|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Levels-of-processing effect article.|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
I think that this theory is an interesting one, because it shows the three processes involved in the memory recall system.
What are your evaluations of the levels of processing Darren? I think that it is quite a good theory as it has lots of evidence to support it however there was no independent measure of whether processing was deep or shallow. What are your views on this?
This theory by Craik and Lockhart suggests that memory doesn’t have separate levels of storage, unlike the multi store model. Levels of processing consider that there are an unknown number of stores of processing levels of memory being stored in different forms of information. The levels are not distinct and the boundaries separating between these levels are not present. This is my vague view on the idea, anything to add Josh?
Well, Craik & Lockhart's level of processing model provided an interesting approach to memory which concentrated on structual issues of the deeper that we process things, the easier we will remember them. Although the theory has a lot of supportive evidence from experiments there is no independent measure of whether processing was deep or shallow.
I will be soon (December 6th) completely redoing this page for a class (Psychology and Free Will, taught by Jeremy Wolfe (http://search.bwh.harvard.edu/new/lab_members.html) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), so keep that in mind for edits. I am now in the process of performing research on this topic. FghIJklm 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Challis, Bradford H.; Boris M. Velichkovsky, Fergus I. M. Craik (1996-03). "Levels-of-Processing Effects on a Variety of Memory Tasks: New Findings and Theoretical Implications". Consciousness and Cognition 5 (1-2): 142–164. doi:10.1006/ccog.1996.0009. Retrieved 2007-11-18. Check date values in:
- Roediger III, Henry L.; David A. Gallo, Lia Geraci (2002). "Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework". Memory 10 (5/6): 319–332. doi:10.1080/09658210224000144. Retrieved 2007-11-18.
Did not get
I'm ashamed to say that, not being an insider in neuroscience or psychology (or whatever field is required to understand the lingo being thrown around in the current state of this article), besides being interested in what the "Levels-of-processing effect" is about, I did not really understand much of what was going on. The summary left me more confused than enlightened.
"This theory contradicts the multi-store Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model in its representation of memory strength as continuously variable."
This statement is certainly too strong. It is likely false (see e.g., Raaijmakers, J.G.W. (1993). The story of the two-store model: Past criticisms, current status, and future directions. In Meyer, D.E. & Kornblum, S. (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIV: Synergies in Experimental Psychology, Artifical Intelligence, and Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. 467-488). In any case, the assertion requires support. How do these models conflict? The theories used different concepts (are different) but not incompatible. The sentence adds nothing to the article and should be deleted. Rob C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)