Levels Of Processing | EssayIvy.com

Running Head: LEVELS OF PROCESSING 1

Levels of Processing

Name

Professor

Institution

Course

Date

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 2

Abstract

The level of processing experiment tries to show that, in decades, the types of human

memory concerning stores and the information transfer have dominated it. And therefore one

method that has always been used in differentiating them has been the differences in their

retention characteristics. In the level of processing study, the objective is to establish whether

memory recognition scores will increase as our level of information processing increases. In this

case, synonyms, rhyme, and letter. The study aims to support the hypothesis that the scores of

memory recognition scores tend to increase as an increase in the level of information processing

is experienced. This indicates that a higher recognition is expected for the Synonym (semantic

deep level of processing) condition followed by the Rhyme and Letter conditions. The

independent variable of the study was the level of processing of each item that was presented to

the participants while the dependent variables were seen to be the proportion of times the word

was correctly recognized as being in phase 1. The study involved 20 college students, with six

males and 14 females aged between 21-30 years, with an average age of 23.6 years, who were

presented with a word and a judgment task and using the CogLab software. Besides, it was

observed that the participants' memory score increases as the level of processing information

increases. The study aimed at establishing that people should correctly recognize more words

with the deep processing task and fewer words with the shallow processing task. Additionally,

the study findings did support the original findings of the first experiment that the type of

processing might be more important than the hypothetical store that retained the information.

This study concludes that memory has been dominated by stores and information transfer and the

levels of processing will always vary depending on the affecting factors.

Keywords: Level of processing, Judgment task, Shallow task, Medium task, Rhyme task

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 3

Levels of Processing

Introduction

For decades now, memory has had the most common view in the sense that it consists of

some memory stores that included both the sensory, short-term and long-term memory. With

time, there was the development of perception in the sense that it was seen of much importance

in the types of processing as to hypothetical store that retained the information. It was later said

that memory is as a result of a successive series of analyses with each level being deeper as

compared to the previous one (Adams, 2017). A shallow level of processing majorly focuses

how a word sounds while the deeper level of processing majorly focuses on the meaning. The

participants used incidental study, and the finding was that the deeper the level of processing, the

better the performance on the test. This is because the theory tends to assume that the

participants will often be unaware of any memory tests that were to be conducted later (Craik &

Lockhart, 1972).

Long-Term Memory is one of the memory stores, and it is a memory model in which for

a very prolonged duration of time, it can encode and stores items as well. Memory has therefore

proven to be a process which is very complex (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). In a day-to-day

situation, it allows us to learn as well as recall large amounts of information. Despite its research

and study for a very long time, it is not still sure to anyone of this particular memory can work.

There are three stages which are involved in the process of a memory (Hanslmayr & Staudigl,

2014). These stages include encoding, storage, and retrieval. Encoding is the first stage of

memory, is associated information that is in the form of visual, acoustic as well as semantic. The

experiment is going to argue more about the coding question. In the sense that, in its formulation,

it is more appropriate concerning the processing demands that the experiment will tend to impose

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 4

on it as well as the material that is going to be used. At some point, acoustic coding in some ideal

with the certain material it may be adequate while in some instances, processing to a semantic

level may be both possible as well as advantageous (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

If memory stores are to be differentiated regarding the characteristics which are

forgetting, there would be a minimal requirement which would be seen as the retention function

that is invariant through various ideals and experimental conditions. In recognition memory

when it comes to pictures, the estimates become longer. It is therefore obvious that we have a

long-term memory for literal nonverbal information (Challis et al., 1996). Retention will depend

upon aspects of the example as study time, the amount of material that will be presented and the

mode of the test. In the process of identifying a word, certain associations are triggered which

includes images as well as stories. This highly depends on the experience from the past with the

word from the subject which means that it is a perfect example of elaboration coding. As pointed

out initially, the memory is as a result of a successive series of analyses which tend to be deeper

compared to the previous one (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Rehearsal is viewed as relatively. When

there is a lot of rehearsal that has been done using a shallow level of processing, there will be a

worse memory instead compared to a less rehearsal that will have been used using a deep level

of processing.

