Why study mnemonics

The authors suggest that the obtained patterns were due to the mnemonic acronym and its structure, which, they assume, have organized the task hierarchically in accordance with the word boundaries of the acronym Altmann et al. However, since no control condition i.

However, this study did not focus directly on the impact of an acronym as mnemonic on performance Hambrick et al. Instead, it addressed how individual differences in general ability impacted performance in a placekeeping task with vs.

Despite the different aims of that study, a look at the data of the different conditions at least suggest that the no-acronym condition was somewhat more demanding than the acronym condition, as participants in the no-acronym group more often consulted the help option than in the acronym group. No differences in overall mean response times RTs and rates of sequence error were found between the conditions, though, which is in contrast to the assumption of a generally beneficial mnemonic effect of an acronym on the execution of a serial task.

However, because the specific effects of a mnemonic on performance in serial tasks were not the primary aim of this study, the authors just used very general performance measures, not addressing any specific effects of the mnemonic on, for example, learning times, and resilience toward interruptions or task representation.

Thus, the conclusions of this study must be considered as very limited with respect to the performance consequences of acronym mnemonics on serial task performance. The current research aims at a first systematic investigation on the performance effects of a mnemonic acronym vs.

For this purpose, we used a German adaptation of the UNRAVEL task and contrasted conditions with and without the mnemonic regarding three different aspects: the time needed for learning the task, the speed and accuracy of executing the task without an interruption, and the potential of the acronym to structure the task and to enhance the resilience of the task or at least certain steps toward detrimental performance effects after an interruption. Enlarging the procedure to eight steps and using the 2-word acronym was chosen to make the task even more complex and to have an acronym with a salient semantic structure including a central position marked by word boundaries.

In the first experiment, participants performed the primary task either with the support of the acronym from the learning phase on or without an acronym. In the latter case, they had to learn the eight steps and their order without any sort of mnemonic technique provided.

During performance of the task, we further varied whether or not interruptions of two different lengths occurred at different steps. First, we expected shorter learning times in the acronym condition compared to the condition where no acronym was available. Second, we predicted that having a support of a mnemonic acronym would lead to faster and more accurate execution of the whole sequence of steps compared to the situation without the acronym.

This was expected based on the assumption that the sequential associations between steps would be improved by the availability of the acronym. Third, we assumed that availability of the mnemonic acronym would improve the resilience toward interruptions, namely, that resumption times would be faster, and sequence errors at the first step after an interruption would be less frequent, compared to the no-acronym condition.

Based on the assumption that acronyms indeed facilitate the rehearsal of where the primary task was interrupted and also provide a salient internal cue to re-activate the task goal at the correct step, this effect should occur independently of the length and position of an interruption. Finally, we assumed that the inherent semantic structure of the acronym would also organize the cognitive representation of the task.

That is, we assumed that the mnemonic acronym consisting of two words would facilitate a sort of chunking, i. In that case, this should be reflected in a faster learning time and an even higher resilience toward interruption effects, particularly for interruptions occurring at the central position, compared to interruptions elsewhere during the task.

This is suggested by the observations of position effects in the UNRAVEL paradigm and previous findings that interruptions are less disruptive if they occur after the completion of subtasks compared to the ones positioned within subtasks Monk et al. Whereas the results of the first experiment allowed for an evaluation of most of these hypotheses, the observed effects were somewhat ambiguous with respect to the effects of the acronym on the mental representation of the task.

Seventy four university students, ranging in age from 18 to 30, participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to two groups. A sample size of 32 participants per group was determined, based on a G-power sample size calculator Faul et al.

Such effect size is in the range of previously reported effect sizes for main performance effects of interruption presence and length e. However, no predictions regarding the sizes of specific effects of providing an acronym could be drawn from previous studies and, thus, were only assumed to be in the same range. For participation in the experiment, a course credit or monetary compensation were offered.

It follows the same general approach and objectives as the original task, but also takes into account experiences of previous research with this task Altmann et al. As the UNRAVEL task, the German version also requires participants to respond to a complex stimulus with a number of sequential responses which have to be performed from memory in a predefined order.

