MEMORY TEST

A Practical Report
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the
Course of Practical (Psy 505)

Submitted to
Central Department of Psychology
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science
Tribhuvan University, Nepal

Submitted By
Prastut Acharya
Roll Number:
2025
 i

Abstract

This experimental study aimed to investigate short-term memory performance by comparing

recall and recognition tasks among two university-educated participants (one male and one

female, both aged 24). Participants were first exposed to a list of 10 three-letter non-word

stimuli, followed by a free recall test and a recognition test incorporating distractors. The male

participant achieved 100% accuracy in both recall and recognition, while the female participant

scored 80% in recall and 100% in recognition. The results support the cognitive psychology

principle that recognition tasks yield higher accuracy than recall due to the presence of retrieval

cues. The findings are consistent with dual-process theories of memory, emphasizing the role of

familiarity in recognition and the reconstructive nature of recall. Although based on a limited

sample size, this study reinforces foundational memory retrieval concepts and highlights

individual variability in performance. Future research with a broader sample is recommended to

examine the influence of cognitive and demographic factors on memory.

 Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Hypothesis................................................................................................................................... 3
Method ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Study Design ............................................................................................................................... 4
Participants .................................................................................................................................. 5
Data Collection Tools/Materials ................................................................................................. 5
Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 6
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 6
Ethics........................................................................................................................................... 7
Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 9
References ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................11
Data Collection Sheet ................................................................................................................11
 List of tables

Table 1 Computaion of scores of the participants ………………………………………..8

 1

Introduction

Memory is a core psychological function that allows individuals to retain, organize, and utilize

information across time. It is vital not only for personal identity and the continuity of thought but

also for learning, problem-solving, and adapting to new environments. The process of memory is

typically divided into three interrelated stages: encoding, storage, and retrieval (Atkinson &

Shiffrin, 1968).

Encoding is the initial stage where sensory information is transformed into a form that

can be entered into memory. This may involve visual, auditory, semantic, or other forms of

processing. Once encoded, information is stored—either temporarily in short-term memory or

more durably in long-term memory—until it is needed. The storage phase involves maintaining

encoded data over various time periods, and its success depends on factors such as attention,

rehearsal, and the depth of processing(Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968).

Retrieval, the process of accessing and bringing back into conscious awareness stored

information, is the last and possibly most important stage. Retrieval is crucial because

information is useless unless it can be effectively recovered, no matter how well it is encoded or

stored. Because it depends on a number of variables, such as context, emotional state, retrieval

cues, and the intensity of memory traces, this process can be complicated(Alan Baddeley -

Memory (2017) (1), n.d.). Within the domain of retrieval, two key mechanisms are commonly

distinguished: recall and recognition.

The capacity to retrieve information from memory without the use of outside signals is

known as recall. It frequently calls for reconstructive procedures, and the organizing and

encoding techniques employed throughout the learning period may have an impact. Writing

essays or responding to open-ended queries, for instance, usually requires either free or cued
 2

recall. Contrarily, recognition entails recognizing previously taught material when it is reiterated.

Because it depends more on familiarity and the existence of signals, as in multiple-choice exams

or facial recognition tasks, it is typically thought to be simpler than recall. Both recall and

recognition serve as important indicators of memory strength and are frequently used in

experimental and applied psychology to assess cognitive functioning(Roediger & McDermott,

1995).

In both theoretical and practical situations, it is vital to comprehend the mechanisms

behind memory, especially the retrieval process that involves recall and recognition. These

processes serve as the basis for analyzing how people acquire, remember, and use knowledge in

cognitive psychology. From an educational standpoint, the ability to recover information from

long-term memory is a major factor in effective learning processes. When compared to passive

review techniques, research indicates that active retrieval techniques, such testing and memory

exercises, greatly improve long-term retention(Roediger & Butler, 2011).

Moreover, in clinical settings, memory performance—especially deficits in recall or

recognition—is often used to assess cognitive impairments in conditions like dementia,

Alzheimer's disease, and brain injuries (Muriel Deutsch Lezak et al., 2012) In legal contexts,

eyewitness memory, which heavily relies on recall and recognition, plays a pivotal role in

testimony accuracy and judicial outcomes (Loftus, 2005)Given these broad applications,

studying memory and its retrieval processes provides critical insights into human cognition and

has valuable real-world implications.

 3

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of recall and recognition as distinct methods of memory retrieval

and to identify the cognitive and contextual factors that influence their performance among adult

learners.

Hypothesis

H0: Recognition-based memory tasks will yield significantly higher performance scores than

recall-based tasks among adult participants under controlled experimental conditions.

 4

Method

Study Design

This study employs a Randomized Groups Repeated Measures Design, a methodological

framework suited for comparing the effects of different treatments within and between groups

across multiple time points. Specifically, it is a variant of the one-shot repeated measures design

in which two or more experimental methods—recall and recognition—are administered to

separate groups, and the responses are repeatedly observed over two trials. This design is ideal

for examining the performance of memory retrieval strategies while minimizing individual

differences through random group assignment and repeated testing.

In this study, participants are randomly assigned (denoted by R) to one of two experimental

groups (GP). Each group undergoes two types of treatment: one involving recall and the other

involving recognition. The treatment sessions and their corresponding observations are structured

as follows:

 Group A:

R – GP – TA1 – OA1 – TA2 – OA2

 Group B:

R – GP – TB1 – OB1 – TB2 – OB2

Here, TA1 and TB1 represent the first treatment, where Group A and Group B respectively

perform recall tasks, while OA1 and OB1 are the observations or performance measures from

these recall trials. In the second treatment, TA2 and TB2, both groups perform recognition tasks,

with OA2 and OB2 representing the corresponding measurements. The use of repeated measures
 5

allows for the analysis of changes within each group over time, while the randomized group

structure facilitates comparison across different experimental conditions.

