality of a generated memory. Therefore, memory recollection is a delicate task as one piece of information or aspect might either promote or undermine this particular process. That being the case, there is a need to address how certain factors in the environment influence an individual’s ability to recall information. 

2.0 Literature Review 

Unsworth (2015) conducted a study focusing on working memory capacity (WMC) and long-term memory (LTM) recall. They noted that in previous research, participants reported an increase in study time across tasks. However, this was later refuted demonstrating that changes in task demand undermined the strategy in question. While that is the case, Unsworth (2015) noted that the relation between WMC and LTM recall was largely due to processes occurring between retrieval and encoding. Thus, their study demonstrates, in part, that the existence of influential factors between encoding and retrieval affects recall of both WMC and LTM. 

Advancing the argument above, Craik, Naveh-Benjamin, and Anderson (1996) undertook a study addressing the impact of divided attention (RT) on both encoding and retrieval processes. The authors found that during encoding, DA was linked to large reductions in memory performance, but negligible increase in reaction-time (RT). However, when it comes to retrieval, the authors found that DA led to minimal or no reductions in memory. There were comparatively larger increases in RT especially during free recall (Craik, Naveh-Benjamin, & Anderson, 1996). The implication is that the performance of memory is sensitive to changes in task emphasis at encoding, but not during retrieval. 

Further exploring the factors influencing recall, Anderson and Craik (1974) focused on the impact of concurrent tasks on recall from primary memory. They compared the recollection of a visual list from an auditory list through a concurrent non-verbal task. In this experiment, the authors discovered that concurrent non-verbal tasks undermined primary memory recall for the visual list, but that was not the case for the auditory list (Anderson & Craik, 1974). The implication for the study was that continued attention is fundamental when it comes to maintaining information in primary memory. Additionally, pre-attentive echoic store can help mediate the terminal item recall for auditory lists, and that the difficulty of an additional tasks leads to forgetting in primary memory. 

Thus far, the literature discussed demonstrates the influence of processes taking place between encoding and retrieval processes. Corroborating the findings further, Vasques, Garcia and Calera (2016) addressed the short-term memory recall of visual patterns under static (SVN) and dynamic visual noise (DVN). The authors noted that under both SVN and DVN, there was considerably impairment as relates to recollection of matrix patterns when compared to a blank screen condition. Consequently, the findings implied that irrelevant sensory input impairs recall of information stored in visuospatial working memory (Vasques, Garcia & Calera, 2016). 

Emphasizing the impact of irrelevant information as pertains to recall, Vergauwe, Camos, and Barrouillet (2014) focused on the impact of storage processing on how information is maintained in the working memory through increasing memory load. The study revealed that processing times increase linearly at a rate of 50 ms per visual or verbal memory item. This suggests a rather fast refresh rate in working memory. Moreover, the results indicated an asymmetry between spatial and verbal information whereby spatial information depends on attention for maintenance, and verbal data relies on domain-specific maintenance mechanism. The findings show that how information is maintained is depended on what strategy is used for either visual or verbal items. Regardless, memory load plays a fundamental role in influencing recall. 

The study by Papagno and Vallar (1992) shifts the discussion towards the characteristics of items for recall. They focused on how phonological similarity and item length affected short-term memory. In their findings, phonological similarity affected the learning of novel as opposed to known words. Upon introduction of delay between presentation and recall, the disruptive effect was felt on novel words. The word length affected the learning of novel and not known words. The results of the study demonstrate that the characteristics of items for recall determine the ability or lack thereof to recall information. 

Similarly, Coltheart (1993) also focused on the effect of phonological correspondence and concurrent irrelevant articulation on short-term memory recall of repeated and novel words. The study that phonological similarity undermined recall for both novel and words known to participants. During the study, participants were required to count to six when the list was being presented. According to Coltheart (1993), this particular exercise lowered recall and abolished the effect of phonological similarity on both known and novel words. The study implies that concurrent irrelevant activities undermine recall of information. 

Still focusing on phonological factors, Salame and Baddeley (1986) took on a different approach focusing the impact of unattended speech. The participants were exposed to phonological similar or dissimilar consonants under silence or continuous speech in Arabic, a language unfamiliar to them. The results showed that unattended speech did not have an effect on recall for shorter lists compared to lengthy ones. Phonological similarity was also found to affect the performance of participants when it comes to recall. Salame and Baddeley (1986) explained that despite list length, phonological dissimilarity was associated with a performance higher than 50% in recall. 

