Lab Report Regarding Memory

Lab Report Regarding Memory

Lab Report Regarding Memory

ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION ATTACHED

You will write up the experiment from Lab 02 – Memory Span. It should be a maximum of 2000 words.

Assignments should be formatting following the conventions of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th edition (2019).

ORDER ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE ESSAY PAPERS HERE

  • attachment

    LabReportCriteria-v03.pdf

    PSY294 – Lab Report Your task is to write a lab report for Lab 02 – Memory Span. We’re interested in whether you genuinely understand the material that we’ve been discussing in the course and how well you can apply it. The lab report is worth 40% of your final grade.

    Become familiar with the marking guide on the last page. The majority of marks go to the Introduction and Discussion, and not just reporting the results correctly (although this will get you marks too!). The points below are also important for gaining good marks, even though some may not be specifically outlined on the marking guide. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    Introduction • Review relevant literature. The aim here is to build up a rationale for your study

    culminating with the specific aims and hypotheses. • Ensure you are using past research to build up an argument, rather than simply

    describing the research. That is, do not just simply state what the researchers did and what their main findings were. Also think about how this past research relates to your current aims/hypotheses/predictions. Make sure that your arguments all flow logically from one another. Use linking sentences at the start of each paragraph to direct your reader: Accordingly, Consequently, Conversely, Additionally, However, Nevertheless.

    • The marking guide says, “displays evidence of understanding of theoretical issues/ questions underlying chosen topic.” It’s difficult to do that by simply listing past research findings.

    • Be sure to include a clear statement of the overall aim of the study.

    Hypotheses • It’s a good idea to set context for hypotheses, e.g., “To examine whether…

    participants were required to… and X was measured as an indication of Y.” • You should also link a clear rationale to hypotheses, e.g., “based on the theory

    that…/ based on previously found effects of… it was hypothesised that…” • It’s not enough to simply say, “based on past research it was hypothesised that…” • Make hypotheses very clear. i.e., state “it was hypothesised….” to ensure reader is

    clear that these are your explicit hypotheses. Must state hypotheses in terms of the explicit variables measured (need to be clear on what IVs and DVs are).

     

     

    Method • Include separate subsections: e.g., Design, Participants, Materials and Procedure.

    If you are unsure what to include in these sections, you should consult a writing for psychology guide, such as those written by Burton or O’Shea (copies available in the library). APA style.

    • Write up methods as if this was a controlled experiment, not a tutorial class. We know that you did this in a classroom, but we want to see whether you can write this report as a researcher, not as a student. Thus, do not include details such as which tutorial class, the classroom number, CogLab, etc.

    • Should be as detailed as possible (i.e., replicable) and demonstrate your understanding of why the experiment was conducted in the way it was, but still CONCISE (not repetitive or wordy). So try not to give information that is not pertinent to the design of the study. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    • It is important to give details of the stimuli (materials section) and make it clear how the stimuli were presented (e.g., position on screen), and why they were presented in that way (e.g., so each half of stimuli is presented to a different visual field).

    Results • Do not fully interpret results here (i.e., what the results say with regards to theory/

    methodology, etc.), but still a basic interpretation of where significant differences or relationships were/were not, and direction of these differences/relationships: to do this inferential statistics must be interpreted in relation to descriptive statistics:

    • i.e., the descriptive (the means) show DIRECTION (i.e., which group/stimuli was higher/lower, faster/slower, whether a response increased or decreased compared to baseline. But descriptive alone do not show whether these differences in responses/groups are significant).

    • The inferential stats show SIGNIFICANCE (i.e., significant differences but not the direction of these relationships, which is why you need to report and interpret both).

    • Use a figure to display meaningful comparisons. Must be in APA format.

     

     

    Discussion • Directly address the hypotheses! Were they confirmed or not? What results

    indicated this?

    • Compare and interpret results in light of previous theory/literature. Are they consistent with previous results? If not, why might this be (alternative explanations for results)? Should also consider alternative explanations to your results based on existing literature even if your hypotheses were met.

    • Methodological limitations of this study. Explain carefully exactly HOW limitations may have affected the results. Pointing out a possible limitation without explanation of how specifically it might have affected your results is not useful (and will not receive any marks).

