Chapter 1. Episodic / Semantic Memory

1.1 Introduction

The distinction between episodic and semantic memory was first proposed by Endel Tulving in 1972. Episodic or autobiographical memory includes events in one’s life and other contextual details. Semantic memory is memory for facts. Tulving found a number of different lines of evidence to support this distinction. Behavioral dissociations and performance differences on tasks that tap into the two different memory systems provide the primary support for Tulving's multiple memory system view. More recently, neuroscientists demonstrated that episodic and semantic memory tasks activate different brain structures (Rosenbaum, R. S., Kohler, S., Schacter, D. L., Moscovitch, M., Westmacott, R., Black, S. E., et al. (2005)). The experiment replicated here was originally performed by Shoben, Wescourt, & Smith (1978).

1.2 Experiment Setup

1.3 Instructions

You will need to press the space bar to begin the experiment. Then you will be shown a series of sentences. This first part of the experiment is called sentence verification. You will be asked to determine, regarding each sentence, whether it is true or false. Please press the Z key if the statement is true and the M key if the statement is false. After a delay period you will be asked to determine whether each sentence presented was or wasn’t in the first part of the experiment.

Keyboard Responses

1.4 Experiment

1.5 Results

1.6 Debriefing

Episodic memory is the memory for autobiographical information and other types of contextual information. In contrast, semantic memory is the information stored about events; it can take the form of declarative knowledge. The idea that semantic and episodic information are stored in two distinct memory systems and that there are multiple memory systems is now a core concept in psychology. Shoben et al., (1978) found that semantic relatedness affected reaction times for the sentence verification task and not the sentence recognition task, consistent with the thought that sentence verification taps into semantic memory. It is important to note that in the first experiment performed in Shoben et al., (1978) no fanning effect was obtained. It is possible that the identity of the specific words used in the fanning manipulation influenced performance on the recognition task. If the words used for fanning are not repeated or are incongruent with the sentence, the fanning effect may be diminished or absent as a result. This may explain the lack of a fanning effect in your class data. Further, Shoben et al. (1978) suggest that their description of the effect may not be as complete as previous studies that observed a semantic-episodic distinction. They argue that looking only at accuracy may not tell the whole story; reaction time may also be an important variable. Shoben’s views are a bit dated; more recent research has clearly established that semantic memory and episodic memory are distinct entities. This view is consistent with Tulving (1972).

References:

Shoben, E. J., Wescourt, K. T., & Smith, E. E. (1978). Sentence verification, sentence recognition, and the semantic-episodic distinction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(4), 304-317.

Tulving, E. Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214-241.

Rosenbaum, R. S., Kohler, S., Schacter, D. L., Moscovitch, M., Westmacott, R., Black, S. E., et al. (2005). The case of K.C.: Contributions of a memory-impaired person to memory theory. Neuropsychologia, 43, 989-1021.

1.7 Quiz