Factors that influence the rate of learning should be distinguished from those that affect the rate of forgetting. For example, nonsense syllables are learned more slowly than are an equal number of common words; if both are studied for the same length of time, the better-learned common words will be forgotten more slowly. But this does not mean that the rate of forgetting intrinsically differs for the two tasks. Degree of learning must be held constant before it may be judged whether there are differences in rate of forgetting; rates of forgetting can be compared only if tasks are learned to an equivalent degree. Indeed, when degree of learning is experimentally controlled, different kinds of information are forgotten at about the same rate. Nonsense syllables are not forgotten more rapidly than are ordinary words. In general, factors that seem to produce wide differences in rate of learning show little (if any) effect on rate of forgetting, though some studies of mnemonic systems have demonstrated that pictorial (visual) mnemonics are associated with longer-held memories. Physiological aspects of long-term memory
Investigators concerned with the physiological bases of memory seek a kind of neurochemical code with enough physical stability to produce a structural change or memory trace (engram) in the nervous system; mechanisms for decoding and retrieval also are sought. Efforts at the strict behavioral level similarly are directed toward describing encoding, decoding, and retrieval mechanisms as well as the content of the stored information.
One way to characterize a memory (or memory trace) is to identify the information it encodes. A learner may encode far more information than is apparent in the task as presented. For example, if a subject is shown three words for a few seconds and, after 30 seconds of diversion or distraction, is asked to repeat the process of learning-delay-recall with three new word groups, poorer and poorer recall will be observed on successive trials in cases where all of the word groups share some common element (e.g., all are animal names). Such findings may be explained by assuming that the learner encodes this animal category as part of his memory for each word. Initially, the common category might be expected to aid recall by sharply delimiting the number of probable words. Successive triads, however, tend to be encoded in increasingly similar ways, blurring their unique characteristics for the subject. An additional step provides critical supporting evidence for such an interpretation. If a final triad of vegetable names is unexpectedly presented, recall recovers dramatically. The person being tested will tend to reproduce the vegetable names much better than he does those of the last animal triad, and recall will be roughly as efficient as it was for the first three animal names. This shift in word category seems to provide escape from earlier confusion or blurring, and it may be inferred that a common conceptual characteristic was encoded for each animal name.
Any characteristic or attribute of a word may be investigated in this way to determine whether it is incorporated in memory. When recall does not recover, it may be inferred that the manipulated characteristic has little or no representation in memory. For example, grammatical class typically does not appear to be encoded; decrement in recall produced after a series of triads consisting of verbs tends to continue when a shift is made to adjectives. Such an experiment does not indicate what common encoding characteristic might be responsible for the decrement, suggesting only that it is not grammatical class.
Encoding mechanisms also may be inferred from tests of recognition. In one kind of experiment, for example, subjects study a long list of words, being informed of a multiple-choice memory test to follow. Each word is made part of a test question that includes other carefully chosen new words, or “distractors.” Distractors are selected to represent the different types of encoding the investigator suspects may have occurred in learning. If the word selected for study is chosen by the subject, little can be inferred about the nature of the encoding. Any errors, however, can be most suggestive. Thus, if the word to be studied was TABLE, the multiple-choice list of words might be TABLE, CHAIR, ABLE, FURNITURE, PENCIL, with TABLE being the only correct answer. If CHAIR is incorrectly selected, it may be suspected that this associatively related word occurred to the subject implicitly during learning and became so well encoded that the subject later could not determine whether it or TABLE had been presented for memorization. If the wrong choice is ABLE, acoustical resemblance to TABLE may have contributed to the confusion. If FURNITURE is erroneously chosen, it is likely that the conceptual category was prominent in the encoding. Finally, because it is not related in any obvious way to TABLE, the word PENCIL may be intended as a control, unlikely to be a part of the memory for TABLE. If this is the case, subjects will be more likely to select distractor words such as PENCIL (or any others that have been encoded along with TABLE).
It is important to note the limitations on what may be inferred from experiments of this kind. Although a subject may have encoded in ways suggested by particular distractors, he still may be able to choose the correct word. Or, even if he chooses one of the distractor words, he still may have encoded in ways not represented by that word. Retrieval
The common experience of having a name or word on the tip of the tongue seems related to specific perceptual (e.g., visual or auditory) attributes. In particular, people who report a “tip-of-the-tongue” experience usually are able to identify the word’s first letter and the number of syllables with an accuracy that far exceeds mere guessing. There is evidence that memories may encode information about when they were established and about how often they have been experienced. Some seem to embrace spatial information; e.g., one remembers a particular news item to be on the lower right-hand side of the front page of a newspaper. Research indicates that the rate of forgetting varies for different attributes. For example, memories in which auditory attributes seem dominant tend to be more rapidly forgotten than those with minimal acoustic characteristics.
The Canadian psychologist Endel Tulving has demonstrated that, while information may be retained over a long period of time, there is no guarantee it will be retrieved precisely when it is needed. Successful retrieval is much more likely if a person is tested in a physical setting (context) that is naturally associated with the event or fact. In cases where the context during the recall test differs from the setting in which the learning occurred, retrieval will be less likely. This is why the name of a colleague from school or work may be difficult to recall if one happens to encounter him at a shopping mall. In such cases, the new setting interferes with one’s ability to retrieve the person’s name from long-term memory.
Memory can be aided by any number of cues, however. It would be far easier to recall the colleague’s name if one were asked to choose it from a list. In general, “recognition memory” (involved in choosing the correct answer from a list) is more reliable than recall memory (retrieving information without any clue or hint that could assist in the retrieval). For this reason most students prefer multiple-choice tests to essay tests.