    • Simply stating that because the sample consisted only of uni students, the results of the study are not generalisable to the greater population is NOT a sufficient limitation. Only talk about the “uni student” limitation if you can explain logically and specifically how using this sample may have affected the results in some way, e.g., why uni students would respond differently for words compared to digits. But there will likely be much more relevant limitations on which you could be focusing.

    • Implications of this study in terms of theory and how these results might be used. Future research suggestions (may tie into limitations). Include a short—but solid!— conclusion.

    General points • Minimum 10 references (peer-reviewed journal articles). Everything in APA style. • Go beyond what was discussed in class. • You must submit your lab report electronically via LMS. • Where an extension has not been granted, assignments submitted after the due

    date will lose 10% of the available marks that could otherwise have been obtained for each day (including weekends) that they are late. Assignments more than one week late receive no marks. Even if all available marks have been lost, assignments must still be submitted in order to complete the requirements of the course.

    • Submission deadlines should be strictly adhered to. Extensions will usually be granted only for medical reasons or extreme personal difficulties, and will require the provision of a medical certificate or other appropriate documentary evidence.

    • Extensions must be applied for at least one week in advance of the submission dates, unless circumstances clearly prevent it.

    • The 2000 word count is a hard limit (not counting the reference list) with marking stopping once the word limit is reached.

     

     

    Abstract 2%

    Concise description of important features of paper. Why, who, how, and what, conclusions and implications.

    Introduction
 10%

    Title and statement of research question; Discussion of previous relevant research and theory, and references outside the textbook; Evidence of understanding of theoretical issues and questions; Well-structured.

    You have selected appropriate material that gives sufficient breadth and depth for your lab report. You have made sufficient use of the library and web resources available. It is not just a list of all the books and papers that you have read. And is not simply a paragraph or section summarising each article in turn, just reporting on their content.

    You have provided evidence of critical evaluation and critical understanding of the relevant literature. References are used to support your arguments where appropriate. Presentation of evidence forms a logical rationale.

    Hypothesis
 2%

    Hypothesis is appropriate, and should be something which the chosen experiment could potentially support. 
 Hypothesis is logical continuation of arguments made in introduction. Clear predictions of outcome of study stated in terms of variables measured and manipulated are also made.

    Methods
 6%

    Describe sample in appropriate detail. 
 Identify variables and way in which they are operationalised.
 Clear, concise description of salient details of experiment including materials and procedure. 
 Demonstrates understanding of how and why experiment was conducted in the way it was.

    Results
 2%

    Relevant analyses reported correctly. Accurate interpretation of analyses.

    Discussion
 10%

    Statement noting consistency of results with hypotheses i.e., supported or not and how?
 What do the results mean? Interpret them in relation to previous research and theory. 
 Compare and contrast results and interpretations with previous research, considering alternative explanations.
 Note relevant limitations (not generalisations) – specify why and how any noted limitations are of concern and what effect they are likely to have had on outcome of study. 
 Consider Implications of results and possible future directions in research.

    You have demonstrated a solid understanding of the material covered in the readings, the lectures, and your own readings. You have provided a clear account of how the particular content that we covered applies directly to the topic that you have chosen (including appropriate summaries of the findings, figures, and tables).

    Referencing 2%

    APA style citations within text; APA style reference list.

    Writing 2%

    Fluency and style; Spelling, grammar, and paragraphing. Your assignment has a logical sequence and transitions that make for a coherent narrative. Each argument that you provide is valid and logically follows from an already established issue. The narrative is rich in arguments, which are coherently and logical developed. Your analysis and discussion are a clear and naturally develop from the arguments that you put forward in the introduction and background. The evidence that you discuss is presented in a succinct form allowing the narrative to flow.

    Overall Quality 4%

    Coherence of Arguments; Displays understanding of theoretical issues and questions underlying chosen topic; Engages with topic; Goes beyond provided material.

    You have demonstrated a clear and economical writing style. Technical language is used appropriately, with acronyms explained at first use. There are only very minor grammatical and spelling errors. The layout and presentation of figures and tables is excellent and clearly indicated. You have not exceeded the word limit of 2,000 words (excluding references).

