Life-span components of text processing: structural and procedural differences

The goal of this study was to further characterize episodic memory functioning in schizophrenia. This study compared verbal and visual learning and memory performance in (1) patients with schizophrenia (N = 35), (2) patients with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE; N = 30), and (3) normal controls (N = 25). Results indicated significant memory impairments in patients with schizophrenia and TLE. “Savings” score measures of memory decay showed that the loss of information in schizophrenia and TLE was approximately equal, and quantitatively mild compared to that found in most neurologic groups with memory disorders. The severe difficulty shown by the schizophrenia group on a task of incidental recall suggested that the absence of instructional set added to a vulnerability to memory deficit. In contrast, relatively mildly impaired performance on paired associate learning suggested that patients with schizophrenia benefited from retrieval cues, multiple trials, and short (nonsupraspan) informational loads. Because patients with schizophrenia consisted of a relatively nonchronic sample with a mean IQ of 99.7, their memory disorder could not be attributed to schizophrenic dementia, nor was it accounted for by other potential confounds. Patients with schizophrenia, even those relatively early in the course of illness, have a mild episodic memory disorder. (JINS, 1998, 4, 342–352.)

Comparative effects of schizophrenia and temporal lobe epilepsy on memory.

The Role of Narrative in Recollection: A View from Cognitive Psychology and Neuropsychology

SUMMARY The percentage of subjects recalling each unit in a list or prose passage is considered as a dependent measure. When the same units are recalled in different tasks, processing is assumed to be the same; when different units are recalled, processing is assumed to be different. Two collections of memory tasks are presented, one for lists and one for prose. The relations found in these two collections are supported by an extensive reanalysis of the existing prose memory literature. The same set of words were learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Included were intentional free-recall tasks, incidental free recall following lexical decision, and incidental free recall following ratings of orthographic distinctiveness and emotionality. Although the nine free-recall tasks varied widely with regard to the amount of recall, the relative probability of recall for the words was very similar among the tasks. Imagery encoding and recognition produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. Similar results were obtained with a prose passage. A story was learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Eight free-recall tasks, which varied with respect to incidental or intentional learning, retention interval, and the age of the subjects, produced similar relative probabilities of recall, whereas recognition and prompted recall produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. A review of the prose literature was undertaken to test the generality of these results. Analysis of variance is the most common statistical procedure in this literature. If the relative probability of recall of units varied across conditions, a units by condition interaction would be expected. For the 12 studies that manipulated retention interval, an average of 21% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of retention interval, 17% by the main effect of units, and only 2% by the retention interval by units interaction. Similarly, for the 12 studies that varied the age of the subjects, 6% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of age, 32% by the main effect of units, and only 1% by the interaction of age by units. Moreover, although there was enough statistical power so that the unit main effects, which used the same error term as the interactions, were all significant at the .001 level, only half of the age by units interactions were significant at the .05 level. Unlike studies varying retention interval and the age of the subjects, studies varying the perspective of the reader at encoding often produced interactions larger than their main effects. Similar results were obtained for the list learning and prose studies, suggesting a continuity between these two domains. In particular, the relative probability of recall changed little when retention interval, age of subject, or depth of processing changed in standard ways. This similarity among the tasks challenges some current views of retention and of depth of processing. In both list learning and prose studies, changes in retrieval task and some changes in initial encoding led to differences in the relative probability of recall, suggesting that these manipulations affect processing. It is argued that the descriptive unit analysis approach is an efficient way to approach theory development given our current state of knowledge about human memory. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

/pdf/memorability-as-a-measure-of-processing-a-unit-analysis-of-4q3441iwgr.pdf

Memorability as a measure of processing: a unit analysis of prose and list learning.

Gist recall in temporal lobe seizure patients (a study of adaptive memory skills).

Twelve alcoholic Korsakoff patients, their 12 alcoholic controls, and 27 institutionalized schizophrenics and their 19 controls, recalled two stories. The clinical populations recalled approximately half as much as their controls, yet recalled the same parts of the stories as their controls. For both groups the ability to process simple prose does not seem to be severely impaired when what is recalled rather than how much is recalled is measured.

Memory for prose in korsakoff and schizophrenic populations

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

E. H. Olson

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Memory for prose in korsakoff and schizophrenic populations