There are several levels of processing theory that has been used to agree with the idea

that perception involves the rapid analysis of stimuli in various levels or stages. Also, as

observed, the memory trace maybe as a result of the perceptual analysis (Craik, 2002). Thus,

memory tied up can think with the preference of the levels of perceptual processing. Despite

these levels being grouped into stages such as sensory analysis, pattern recognition, and stimulus

elaboration, the level of processing may be more useful. In this study, the participant tried to

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 5

manipulate the levels of processing (Hanslmayr & Staudigl, 2014). There were three conditions,

very shallow information processing, to a deeper level of processing. Whereby, the letter

condition is the shallowest. The participant was to see to it that they remember its stimuli in

which there are upper or lower case letters in the original experiment. The second condition was

the rhyming while the last condition was the deepest semantic level of processing (Eich, 1985).

The study was a replication of the original experiment on the level of processing experiment

because it was part of the psychological class and a course requirement to be fulfilled. The

hypothesis to be proven is that often the memory recognition scores will increase as our level of

information processing increases.

Methods

Participants

In performing this experiment, those who were involved were majorly the college

students who participated in the experiment. In this case, the original number of participants

involved was 20 college students aged 21-30 years. Out of these, 14 were females while the rest,

6, were males. The average age of the participants was 23.6 years with a standard deviation of

2.91. The study involved all the participants were selected randomly but the only requirement

being part of the Physiological class. They were then informed of what the experiment entailed,

and their consent was obtained.

Apparatus and material

Each of the participants was required to use a desktop computer located in their rooms

where there was no distraction of any kind. This was to allow them the chance to concentrate.

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 6

Additionally, they needed to use a CogLab software; hence, basic computer skills were required

(Francis & Neath, 2007).

Procedure

The experiment took place between 2:00 pm-2: 30 pm in college. In this experiment, the

students were to wait for a window to appear that will fill almost the entire screen, and a smaller

window will appear with abbreviated instructions. They were required to close the instructions

window and later open it again from the lab info (Francis & Neath, 2007).

They were to press the space bar to start each trial. There are two phases. In Phase I, you

will see a word and a judgment task. There are three types of judgment tasks. For all judgments,

you should press the z key to indicate a NO response and the / key to indicate a YES response

(Francis & Neath, 2007).

The student was to decide the first judgment in that, and they were to decide if the word

has a particular pattern of consonants and vowels. If it has the same pattern, press the / key and if

it does not, press the z key. For example, you might see the word dog followed by CVC (Francis

& Neath, 2007). You should press the / key because the dog is spelled with a consonant, then a

vowel, and then a consonant.

The second type of judgment was to decide if two words rhyme if they do, press the /

key. If they do not, press the z key. For example, they might see the word fish followed by boat.

They were to press the z key because they do not rhyme. The third type of judgment was to

decide if one word is a synonym for another if they do, press the / key and if they do not, press

the z key (Francis & Neath, 2007). For example, they might see the word angry followed by

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 7

mad. The next thing was that they were to press the / key because both "angry" and "mad" have

similar meanings.

After the students had completed the judgment, they were to press the space bar for the

next trial. After they have completed all the 60 judgments, they were then to enter phase III.

Again, they were then to press the spacebar to start each trial. They were shown a series of

words, half of which were shown in Phase I, and half of which are new words. They were asked,

"Was this word in Phase I?" If it was, press the / key to indicate that YES, the word was in Phase

I. If it was not, they were to press the z key to indicate that NO, the word was not in Phase I.

There were 60 judgments in Phase I, and 120 trials in Phase II. At the end of the experiment, the

experiment window was to close, and a new window was to appear that display their data as a

table and a plot (Francis & Neath, 2007). They were then required to explain the experiment and

results (See Appendix).