    Your assignment shows evidence of a noticeable amount of independent thought, extending beyond the information provided in the lectures and readings, which reflects a novel synthesis of existing information. You have created a narrative that logically explores your topic, but which could not be developed by relying solely upon material that we have covered in the lecture and readings. Your assignment demonstrates a solid understanding of issues in the area of your topic which are up to date and relevant. Lab Report Regarding Memory

  • attachment

    LabReportData-v02-6.pdf

    PSY294 – Lab Report – Memory Span – Data Many theories of cognition propose that there is a short-term or working memory system that is able to hold a limited amount of information for a short period of time. The memory span experiment is one measure of working memory capacity. In this experiment, participants are given a list of items and asked to recall the list. The list length is varied to see at what list length participants will make make few errors. That list length is the memory span for that person on that task. Individuals with larger memory spans can better keep in mind different stimuli, and this seems to give them an advantage for a wide variety of cognitive tasks. Memory span has been linked to performance on intelligence tests, standardised tests, reading skills, problem solving, and a variety of other cognitive tasks. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    The very existence of short-term memory is largely based on memory span types of experiments, as it was noted that memory span was approximately seven items (plus or minus two) for a wide variety of stimuli. This suggested a simple storage system that held approximately seven items. Later studies demonstrated that memory span could be systematically influenced by a variety of stimulus characteristics, including the type of item. These findings have suggested that the capacity of short-term memory is controlled by verbal processes. This experiment allows you to measure your memory span for three different stimulus types.

    Methods On each trial, you saw a list of items presented one at a time in random order and were asked to recall the items in the same order in which they were presented. If you got a list correct, the list length increased by 1 for that type of material. If you got a list incorrect, the list length decreased by 1.

    The independent variable is the type of material you were asked to recall: digits, letters, or words. Memory span can be measured in lots of different ways. In this lab, the dependent variable is the length of the last list you correctly recalled. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    The first list of each type of item was 3 items long. The longest list that was shown was 10, so the maximum score possible is 10.

    Independent Variable Our Independent Variable (IV) is “Type of List” or “List Type” or “Stimulus Type”: digits, letters, or words.

    Dependent Variable Our dependent variable (DV) is the length of the last list that was correctly recalled.

     

     

    Data The data were not screened for outliers. Demographic data were not recorded. The raw data are available on LMS under Lab 02, should you want it.

    Analyses A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted with an alpha level of 0.05.

     

     

    It’s your job to interpret and present this data, in APA format, in your lab report.

    If you are going to use a graph, and you should, then you have two options for error bars: 1) plot the standard error as the error bars, or 2) plot the 95% Confident Interval. If you are reporting the descriptives in text or in a table, then you can report the Standard Deviation (SD) found in the descriptives table.

    Within-Subjects  Factors

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    ListType

    Measure:  Length

    Dependent  Variable

    1

    2

    3

    Digits

    Letters

    Words

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Descriptive Statistics

    Mean Std. Deviation N

    Digits

    Letters

    Words

    6.5271 1.30550 129

    5.7054 1.33699 129

    4.1705 1.06891 129

    Multivariate Testsa

    Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

    ListType Pillai’s Trace

    Wilks’ Lambda

    Hotelling’s Trace

    Roy’s Largest Root

    .781 226.713 b 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    .219 226.713 b 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    3.570 226.713 b 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    3.570 226.713 b 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    Multivariate Testsa

    Effect Partial Eta  Squared

    ListType Pillai’s Trace

    Wilks’ Lambda

    Hotelling’s Trace

    Roy’s Largest Root

    .781

    .781

    .781

    .781

    Design: Intercept   Within Subjects Design: ListType

    a.

    Exact statisticb.

    Page 2

    Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity a

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Within Subjects Effect Mauchly’s W Approx. Chi-

    Square df Sig.

    Epsilonb

    Greenhouse- Geisser

    ListType .985 1.950 2 .377 .985 1.000

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity a

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Within Subjects Effect

    Epsilonb

    Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound

    ListType 1.000 .500

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed  dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.

    Design: Intercept   Within Subjects Design: ListType

    a.

    May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance.  Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

    b.

    Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:  LengthMeasure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Source Type III Sum of

    Squares df Mean Square F

    ListType Sphericity Assumed

    Greenhouse-Geisser

    Huynh-Feldt

    Lower-bound

    Error(ListType) Sphericity Assumed

    Greenhouse-Geisser

    Huynh-Feldt

    Lower-bound

    369.137 2 184.568 215.231 .000

    369.137 1.970 187.381 215.231 .000

    369.137 2.000 184.568 215.231 .000

    369.137 1.000 369.137 215.231 .000

    219.530 256 .858

    219.530 252.157 .871

    219.530 256.000 .858

    219.530 128.000 1.715

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:  LengthMeasure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Source Sig. Partial Eta  Squared

    ListType Sphericity Assumed

    Greenhouse-Geisser

    Huynh-Feldt

    Lower-bound

    Error(ListType) Sphericity Assumed

    Greenhouse-Geisser

    Huynh-Feldt

    Lower-bound

    .000 .627

    .000 .627

    .000 .627

    .000 .627

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Page 3

    Pairwise Comparisons Measure:  LengthMeasure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    (I) ListType (J) ListType Mean

    Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b

    95% Confidence Interval for  Differenceb

    Lower Bound Upper Bound

    1 2

    3

    2 1

    3

    3 1

    2

    .822* .113 .000 .548 1.096

    2.357 * .110 .000 2.089 2.625

    – .822* .113 .000 -1 .096 – .548

    1.535 * .122 .000 1.239 1.831

    -2 .357 * .110 .000 -2 .625 -2 .089

    -1 .535 * .122 .000 -1 .831 -1 .239

    Measure:  LengthMeasure:  Length

    Based on estimated marginal means The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.*.

    Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.b.

    Multivariate Tests

    Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Partial Eta  Squared

    Pillai’s trace

    Wilks’ lambda

    Hotelling’s trace

    Roy’s largest root

    .781 226.713 a 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    .219 226.713 a 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    3.570 226.713 a 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    3.570 226.713 a 2.000 127.000 .000 .781

    Each F tests the multivariate effect of ListType. These tests are based on the linearly independent  pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.

    Exact statistica.

    Profile Plots

    Page 5

     

     

    Style Guides These guides tell you how to write and format a psychology lab report.

    Writing for Psychology 
 6th Edition
 Robert P. O’Shea, Wendy McKenzie
 http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/record=b2721143

    An interactive approach to writing essays and research reports in psychology
 3rd Edition 
 Lorelle J Burton
 http://prospero.murdoch.edu.au/record=b2154828

    Background Reading and Tips One of the skills that these assignments require you to use and develop is being able to quickly distinguish between literature that is and isn’t relevant. Don’t get swamped reading up on many different theories, unless you have reason to think they will provide information that is directly relevant to our experiment.

    Refer frequently to the lab report criteria posted on LMS.

    You must go beyond the textbook and what was discussed in the tutorial. Use PsycInfo, Google Scholar, the library, etc. Do not cite internet websites that are not peer-reviewed. That is, only use published journal articles. Do not copy from or cite the slides. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    Your hypothesis is very important. Your hypothesis would be a specific positive prediction about what you expect to happen, stated in terms of the variables you are measuring and manipulating. E.g., “Participants in group A will score more highly than participants in group B on measure C.” OR “If X is true, and we manipulate Y, then Z will happen.”

    Your hypothesis should be a logical extension of the evidence and arguments you present in your Introduction. In your Introduction, you should construct a rationale for your hypotheses. Do not just base your hypotheses on the results obtained.

     

  • attachment

    PSY294-Lab02-Data-v02.xlsx

    Sheet 1

    Digits Letters Words
    6 5 4
    6 5 4
    7 6 5
    4 5 4
    4 4 3
    6 6 5
    6 4 3
    6 4 4
    6 7 4
    6 6 4
    6 4 4
    8 7 5
    8 5 4
    8 9 5
    9 8 4
    7 8 4
    7 6 5
    6 7 4
    5 4 3
    5 6 2
    10 8 6
    5 5 4
    6 6 5
    6 5 4
    7 5 4
    8 6 4
    7 7 4
    6 7 4
    7 6 5
    6 6 4
    7 6 2
    0 0 0
    6 4 4
    7 8 5
    6 4 4
    6 4 4
    6 4 3
    7 7 5
    8 6 6
    7 6 4
    6 4 4
    7 6 5
    8 6 4
    6 8 4
    6 6 4
    6 6 5
    6 4 2
    6 6 5
    6 6 3
    6 4 4
    5 7 4
    7 6 4
    6 6 5
    7 6 4
    6 5 4
    9 7 4
    8 6 6
    6 6 4
    10 8 5
    6 5 5
    5 6 4
    7 6 5
    4 3 5
    6 5 4
    8 6 6
    7 6 4
    6 4 4
    8 6 6
    9 8 5
    7 5 3
    7 5 6
    6 6 4
    5 5 4
    8 8 5
    5 4 4
    6 6 5
    8 6 3
    6 7 4
    6 7 4
    6 5 4
    7 4 2
    9 6 5
    8 6 5
    6 8 5
    6 5 4
    7 6 4
    5 6 5
    6 7 3
    6 7 4
    8 8 4
    8 8 4
    6 4 3
    7 4 3
    7 6 6
    6 6 4
    7 6 4
    7 4 4
    7 8 5
    6 4 3
    6 4 5
    7 6 3
    8 6 8
    7 6 3
    7 6 3
    6 5 5
    5 5 4
    6 6 4
    10 5 5
    6 6 3
    8 6 7
    6 5 4
    7 4 5
    6 6 4
    6 6 4
    7 6 4
    6 5 4
    6 8 4
    6 4 3
    5 4 4
    6 6 4
    4 4 3
    8 5 2
    6 6 5
    8 4 6
    7 6 2
    6 6 4
    5 6 3
    7 6 6
    8 7 5