The information gathered demonstrates the effect of irrelevant items during recall, whether in short or long-term memory. There is consistency in literature reviewed as the studies imply that the more attention needed to focus on non-task related items, the less the likelihood to recall. In this respect, the following research will look more into how one’s memory recall is greater when focusing on just one attended stimulus compared to when dividing their attention with an attended and unattended stimulus. The research proposes that the control group will recall a greater amount of number of words than the experimental group because they did not have to worry about attenuating any unattended stimuli, unlike the experimental group did. 

3. 0 Method 

3.1 Sample 

The population of interest in the study is all undergraduate university students. The participants must meet the following criteria: 1) native speakers of English language; 2) undergraduate students in the university from 20 to 41 years; 3) do not have any learning disorder. 

Probability sampling method specifically stratified sampling. One class out of the many classes within the university was divided into two groups. A simple random sampling of using odd numbers to pick the participants was used from each group to derive the 44 participants who took part in the study. The group was made up of 36 females and eight males with the mean age of 23.8. After identifying the participants, the group was divided into a control group (n=23) and experimental group (n=21). 

The selected sample aimed to be representative of the target population so that the results can be generalized. The study investigates memory recall among native English speakers with the main focus on divided attention and sustained attention. The phonological store is linked to spoken words whereby the inner ear holds information for 1-2 seconds before being stored. Written words are first converted to articulatory (verbal) code before they can be transmitted into the phonological store. 

3.2 Measures 

The measure used in the study is the list of the 20 English words (nouns) and the results of each participant. The twenty words are part of what the participants read or listened to from the chosen book for two minutes. After two minutes, the participants are given one minute to recall words from the book to measure memory recall through free, cued, and serial recall tasks. The number of words from each participant is the first measure used in the study. Validity and reliability were calculated as part of the measurement tool. 

3.3 Design 

The study is a two-group quasi-experimental randomized study. The experimental and control group uses the same measurement tools. The researchers used both observations and recorded the number of words that the participants were able to recall within the stipulated time (one minute). The two groups were compared to evaluate the differences between memory recall in a silent environment and among participants with divided attention. The independent variable was the lack or the presence of interruption from the test administrator while the number of words each participant recalled was the dependent variable. 

The study took place on 6 October 2018 in the afternoon. The researchers availed an observation sheet for each of the group used to document the number of words each participant recalled. The words (passage) was presented to the two groups using the auditory and visual method. The researchers used the introduction of Maureen Dowd’s “Are Men Necessary?” In the experimental group, the administrator read the words aloud while the participants listened. In the control group, participants read the words in silence presented in a card. The experimental group listened and wrote the words on the paper-notes; thus their attention was divided. In the end, the participants were asked to write as many words as they could remember. 

4.0 Results 

The research used Excel to collect and analyze the data. Table 2 below shows the scores from each group to test the hypothesis of the study that participants will recall more words in a silent environment with minimum interruption. The other hypothesis is that participants will remember fewer words when they have divided attention caused by interference in the learning process. 

Number of Correct	Column1	Column2	Column3	Column4
	Control	Experimental	Difficult?
	10	8	yes
	11	9	yes
	13	8	no
	12	8	yes
	9	7	no
	8	9	no
	15	7	yes
	16	5	yes
	12	9	no
	14	8	yes
	9	11	yes
	13	10	no
	10	12	no
	7	11	yes
	15	11	yes
	9	9	yes
	14	10	yes
	13	10	yes
	12	9	yes
	16	7	yes
	13	9	no
	13
	9
Mean	Control	Experimental	Total
	11.8695652	8.904761905	Yes	No
			14	7

Table 2: Results 

The table above shows that the results of the study. The two groups were divided into two groups, with 23 and 21 participants respectively. The two groups had two minutes of learning the two words that they were required to recall one minute later after the experiment. Table 2 above shows that the control group participants had different scores in comparison to the experimental group. The highest rating is in the control group, whereby two participants recalled 16 out of the 20 words and two other participants remembered 15 words. The participant with the lowest score in the control group remembered only eight words. The participants in the experimental group scored lower than the control with the highest score of 12 by only one participant. The lowest score in the experimental group was 5. The control group had an average score of 14 in comparison to the average score of 7 in the experimental group. 