Results

The in-class lab study supports Levels of Processing’s hypothesis because of the Letter

score recall data from 20 college students (i.e., M=54; SD=17.52). Figure 1 shows that that data

received was in line the Levels of Processing hypothesis. The ANOVA results were statistically

significant, F (2, 38) = 16.228, p<.001. Overall, the analysis shows that there is a significant

effect and there is an effect by position type. The Pairwise comparisons using the LSD test

displayed mean differences that were statistically significant. The LSD of Letters (1) vs. Rhyme

(2) was significant, p<001. The LSD of Rhyme (2) vs. Synonym (3) is significant, p<.001.

Discussion

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 8

The Level of Processing and issue of memory in a close observation seems to be

connected based on the experiment which conducted above. From what is observed, there was an

increase in the memory recognition scores as far as there was an increase in the level of

information processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). The findings that were initially made indicated

that often, people would recognize more words with the deep processing task and fewer words

with the shallow processing task. This is simply because, on a word recognition task which in

this case is standard, the majority of the people will tend to use semantic information which will

act as a cue in their retrieval. This also means that the type of processing that looks to be most

appropriate for a semantically driven task is also the semantic processing which is a test (Kapur

et al., 1994). The effect seems to be quite robust, and it is not limited to the recognition test as

well. If at all any changes have been made to the test, it can, therefore, be altered. For instance, if

the test had to ask the participants whether there was a word on the list which seems to rhyme

with any particular test item (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Then the participant is likely to perform

much better in those items that he had made a rhyme judgment on in phase 1 compared to the

items that the participant had processed deeply.

On the LTM/encoding, the typical levels of processing experiment use a kind of learning

which is incidental. In this case, the participants are asked to rate words based on the number of

the letters or consonants (Royet, Koenig, Paugam-Moisy, Puzenat & Chasse, 2004). It is

assumed that the participants are unaware that later in the experiment process, there is going to

be a test on the on memory. And after the completion of all ratings, the participants receive a

recognition test which comes as a surprise to them. And often the findings is that, the deeper the

level of processing, the better the performance on the test. The three tasks are always designed in

such a way that it is capable of inducing different levels of processing (Eich, 1985). With regards

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 9

to the findings of the experiment, the performance will only be facilitated by the instruction to

learn (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). This tends to guide the participant to process the material in a

way that is effective than the processing that is induced by the orienting task and the strategy

which is intentionally intentional. This is similar to the findings of the original experiment

whereby shallow level processing focuses on the sound of words while the deeper level focuses

on the meaning (Lockhart & Craik, 1990).

Besides, flash cards are also tools which aid in studying as well as memory. It promotes a

recall which is very active, and it is through this way that our brain tends to learn effectively. The

uses of flash cards are excellent although some of its application may not favor true recall. For

instance, creating flashcards which are very complex and also making them in a manner that

memorization which is rote is being favored (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Creating and studying

flashcards have proven to be an effective way in memory recognition. In creating flashcards, it

helps the students be able to capture new information as well as maintain them in their brain

(Eich, 1985). Additionally, creating the flashcards give the students ample time to learn the

material. For instance, if a student mixes a picture and a word in his cards since research have

proven that brain tends to be sensitive when it comes to imagery (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

Thus, it is evident that any picture in a sentence will improve the attention required and make the

rehearsal very easy. In general when pictures are added to words in flash cards, then there are

chances the brain has the ability to recall much faster what a student had studied.

According to findings by Eich, (1985), our ability to learn can be impacted in different

ways depending on the mass and distributed practices. It will largely depend on the students in

the sense that if they are capable of reviewing their notes on a daily basis or wait for the test and

do all the cramming (or mass practice) (Eich, 1985). Therefore, a mass practice, which is

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 10

cramming involves studies which are not being practiced very regularly but the moment is being

done it takes a large period. It is always not perceived as good practice in studying. On the other

hand, there is the distributed practice. This involves enough time of studying (also known as

disruptive practice) (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Studying is always practice at intervals and over

time (spacing). It is a spaced-out method whereby one has to consider the time they take to learn

new material before they can understand their level of processing as established by Hanslmayr

and Staudigl, (2014). Research has, therefore, indicated that students using distributed practice in

their studies are likely to retain the information even after doing their test compared to those who

prefer to use massed practice. This means that brain will try to retrieve the information over

something that it had already learned (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

Moreover, looking at other people and the situations, then we can easily relate them to

our findings. This is in such a manner that, our findings indicate that the study method which aid

to recall is much effectively when there is a different tool that has been used. This is the same

with the people under different situations (Hanslmayr & Staudigl, 2014). Their study is effective

in a situation where they use a different tool for studying. The use of flashcards may be another

better way to explain encoding as well as test the levels of processing theory.

