Tulving episodic semantic

Episodic and Semantic Memory Systems

1. ENDEL TULVING
EPISODIC AND SEMANTIC
MEMORY SYSTEMS
PRESENTED BY: JOHN R. TURNER
Introduction
History
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

2. Introduction
Endel Tulving is most famous for
introducing two separate types of
memory systems: Episodic Memory and
Semantic Memory
1953 BA – Psychology from the
University of Toronto
1954 MA – Psychology from the
University of Toronto
1957 PhD – Experimental Psychology
from Harvard University
Returned to University of Toronto
where he currently teaches
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

3. Models of Memory
Atkinson and Shiffrin’s information-
processing model
Information is separated into three main
system:
Sensory Memory
Short-Term Memory (Working Memory)
Long-Term Memory
One of the first models to separate
short-term from long-term
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

4. Models of Memory –cont-
Long-term Memory has been divided
into two separate domains:
Procedural Memories
Propositional Memories
Tulving thought it was necessary to
differentiate propositional memories
into two separate systems:
Episodic Memories
Semantic Memories
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

5. Forerunners to Tulving
Early Dichotomous Classification of
Memory
Aristotle
Experience / Wisdom
Henri Bergson (1911)
Habit / True Memory
Claparede (around 1911)
Those established between connections /
those established between connections and
the self
Furlong (1948)
Retrospective Memory / Non-Retrospective
Memory
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

6. Verbal Learning Experiments
Tulving conducted experiments in
verbal learning while at Harvard
Verbal Learning Experiments
Subjects are given words to study, retain,
and recall over a number of trials
Tulving found that test subjects were
remembering the occurrence of the
word events rather than learning or
recalling them
Tulving began studying event-memory
tests rather than verbal learning tests
These event-memory tests began the
preliminary phases of two memory
systems, episodic and semantic
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

7. Differences between Episodic and
Semantic Memories
Retrieval
Episodic involves autonoetic awareness
(time stamped events) and the mental re-
experience of a previous moment in the
past
Semantic has no autonoesis, no mental
time travel
Storage
Episodic has temporal co-occurrence of
two words, A and B
Semantic entails a meaningful relation
between two words, the A-B association
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

8. Differences between Episodic and
Semantic Memories –cont-
Vulnerability to Interference
Episodic is more vulnerable to interference
Interference Theory
Interdependence
Episodic and Semantic memory systems
often interact closely to one another.
However, they still have interdependent
functions
Eagle-BIRD Pair
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

9. Critics to Episodic / Semantic
Differentiation
The idea of episodic was vague
Tulving’s episodic theory did not follow
established scientific research
No reason to distinguish memory into
two systems
Lack of evidence
Unitary memory system
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

10. Scientific Evidence Differentiating
Episodic from Semantic
Neurological Patients with Brain
Damage
Brain Damage (accident or disease)
Research has shown that two memory
systems, episodic and semantic, are present
Functional Neuroimaging Techniques
Examine brain activity
One empirical regularity:
Left prefrontal cortex is differentially more
involve than right in encoding information
into the episodic memory
Right prefrontal cortex is differentially more
involved than left in episodic retrieval
Semantic retrieval is seldom observed in the
right hemisphere
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

11. Scientific Evidence Differentiating
Episodic from Semantic –cont-
Semantic retrieval is localized to the left
hemisphere
Episodic retrieval involves right
hemisphere
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

12. Recent Studies Involving Episodic and
Semantic Memory
Herbert & Burt (2004)
Early learning – episodic
Transformation to semantic
Knowledge is schematized
Semb & Ellis (1994)
Instructional content vs. Qualitative
changes in memory structure (schemas)
Long-term retention
MacKenzie & White (1982)
Qualitative differences in episodic
experiences
Long-term retention
Introduction
Models of Memory
Forerunners to
Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

13. Recent Studies Involving Episodic and
Semantic Memory –cont-
Herbert & Burt (2004)
Groups with episodic rich material vs.
groups without
Semb & Ellis (1994)
Levels of original learning & students
with high ability
Introduction
History
Models of Memory
Forerunners to Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

14. Conclusion
Empirical Research has validated claims
of two memory systems: episodic and
semantic
Learning has been shown to increase
when knowledge is schematized
Instructional material and student’s
(employees) ability matter
Match training / job tasks to employees
original knowledge and ability
Introduction
History
Models of Memory
Forerunners to Tulving
Verbal Learning
Differentiation
Critics
Evidence
Recent Studies
Conclusion

15. Bergson, H. (1911). Matter and memory. London, England: Allen &
Unwin.
Claparede, E. (1911). Arch Psychol. 11, 79-90. [Translated in
organization and pathology of thought (ed. D. Rapaport0. Colombia
University Press, New York (1951)].
Furlong, E. J. (1948). Memory. Mind, No. 224, 57, 16-24.
Herbert, D. M. B. & Burt, J. S. (2004). What do students remember?
Episodic memory and the development of schematization. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 18, 77-88.
MacKenzie, A. A. & White, R. T. (1981). Fieldwork in geography and
long-term memory. American Educational Research Journal, 19,
623-632.
Semb, G. B., & Ellis, J. A. (1994). Knowledge taught in school: what is
remembered. Review of educational research, 64, 253-286.