    &”Helvetica Neue,Regular”&12&K000000&P

  • attachment

    LabReport294.docx

    DIGITS, LETTERS, AND WORDS ON MEMORY SPAN 2

     

    DIGITS, LETTERS, AND WORDS ON MEMORY SPAN 2

     

    The Influence of Digits, Letters, and Words

     

     

    Abstract

    A memory span experiment was carried out among 129 students studying at Murdoch University in Singapore to determine the relationship between stimulus type (digits, letters and words) and memory span, which was defined as the length of the last list the subject correctly recalls. The 129 participants were asked to recall lists of digits, letters, and words, and had their number of items recalled recorded. Results indicated that there is a significant difference between the stimulus type and the length of last list recalled. Subjects tested recalled a longer list of items for the stimulus type digits (M= 6.53, SD = 1.31) as compared to the stimulus type letters (M= 5.71, SD= 1.34) and the stimulus type words (M= 4.17, SD= 1.07). The difference recorded is significant for all three-stimulus type. Further research is needed to clarify whether one’s memory span is the best when it comes to the stimulus type digits, and whether there is other stimulus which affects memory span. Lab Report Regarding Memory

     

    The Influence of Digits, Letters, and Words on Memory Span

    This research will cover the impact of three different stimulus types on memory span, and to find the stimulus type with the greatest effect, if possible. To break it down, memory span is a measure of working memory or short-term memory (STM) capacity. According to Gary & Bill (2015), STM is an aspect of long-term memory (LTM) that is used or activated by limited capacity attentional process. Similarly, working memory (WM) is also an important cognitive function which is critical for spontaneous and active behaviour (Wolff, Jochim, Akyurek, & Strokes, 2017). For this research, STM and WM will be used interchangeably. There is no standard limit or number for memory span capacity in general, however past researches have assessed the span limit to be about seven, with a leeway of plus and minus two (Bachelder & Delprato, 2017). The three different stimulus types here – digits, letters, and words – are categories of items in which result in different processing methods, hence different number of recalled items. These stimuli are randomly presented, without the inference from other stimulus. The stimulus type digits, is deemed to be the easiest stimulus when it comes to memory span capacity.

    According to a study Altani, Protopapas, & Georgiou (2017), three cognitive processes are linked to ‘memorizing’ or ‘trying to recall’ something during which the stimuli are presented. The first process is known as shifting, where one disengages from the previous stimulus and rapidly engages on the next stimulus. The second process is known as inhibition, where one suppresses the focus on the previously activated stimulus and refocuses on the activation of the next stimulus. The third process is known as updating, where one observes and monitors the current visual stimulus and registers in it the phonological representation in one’s working memory. The process of inhibition is significantly related to letters and digits, which indicates that digits and letters are ‘easier’ to be recalled – absorbing the input into the sensory memory, storing it in the STM, rehearsing it, and retrieved when needed. (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968).