In both groups, the words were retrieved using free recall while other participants relied on series recall. The administrators did not provide any cues, but the participants could have developed their signals to help them recall. Participants who scored higher in control admitted to using serial recall to help them remember words. Participants in the experimental group also used serial recall. 

The study also evaluated the effects of words on memory recall. The 20 words were both abstract and concrete words. The researchers found out that the classification of the words, either as abstract or concrete had zero effect on memory recall, particularly free recall. When using free recall paradigm, participants randomly remembered words. Abstract and concrete words had a considerable impact on serial and cued recall paradigms. Under the cued paradigm, the effect of abstractness increased from 1.5 in the control group to 16.7 in the experimental group. Concreteness had a significant impact on the experimental group too. 

Other factors affected memory recall. The word length, list length, transportation effect, and repetition effect are some of the factors mentioned by participants in both groups. There were a total of nine effects mentioned by the participants from each, and the effects are summarized in the chart below: 

Figure 3: Experimental Group 

5.0 Discussion & Conclusion 

The results of the study show the interference or divided attention affect short-term memory recall of English words. The researcher proposed two hypotheses, and the statistical analysis of results supported the first hypothesis that interference or divided attention reduces the number of words to be recalled. The results also proved the second hypothesis. The first hypothesis was that participants in the control group would recall more words because of the non-interference. It was assumed that the presence of the test administrator who read the words loudly to the participants in the experimental group would interrupt the processing and recall of information. 

On the other hand, the control group had no interruption from the test administrators. The study also evaluated the effects of concrete and abstract words on free, cued and serial recall paradigms. The researchers assumed that the control group would recall more concrete words, but the results showed that the experimental group remembered more concrete words using free and serial paradigms. 

Previous studies in the literature review section investigated the processes of working memory, divided attention, encoding and recalling. According to Craik et al. (1997), divided attention led to a substantial reduction in memory performance, and this study supports the conclusion by Craik et al. (1997). The study also corroborated the findings of Vasques, Garcia, and Calera (2016) on the effects of visual patterns under static (SVN) and dynamic visual noise (DVN) on short-term memory. Irrelevant sensory input impairs recall of information. 

In conclusion, the study examined memory recall processes among two group of participants with the main focus on the effects of interference. The research explored the impact of interference on recall of 20 words among two groups using free, cued, and serial paradigms. The participants were divided into two groups, an experimental and a control group. The independent variable was interference in the form of oral communication and interruption by the experiment administrator while the dependent variable was the number of words recalled by the participants. Findings indicate that interference has significant effects on short-term memory recall. The study has implications for learning. The results show the learners perform better with limited or no interruptions. Further research has to be done on how interference affects long-term memory as well as the optimal level of interference that will not affect learning negatively. 

References  

Anderson, C. & Craik, F. (1974). The Effect of a Concurrent Task on Recall from Primary Memory. Journal of Verbal Listening and Verbal Behavior, 13 , 107-113. 

Craik, F. I., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125 (2), 159-180. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.159 

Coltheart, V. (1993). Effects of phonological similarity and concurrent irrelevant articulation on short-term-memory recall of repeated and novel word lists.  Memory & Cognition, 21 (4), 539-545. Doi: 10.3758/bf03197185 

Papagno, C., & Vallar, G. (1992). Phonological Short-term Memory and the Learning of Novel Words: The Effect of Phonological Similarity and Item Length.  The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 44 (1), 47-67. Doi: 10.1080/14640749208401283 

Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1986). Phonological factors in STM: Similarity and the unattended speech effect.  Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24 (4), 263-265. Doi: 10.3758/bf03330135 

Unsworth, N. (2016). Working memory capacity and recall from long-term memory: Examining the influences of encoding strategies, study time allocation, search efficiency, and monitoring abilities.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42 (1), 50-61. Doi: 10.1037/xlm0000148 

Vasques, R., Garcia, R. B., & Galera, C. (2016). Short-term memory recall of visual patterns under static and dynamic visual noise.  Psychology & Neuroscience, 9 (1), 46-53. Doi: 10.1037/pne0000039 

Vergauwe, E., Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2014). The impact of storage on processing: How is information maintained in working memory?  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40 (4), 1072-1095. Doi: 10.1037/a0035779