User:Cpoon23/sandbox

Biography
Endel Tulving (born May 26, 1927 in Estonia) has had multiple career changes before finding himself at the scientific doorstep of neuroscience. One of Tulving's most notable work began in 1956 when he began his career as a professor at the University of Toronto. Endel Tulving’s array of occupations were scattered across the globe, with work ranging from Bavaria to the United States to Canada. At the very young age of 17, Tulving became a soldier in the big war that resulted in a loss of contact from his parents and led to him becoming a prisoner of war. However, it was not long after this Tulving graduated and became a teacher in Bavaria. Two years later, he found himself in London, Ontario leading him to positions that included a construction worker, husband, father and delivery man. As mentioned above, from 28-29 he completed a graduate program at the University of Toronto and onwards became a faculty member there. At 65, he became a scientist at the Rotman Research Institute of Baycrest Centre in North York Ontario where he continues his research]. Interestingly, Tulving was never one to follow the proper guidelines. His apparent optimistic and belief in everything being possible seemed to fuel Tulving’s research despite constant criticism and rejection from other fellow scientists. One example of Tulving ignoring accepted practices was his lack of an independent variable in one of his experiments on sequential constraints in 1960]. Clearly, this never stopped Tulving from making influential discoveries in the field and remains to hold a modest attitude, being grateful for everyone in his life, including his students and colleagues that helped make all his findings possible.

Episodic and Semantic Memory
To further differentiate episodic memory and semantic memory, semantic is more stable and more resistant to change, whereas episodic is time-lagged and more far-ranging. Understandably, since episodic memory is an event that occurred, any piece of semantic information that was learned originated from an event, or episodic memory. According to Aristotle, semantic memory has a “higher” element that enables experience to be transformed into knowledge. In his book, “Elements of Episodic Memory,” Tulving does not necessarily explain how this process is created but points towards retrieval cues for possible answers. Retrieval cues can be episodes or factual cues that tap into our memory to assist in retrieving the correct information needed. In Murray’s review of Tulving’s book, he mentions new information may not be attached in our minds to old feelings but to old information. This means while a scent that reminds one of their Spanish teacher may trigger the episodic memory of learning some initial or influential words learned. This would be an example of a cue that trigger’s episodic memory. However, an example of a factual cue could be other Spanish or English words that trigger a semantic memory. Thus, depending on whether new information is encoded by and attached to factors of the experience or event (old feelings) or to factual cues (old information) will decipher whether it will remain an episodic memory of it will be transformed into one’s semantic memory.

In Tulving’s “Elements of Episodic Memory,” he stresses the process of encoding is not just a process, but an event, focusing on the neural activity that occurs. What makes this difficult is that we cannot measure encoding separately from retrieval. Thus, we cannot measure the probability of these two events independently and can only learn through the relationship between the two. Again, it is not clearly mentioned how it is decided whether information is stored in episodic versus semantic memory, it is thought some may ambiguously categorized. However, since episodic memory can be altered due to emotions, desires, moods and needs, motivation may direct new information into the episodic memory on purpose.

Encoding Specificity Principle
According to the Encoding Specificity Principle, “what is stored is determined by what is perceived and how it is encoded and what is stored determines what retrieval cues are effective in providing access to what is stored.”  So, depending on how new information is encoded determines which cues are most effective in retrieving the information again at a later date. Thus, information being at the time of retrieval that was available at the time of encoding will help cue the memory. This relates to the physical environment, auditory environment, etc. Even alcohol can have an effect in which if one encodes something while intoxicated, then retrieving during intoxication can be more effective than when sober. This means when encoding a memory, our minds work to take notice of the contextual cues around. This also means that the encoding specificity principle relates to episodic memory specifically. A good example would be if you were in your bedroom and go downstairs to get something you need. By the time you get downstairs, you forget what it was you were getting. It is not until you are back in your bedroom that you quickly remember what it was you wanted – thus, the contextual cues of the bedroom assisted in triggering your memory. Another good and common example is when mid conversation someone forgets what they are about to say. Friends assist in helping them remember by repeating some of the topics that had just been discusses.