Participants

Two participants took part in this experimental memory test. The first was a 24-year-old female,

and the second was a 24-year-old male. Both were university graduates with no reported visual

or psychological impairments that could affect performance. The participants had normal or

corrected-to-normal vision, were in good physical and mental condition at the time of the

experiment, and both voluntarily consented to participate after being briefed on the study’s aims

and conditions.

Data Collection Tools/Materials

The primary tools used in this study were carefully selected to ensure systematic data collection

and standardized experimental conditions. Stimulus slides prepared in Microsoft PowerPoint

served as the medium for presenting both the recall and recognition stimuli. These slides were

designed to maintain equal exposure time and visual clarity for all participants. To ensure

informed consent and ethical participation, a consent and data sheet was provided to each

participant. This sheet included sections for demographic information, participant agreement, and

spaces to record recall and recognition responses, as well as final scores.

To maintain time consistency during the exposure and response phases, a stopwatch or timer was

used by the experimenter, allowing for precise control over the three-minute duration allocated

for each trial. During the recall trial, pen and paper were provided for participants to freely write

down as many remembered stimuli as possible after the stimulus slide was removed. Lastly, a

checklist of target stimuli was used by the experimenter to verify each participant’s responses,
 6

ensuring accurate scoring of correct and incorrect items in both the recall and recognition tasks.

These tools collectively ensured the reliability, validity, and integrity of the data collected

throughout the experimental process.

Procedure

The experiment consisted of two main phases: Recall Trial and Recognition Trial, each preceded

by a stimulus exposure session. In the Recall Trial, Participants were shown a PowerPoint slide

containing 10 three-letter non-word stimuli (e.g., XTK, BRJ, etc.) for a total duration of 3

minutes. After the slide was removed, they were asked to recall and write down as many of the

stimuli as they could remember. In the Recognition Trial, another slide was shown for 3 minutes

containing 22 stimuli (the original 10 plus 12 distractors). Participants were instructed to identify

the original 10 stimuli from the list.

Data Analysis

To analyze the information collected from this memory experiment, several structured steps were

followed to ensure clarity, consistency, and objectivity in interpreting the participants'

performance. The first step involved recording the total recall time and total recognition time

for each participant, which was uniformly maintained at 3 minutes (180 seconds) for both tasks.

Following this, the total correct responses were calculated for both the recall and recognition

trials by comparing each participant’s responses with the original list of 10 target stimuli.

The next phase involved computing each participant’s Recall Score and Recognition Score

using the following formulae:

 Recall Score (%) = × 100

 7

 Recognition Score (%) =

× 100

Here, the total number of target stimuli in recall task was 10 and recognition task has the original

10 plus 12 other distraction stimuli.

Ethics

To ensure the experiment was conducted responsibly and ethically, the paricipants were informed

clearly about the purpose of the study, the procedure involved, the time required and how the

data wold be used. The participants were reminded that their involvement was entirely voluntary

and that they could withdraw at any point during the experiment. The participants names or any

identityfing personal details were not recorded and each participant was assigned a code to

ensure anonymity and confidentiality. All data was recorded accurately and without manipulation

to ensure data integrity and fairness.

 8

Results
Table 1 Computaion of scores of the participants

Participant Sex Age

Recall Recall Recognition Recognition
Score Correct Score (%) Correct
(%)
P1 F 24 80% 8 100% 10
P2 M 24 100% 10 100% 10
Participant P1was a 24 years old female she achieved an 80% recall score by correctly

remembering 8 items, while also achieving a perfect 100% recognition score by correctly

identifying all 10 items. In contrast, Participant P2 who was a 24 years old male, demonstrated

perfect performance on both tasks, recalling all 10 items (100% recall score) and recognizing all

10 items (100% recognition score). It was also seen that there was no particular order in which

the participants recalled the stimuli that was presented earlier.

 9

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings from this memory test demonstrate a notable difference in recall performance

between the two participants, while recognition accuracy remained uniformly high. This aligns

with cognitive psychology theories that suggest recognition tasks are generally easier than recall

tasks because they provide retrieval cues, facilitating memory access while Recall requires self-

generated retrieval without cues, often leading to lower accuracy, particularly under time

pressure or when stimuli are abstract, such as nonsense trigrams. (Tulving, 1983).

The female participant’s recall score (80%) was slightly lower than the male participant’s

(100%). This does not necessarily imply a gender-based difference in memory but may instead

reflect individual variability in encoding strategies, attention levels, or rehearsal methods.

Importantly, both participants' recognition scores of 100% indicate that the encoding was

successful and that the memory traces were intact, even if not all were freely recalled.

Although the small sample size limits the generalizability of the results, but the data

effectively demonstrate the foundational principles of memory retrieval processes in a controlled

experimental context, These results are consistent with previous studies showing that recognition

memory is more robust due to its reliance on familiarity and cue-based retrieval, as opposed to

the reconstructive nature of recall (Yonelinas, 2002).

 10

References

Alan Baddeley - Memory (2017) (1). (n.d.).

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control
Processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory,
2(C), 89–195. [Link]

Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the
malleability of memory. Learning and Memory, 12(4), 361–366.
[Link]

Muriel Deutsch Lezak, Diane B. Howieson, Erin D. Bigler, & Daniel Tranel. (2012).
Understanding the individual with Alzheimer’s disease: Can socioemotional selectivity
theory guide us? Neuropsychological Assessment, 1(3).

Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term
retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27.
[Link]
Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not
presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
21(4), 803–814.

Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of Episodic Memory. [Link]

Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of

Research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517.
[Link]
 11

Appendix

Data Collection Sheet