    It has been found that the WM has a limited capacity which is used for temporary storage of information. Because this experiment conducted is a simple span task, with no irrelevant stimuli involved to distract the subject from the current stimuli, it makes it easier to find the visual stimulus type that has the greatest influence on the subject, allowing the recall of that category of items to be easier. Another study by Egeland (2015), which measured working memory span with digit span task and the letter-number sequencing subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) IV, found that participants scored better on the digit span task as compared to the letter-number sequencing subtests. However, this could partly be because the number sequencing subtests require the manipulation of information for the participants, and that two different stimuli were introduced into the test – letters and numbers. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    Katrine et al. (2017) did an experiment on 1,145 children, to compare their executive functions, physical activity and academic performance. A small part of the experiment included the children doing the Digit Span Task, which involved the reciting and recalling of the digits after the set of numbers is relayed to the child. This led to a finding of the high numeracy recall in both genders. It has been found that although there are age differences which affect working memory, in general, people are more sensitive towards numbers, as compared to letters, which form words. It is common to have people memorize their phone numbers, identification card numbers, and a 16-digits long set of numbers imprinted on credit or debit cards. Though the method of chunking helps with the memorizing of numbers, it does work with letters or words too. Memorizing numbers in a certain fixed sequence is more commonly practiced than memorizing letters or words. Hence, the memory span for digits tend to always be higher than letters and words.

    However, there were also studies that argued that there is no significant difference between stimulus type and memory span. Many of which suggests that differential distinctiveness and rehearsal time, affects the working memory span more than than the visual or auditory stimulus type that is used.

    The present study aimed to determine whether the working memory capacity is stimulus type specific. More specifically, the stimulus type digits would render a better or higher working memory capacity, as compared to the stimulus type letters and words. From the research examined, it was hypothesized and anticipated that the 129 participants would be able to recall a longer list of items when they were in digits, slowly shorter list of items when they were in letters, and even shorter list of items when they were in words. The independent variable here would be the length of the last list that was recalled by the subject, while the dependent variable would be the stimulus type – digits, letters and words.

    Method

    Participants

    The 129 participants in this study consisted of undergraduate psychology students from Murdoch University in Singapore. Sixty-four males and sixty-five females, who were between eighteen and thirty years of age (M = 24.27) were involved in this study. The sample was predominantly in the mid-class. All the participants were Singaporeans, and participation by the students was encouraged but voluntary, with no incentives offered. Ethic approval was attained from the Singapore Psychological Society (SPS) under 2019/123. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    Materials

    There were three categories of tests which were used – digits, letters and words. 8 sets of the different categories were pre-prepared, in ascending number of items in the set, starting from three. All the digits, letters and words in the list were all in random order, and different for each of the 129 participants. The list of digits, letters and words were printed in bold and capital letters. The scores for the length of list recalled range between three to ten. Higher scores indicated more digits, letters or words recalled, while lower scores of below five were indicative of below-average working memory capacity. This method of testing the subjects with the visual stimulus, with no irrelevant distractions, allows the subjects to focus and recite the items when needed.

    A demographic data sheet that asked for information such as gender, age, and socioeconomic state was also included.

    Procedure

    All 129 participants were tested individually, concurrently. The subject starts with the digits task first – where the first list of three items were presented. The subject then recalls the three digits shown. If correctly recalled, the list increased to four digits and so on till the longest list of ten digits. At any point where the subject failed to recall the list of digits, the length of the last list correctly recalled will be the memory span for that particular stimulus type. This was repeated for the stimulus type letters and words, and the length of the last list correctly recalled was recorded. All 129 subjects went through three rounds of different stimulus types.

    Instructions for the task were relayed to each subject specifically. Each subject had 15 seconds to do their task on each list of stimulus type. If the subject fails to complete the recall, it would be taken as the list of items at that point would be incorrect. Each participant’s data was kept anonymous and pooled together after the experiment. The scores were then recorded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS, standard version 6.1.2, 1995). Lab Report Regarding Memory

    Results

    A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of the three stimulus types on the length of the last list recalled by the subject. The independent variable here is the length of the last list recalled by the subject for that particular stimulus type, and the dependent variables include the three different stimulus types – digits, letters, and words. All stimulus types were statistically significant at the .05 significance level. Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s tests were used to evaluate the assumption of normality and homogeneity of variance respectively. Neither was violated. The Bonferroni test was used to ensure that adjustments were made for multiple pairwise comparisons. Lab Report Regarding Memory

     

    The ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference for all three stimulus types, at p < .05. The means and standard deviations for the stimulus type digits, letters, and words, were 6.53 and 1.31, 5.71 and 1.34, and 4.17 and 1.07, respectively.