The retrieval process, in which the encoding information and retrieval cues come together, results in what Tulving calls “synergestic ecphory." It is because of this synergy, that individuals are given the feeling or sensation of knowing an episode occurred and knowing that what they have retrieved is correct information. Thus, this explains why information that is not semantically relevant but is a contextual cue in comparison to information that is semantically relevant but was not present during encoding, will be more effective in recall.

Amnesia and Consciousness
Tulving also mentioned that in amnesic patients, either type of memory can be affected, but it does not have to be both. For the amnesic patient, it seems as though that sensation of knowing that is produced through synergestic ecphory does not occur. They have issues matching the encoding information to the retrieval cue, thus not allowing them to remember.

Autonoesis
Autonoesis was termed by Endel Tulving during his research on KC, an amnesic patient that had damaged impaired episodic memory, yet working semantic memory, due to a severe close head injury during a motorcycle accident. It is the ability to go back in time mentally, without the need for specific stimuli in the environment. Basically, autonoesis is our ability to reflect on our past experiences and thus, allow us to learn from them in order to prepare for our future actions. Of course, this function is extremely important in order to make intelligent and logical decisions in our lives, having a major impact on our future. Furthermore, it also allows individuals to imagine themselves in the future. Though episodic memory is one of the more fragile systems, seeing as it can easily be altered or is more prone to degradation, it is a necessary system that allows us to mindfully time travel.

The interesting thing with patient KC was found during an experiment. He was taken to a lab and taught a number of 3-word sentences and later tested him with one word missing waiting for him to fill it in. While he was able to complete the sentences (slowly but surely), he could never recall actually going to the laboratory and learning them.

Tulving has argued that it may be this specific process that makes us uniquely human. Other species are not able (as far as we know) to imagine a future and reflect on a past. This function may be what makes us superior to other creatures. However, there have been other case studies in which young individuals with similar defects as KC, were able to keep up in school, despite their inability to remember their own personal experiences. Thus, damage to one’s episodic memory or autonoesis abilities may not be as damaging as once thought and with the proper learning techniques, may just need some adaptation.

Tulving-Wiseman Function
It is commonly known that one cannot recall what one cannot even recognize. This has been proven through multiple studies that show evidence of recognition is higher than of recall. This suggests a two-step theory in which recall is an extra process established after recognition. Tulving states that a remember response (recollection) reflects episodic memory, using specific contextual information to help recognize a word as familiar. In contrast, a know response (familiarity) does not need a specific event to allow for information to be remembered. Thus, this relates more to semantic memory in which items are remembered in reference to other words. To further differentiate the two, recollection is a slow, thorough search process whereas familiarity is instantaneous – the individual knows they are familiar without a doubt. In Tulving’s study, he tested individuals on pairs of items through recognition tests and recall tests. Interestingly, some of the pairs they were unable to remember in recognition were remembered during the recall test. Overall, the Tulving-Wiseman function is a matter of probability. They theorized the probability of recall and the probability of recognition is conditional if recall is successful. However, there have been many critiques on the Tulving-Wiseman function on methodological and theoretical grounds. Some have said there is no relevance between this theory and the principle of encoding specifity or to the two-stage models of recall. Another study that criticized Tulving’s theory was done by Lian, A., Glass, A. L., & Raanaas, R. K (1998), in which one of their conditions deviated from the predictions of the Tulving-Wiseman function.

Subjective Organization
Endel Tulving also did research on the mental organization of information in memory in 1962. Using a list of 16 English words that were randomly organized, the words were presented to 16 undergraduate females. There were 16 different lists of words and were shown on white paper with one word/second over 16 trials. After each trial, they were asked to use free recall and to list all the words they could remember. It was found subjective organization became apparent, and stronger with each time. Furthermore, organization and performance were positively correlated. Thus, it goes to show not only do individuals automatically use subjective organization to assist in memorization, but it is a tactful tool when having to recall unrelated things.