The stimuli of the primary task correspond to the original stimuli of the UNRAVEL task, with features adapted to a new and enlarged set of choice rules that have to be applied in a given sequence without any cues. In response to the stimulus, the participant has to go through a sequential list of eight choice rules, corresponding to the different features, and to type the correct responses in a standard keyboard in a prescribed order.

It can be considered as a sort of a first-letter mnemonic representing the sequence of operations of the primary task by the respective first letter of one of the response options, corresponding to the logic of the acronym in the UNRAVEL task.

The choice rules, the corresponding responses and the association with the acronym are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Possible answers that form the acronym are provided in both German direct link to the acronym by first letter of one of the alternatives and English. The latter makes it possible to study possible effects of the acronym structure on the task execution in a controlled way. A numerical 2-back task Moore and Ross, was used as interruption task.

In this task, participants are presented with series of single numbers and need to respond when a presented number equals the one presented two places before. The task places relatively high demands on working memory by requiring a running memory update with each new number presented. It has been used in other interruption research before in order to suppress or at least hinder active rehearsal of where an interruption occurred in a primary task e.

After signing an informed consent and filling in a demographic questionnaire addressing basic biographic characteristics e. In the no-acronym group, the pre-defined order of choice rules was presented, but the sequence of response options was mixed so that forming an acronym from them was not obvious.

In contrast, the acronym group was introduced to the mnemonic acronym as support for memorizing the different choice rules in the correct order. Afterward, in both groups followed a short practice phase including five trials of the task, which had to be performed with support of a handout describing the sequence of choices to be made.

Immediate feedback on accuracy was provided on the screen after each response. After the practice trials, participants continued with reading of instructions and familiarizing with the interruption task.

After the 2-back interruption task was introduced, a short practice trial 1 min followed. However, before taking this test they could take as much time as they needed to learn the sequence. Participants, who then passed the knowledge test, directly proceeded to the final training without feedback, which consisted of eight WORTKLAU trials with five trials being interrupted after different steps.

All other participants got additional learning time before they repeated the knowledge test and could start with the final training block. All participants passed the knowledge test at the second try. After the final training block, participants had a short break that was followed by the experimental data collection.

In each block, 20 trials were interrupted. The remaining four trials per block, i. These were used for assessing effects of the acronym on uninterrupted performance and also used as baseline for calculating interruption effects. Interrupted and uninterrupted trials were mixed randomly.

In case of errors, they should not correct them, but continue working through the sequence. During the 2-back interruption task, one number at a time was presented in the center of the screen as a part of short 4 items or long 20 items series with a presentation rate of 1. Immediately after the last item of the 2-back series, the stimulus of the primary task was presented again, and participants were required to resume the primary task as soon as possible at the correct step, i.

After the last step of a trial in the primary task was performed and before the new stimulus was shown, a blank screen appeared for ms. On average, a complete experimental session lasted 90 min. Before leaving, with each participant a structured interview was conducted, which addressed strategies they used for learning and execution of the task e. In addition, participants subjectively assessed their own performance in the primary and the interruption tasks on simple four-point Likert scales.

For examining the effects of a mnemonic acronym on learning times, on overall performance in the uninterrupted trials of the primary task, and on post-interruption performance, we contrasted the performance in the acronym group working with support of the WORTKLAU acronym, with the performance in the no-acronym control group. The first factor was defined as a between-subjects factor representing the acronym and no-acronym groups.

The second factor was defined as a within-subjects factor, representing the length of interruption 6 vs. The third factor was again a within-subjects factor and included five levels corresponding to the position in the sequence of response where an interruption occurred before steps R, T, K, L, A. A set of overall eight performance measures were used to assess the impact of the acronym on different aspects of performance including learning, performance during uninterrupted trials, and consequences of interruptions:.

This variable was used to assess a possible impact of the acronym on the time needed to learn the correct sequence of choice rules of the primary task. It was defined as the time passed between the end of the first familiarization phase and the successful pass of the knowledge test, including the extra time needed if the first trial of the knowledge test failed.

Operationally it was measured based on the time stamps sampled in the logfile of the experiment, indicating the end of the last 2-back practice trial and the beginning of the final practice block, respectively. In order to be able to control for differences in pure reading speed, the time needed for reading the instructions in the familiarization phase, defined by the time passed between the end of the first practice block of WORTKLAU task and beginning of the 2-back training trials, was also assessed via time stamps sampled in the logfiles of the experiment.