     

    Discussion

    The results, showing that there is a significant difference between stimulus types and the length of the last list recalled, and that the stimulus type of digits rendered the highest number of items recalled, is as expected. This is in accordance to the hypothesis proposed and has also been consistent with the findings of many other researches. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    Comparing the different stimulus types presented in this study, it seems that the participants tend to recall more items, when it comes to digits. This finding is in accordance with a study by Milikowski & Elshout (1995) who found that it is easier to remember a digit as compared to a letter or word. This finding thus supports our hypothesis that the length of the last list recalled for digits is higher than that of letters and words.

    Additionally, although Miller (1956) have suggested that the working memory is limited to five to nine items, the data recorded for the participants under digits did exceed that special number of seven plus minus two, with three participants recalling the maximum of 10 digits. This is in comparison to the maximum record of nine and eight for letters and words, respectively. Lab Report Regarding Memory

    A limitation of the study would be that the 129 participants were not previously medically screened to ensure that they had no cognitive issues or problems that could have affected the results recorded. Pre-tests should have been done on the participants, to ensure that cognitively, they were on the same level. This is because cognitive or developmental conditions such as dyslexia and language impairment, which affects the reading and learning capabilities of one, can affect the results recorded (Archibald and Gathercole, 2006).

    Another confounding variable that can tamper with the results recorded, would be that as working memory can be affected or impaired when one is stressed (Preuss & Wolf, 2008), the wellbeing or state of mind of the participants in the study, was not taken into consideration. The study, if conducted during stressful examination periods, can affect the participants cognitively, and cause the results recorded to be inaccurate and invalid.

    Overall, the results of the study suggest that the stimulus types do have an effect on working memory capacity. There are many past researches which found digits or numbers, tend to be easier to be memorized and retrieved when needed. It has also been found that letters and words require more effort when it comes to inhibiting it into one’s mental dictionary. However, the underlying factors remain largely unexamined, and it would be a good direction for future researchers to work why certain stimulus may be easier to be ingrained in our minds, and why are some information lost so easily. Further research could include other methodologies which can pinpoint the exact differences in the stimulus types, and thus help in improving learning opportunities for the young and old. Lab Report Regarding Memory

     

     

    References

    Altani, A., Protopapas, A., & Georgiou, G. K. (2017). The Contribution of Executive Functions to Naming Digits, Objects, and Words. Reading and Writing, 30(1), 121-141. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.murdoch.edu.au/10.1007/s11145-016-9666-4.

    Archibald, L. M. D & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Short-Term and Working Memory in Specific Language Impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 41, 675-693. doi:10.1080/13682820500442602.

    Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes. Scientists Making a Difference: One Hundred Eminent Behavioral and Brain Scientists Talk about their Most Important Contributions.

    Bachelder, B., L., & Delprato, D. J. (2017). The Simple Memory Span Experiment: A Behavioral Analysis. The Psychological Record, 67(3), 423-433. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.murdoch.edu.au/10.1007/s40732-017-0222-7

    Egeland, J. (2015). Measuring Working Memory with Digit Span and the Letter-Number Sequencing Subtests from the WAIS-IV: Too Low Manipulation Load and Risk for Underestimating Modality Effects. Applies Neuropsychology: Adult 22(6), 445-451. doi:10.1080/23279095.2014.992069.

    Gary, J. & Bill, M. (2015). Questioning Short-Term Memory and its Measurement: Why Digit Span Measures Long-Term Associative Learning. Cognition, 144, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.009.

    Katrine, N. A., Yngvar, O., Elvind, A., Kolbjorn, S. B., Arne, L., Geir, K., R., & Vegard F. M. (2017). Executive Functions Do Not Mediate Prospective Relations Between Indices of Physical Activity and Academic Performance: The Active Smarter Kids (ASK) Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01088.

    Milikowski, M., & Elshout, J. J. (1995). What Makes a Number Easy to Remember? British Journal of Psychology, 86(4), 537.

    Miller, G. A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

    Schoofs, D., Preuß, D., & Wolf, O. T. (2008). Psychosocial Stress Induces Working Memory Impairments in an N-Back Paradigm Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.02.004

    Wolff, M. J., Jochim, J., Akyurek, E. G., & Strokes, M. G. (2017). Dynamic Hidden States Underlying Working-Memory-Guided Behavior. Nature Neuroscience 20(6), 864-871. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.murdoch.edu.au/10.1038/nn.4546