Furthermore, in this case, for future experiments and research, it would be best to make

findings whether other factors such as gender, age, and even occupation have an impact on the

level of process. Besides, focusing on the level of education as a determinant or a variable is

important to establish what other factors influence the level of processing. Additionally, if by any

chance there is inefficiency regarding the level of processing theory, then a direction for future

research will be to demonstrate and explicitly state the consequences which are as a result of a

different perceptual operation of the memory (Hanslmayr & Staudigl, 2014).

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 11

An example that demonstrates the level of processing and its generalization to different

situations is reading a book, traveling, preparing dinner and getting back home. According to

Kronlund and Whittlesea, (2005), they noted that people tend remember an activity that they

used a lot of time to do or see compared to the one that they only saw for a short time. Dinner

preparation is an activity that will take time compared to the looking at a traffic light on the road.

This supports the findings that the level of processing increases as one engages more in an

activity as observed by Rose et al., (2015). Therefore, in this case, it demonstrates that for a

deeper level of processing, people need to repeat activities several times and pay close attention.

However, in this experiment, the limitations noted include the fact that the number of

participants used was only 20 which limited the data that was obtained (Hanslmayr & Staudigl,

2014). Also, considering that college students were involved, and people who understood what

the experiment required, the level of bias in this case or false information is possibly high.

Besides, the duration of time, which took 30 minutes, was less for one to make conclusions that

can be reliable for decision making regarding the level of processing.

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 12

References

Adams, M. J. (2017). Failures to comprehend and levels of processing. Theoretical issues in

reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial

intelligence and education, 11, 11.

Challis, B. H., Velichkovsky, B. M., & Craik, F. I. (1996). Levels-of-processing effects on a

variety of memory tasks: New findings and theoretical implications. Consciousness and

cognition, 5(1-2), 142-164.

Craik, F. I. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present... and future?. Memory, 10(5-6), 305-318.

Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory

research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684.

Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic

memory. Journal of experimental Psychology: general, 104(3), 268.

Eich, J. (1985). Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration, and CHARM.

Psychological Review, 92, 1-38.

Francis, G., & Neath, I. (2007). CogLab on a CD, Version 2.0, 4th Ed. Wadsworth.

Hanslmayr, S., & Staudigl, T. (2014). How brain oscillations form memories—a processing

based perspective on oscillatory subsequent memory effects. Neuroimage, 85, 648-655.

Kapur, S., Craik, F. I., Tulving, E., Wilson, A. A., Houle, S., & Brown, G. M. (1994).

Neuroanatomical correlates of encoding in episodic memory: Levels of processing

effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91(6), 2008-2011.

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 13

Kronlund, A. & Whittlesea, B. (2005). Seeing double: Levels of processing can cause false

memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 11-16.

Lockhart, R. S., & Craik, F. I. (1990). Levels of processing: A retrospective commentary on a

framework for memory research. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de

psychologie, 44(1), 87.

Rose, N. S., Craik, F. I., & Buchsbaum, B. R. (2015). Levels of processing in working memory:

Differential involvement of frontotemporal networks. Journal of cognitive

neuroscience, 27(3), 522-532.

Royet, J., Koenig, O., Paugam-Moisy, H., Puzenat, D., & Chasse, J. (2004). Levels-ofprocessing

effects on a task of olfactory naming. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 197- 213.

LEVELS OF PROCESSING 14

Appendix

Figure 1.The Levels of Processing experiment showed an increase from letter to rhyme, to

synonym.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."