For the first step of each trial, RTs were defined as the time in ms passed from the occurrence of the new task stimulus until the first response provided.

For all following steps, the RT was assessed by the length of inter-response interval IRI, in ms , elapsed since the preceding response. Only the steps answered correctly were included in this measure. This measure was defined as the overall mean proportion of all responses to the different steps within uninterrupted trials, where a participant deviated from the prescribed order of the steps, by either missing the steps e.

This measure was defined as the overall mean proportion of all responses to the different steps within uninterrupted trials, where a participant provided a response to a given step at the correct position of the trial, but the response was false e. Resumption time was defined as the time needed to return to a certain step of the primary task after an interruption. Based on all interrupted trials, it was calculated for each given post-interruption step R, T, K, L, or A individually, by subtracting the mean inter-response-interval for this step in the uninterrupted trials from the time passed between the reappearance of the primary task stimulus and the response to this step on the keyboard after an interruption.

Only correct responses were considered for this measure. This measure included the proportion of sequence errors i. This measure included the proportion of non-sequence errors i. Interruption task performance was measured through correct hits, when participants responded to the stimuli in the task rightfully, and correct rejections, when participants correctly did not respond to the stimuli presented, and it was expressed as a percentage.

In addition to these performance measures a number of further, mainly explorative variables were derived from the structured post-experimental interview, including percentages of different chunking strategies deliberately applied by the participants. Finally, a set of control variables used to identify possible basic differences between the experimental groups included subjective ratings of performance in the primary and in the interruption tasks, and selected items of the demographic questionnaire, like age and subjective ratings of typing proficiency.

A total of nine participants were excluded from further analyses for either systematic non-sequence errors in the K step consonant-vowel of the trial, for using non-mnemonic strategies to conduct the task i. Thus, the results presented in the following are based on the data of 33 participants in the acronym group and 32 participants in the no-acronym group.

In addition, the two groups also did not differ with respect of their subjective rating of their performance in the primary task [2.

With regard to RT measures in the uninterrupted trials, all RT shorter than ms or larger than 3 standard deviations SD from the mean, calculated for each step and each participant, were excluded, resulting in excluding 0.

For post-interruption, RTs between the re-occurrence of the primary task stimulus after interruption and the first response , also all times shorter than ms were excluded, resulting in exclusion of 0. All learning and reading times that were 3 SD above or below the group means were excluded from the analysis.

This resulted in the suspension of one participant due to a long reading time in the acronym group, and three participants due to long learning and reading times in the no-acronym group. In the acronym group, the mean learning time of the remaining participants was A complete overview of the performance measures calculated for each step of the primary task in the uninterrupted condition, together with the three derived overall performance scores on trial level are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Means and standard errors in brackets of response times, proportion of sequence errors, and proportion of non-sequence errors at each step of the task in uninterrupted trials. In addition, resulting mean completion times and mean overall proportion of sequence and of non-sequence errors are shown for both conditions at the bottom of the table. However, the proportions of sequence errors were very low in both groups and contrasting these means by a t -test the difference just failed to reach the usual level of significance, t An overview of performance measures calculated for each post-interruption step of the primary task in the conditions with short and long interruptions is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Means and standard errors in brackets of post-interruption performance measures response time, resumption time, proportion of sequence, and proportion of non-sequence errors separately for each position of interruption and both interruption lengths in the acronym and no-acronym group.

The effects of group and interruption position on the resumption time, including their interaction, are shown in Figure 2. As becomes evident, resumption times were different, dependent on the position at which the interruptions occurred, with the shortest resumption times in both groups when the interruption occurred at the center position.

However, this latter effect was somewhat more pronounced in the acronym group than in the no-acronym group. Figure 2. Resumption times and standard errors of the acronym and no-acronym group for different interruption positions. As becomes evident, in case of short interruptions, the rate of post-interruption sequence errors was generally low and did not vary much dependent on the position of the interruption.

However, for long interruptions, the rate of sequence errors differed across positions, with the lowest error rates after interruptions at the positions 3 and 4 center. A post hoc t -test for paired samples contrasting the mean error rate at the central position with the mean of all other positions was conducted for the two interruption lengths separately.

However, whether or not an acronym was available to support the execution of the procedure did not make a difference. Figure 3. Proportion of sequence errors and standard errors of the acronym and no-acronym groups together at different interruption positions. Previous studies have shown that interruptions may not only raise the risk of sequence errors, but specifically sequence errors in form of repeating a step in the terms used by Altmann et al.

Thus, we performed an exploratory post hoc analysis investigating whether the provision of a mnemonic acronym would make a difference in this respect. Thus, we assumed the variations reflected in this measure as just random and resigned to analyze non-sequence errors statistically.

That is, higher accuracy in the interruption task was related to longer resumption times after the interruption. On a descriptive level, shorter learning times emerged in a subgroup of participants who employed some kind of task chunking compared to a subgroup who did not, within each experimental group acronym group: Participants also reported whether any interruption position was particularly easy to resume.

The aims of the present research were to investigate effects of the availability of a mnemonic acronym on learning and execution of a procedural task, the resilience toward detrimental effects of interruptions, and the impact of the structure of a mnemonic acronym on the mental representation of the task. Let us first consider the effects of learning and execution of the eight-step procedure in the uninterrupted trials. Based on knowledge gained from research on memory for order Nelson and Archer, ; Morris and Cook, , beneficial effects of the mnemonic acronym were expected to emerge in the time needed to learn the procedure.

In accordance with this hypothesis, the acronym group acquired the procedure significantly faster than the no-acronym group. This finding is in line with previous research on memory for order, showing positive effects of mnemonic acronyms on memorization of the order of verbal items Morris and Cook, However, no beneficial effects of the acronym were found with respect to completion time and error rates, confirming recent observations in the study of Hambrick et al.

Thus, our additional hypothesis that mnemonic acronyms might also serve as process mnemonics that promote speed and accuracy of task execution through strengthening associations between the steps of the procedure Malhotra, was not supported by the data. Obviously, once the procedure was learnt, no additional benefit of the cuing structure was provided by the mnemonic acronym during the actual execution.

This suggests that mnemonic acronyms can serve well as learning mnemonics supporting the establishment of declarative knowledge concerning the set and sequence of rules of a sequential task. However, the transfer of this knowledge to the actual active execution of the task Kieras and Bovair, does not seem to be supported further by the availability of a mnemonic acronym. A second aim of the experiment addressed possible effects of mnemonic acronyms on the resilience of executing procedures toward interruptions.

More specifically, we assumed that acronyms would generally improve the rehearsal of where in the sequence the interruption occurred and provide cues for a better re-activation of the correct step to-be-performed next after the interruption. The results did not support this assumption, as no differences between the groups were found in terms of overall resumption times and post-interruption sequence errors.

Specifically, the people who received a mnemonic should have remembered more of the words on their lists, and with greater accuracy making fewer mistakes in recalling what the exact words were than people who didn't receive a mnemonic and didn't make up one on their own.

The people with mnemonics should have also recalled their entire lists of words more quickly. With the small sample size of volunteers used in this activity, however, the results may not have been as pronounced as they would be in a much larger study.

Additionally, some mnemonic techniques can be more effective than others and certain types work better for some people than others , so that could also affect the outcome of this activity. This activity brought to you in partnership with Science Buddies. Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue. See Subscription Options. Discover World-Changing Science.

Key concepts Memory Learning Brain Psychology Introduction Have you ever needed to remember a long list of words, such as state capitals or items on a shopping list?

Build a Cooler. Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter. Sign Up. Support science journalism. Knowledge awaits. With not long until finals, now is the perfect time to start enacting some effective memory techniques during your study sessions. Instead of wasting weeks in the library, study smarter and harder with these four memory techniques backed by science. The method of Ioci is a memory technique that dates back to ancient Roman times and is just as useful today. At each stop, you mentally place a piece of information.

To recall that information, simply walk through your memory journey to retrieve it. You could place the prophase phase where you give your order, the metaphase where the coffee is made, the anaphase where the milk is steamed and the telophase where you pick up your cup on the counter. This technique has been used by professional memory experts for centuries and can help you easily recall information for tests.

While most memory techniques for studying are safe to use in the library, this one is not.