Talk:Chunking (psychology)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samath1a (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SethBruder, Pmmuab77.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpsmith15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Schachterjo19. Peer reviewers: Mackenziecole53, Jnasco.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 25 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcontris. Peer reviewers: Red027, VerdantAurum.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

For an October 2004 deletion debate over :Votes for deletion/Chunking]]

Note that the article is very different since that debate and many of the comments below took place.

The article has also been split into several articles, and this one renamed from "Chunking".

This is very, very close to gibberish. High-falutin' gibberish,goooble gobble but gibberish nonetheless. - DavidWBrooks 13:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles.

Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. It's okay. It's what everyone expects. So you should never ask, "Why aren't these pages copyedited?" Amazingly, it all works out. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.

If someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's a total waste of time, replace it with brilliant prose (and relegate the deletions to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense or the corresponding talk page). That's the nature of a Wiki."

Go ahead Big Fuss, delete it, or redirect it to my userpage. (embryio cont'd)

Despite the obvious disgust of the reviewer this embryo also examplifies how one can develop a theme by using anti-taxoboxing style for the sake of producing better narrative, hoping for the success of wikipedia not just as a table of tabloid facts to look up, but as a reader for people who enjoy thinking and musing and looking at things from a fresh angle.

Apogr 12:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexyoung339. Peer reviewers: Fariba14, Jherd25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

"Chunking has been used to describe diverse phenomena in psychology and cognitive science.[1] Among other meanings, it is a phenomenon whereby individuals group responses when performing a memory task. Tests where individuals can demonstrate "chunking" commonly include serial and free recall tasks. Both tasks require the individual to reproduce items that he or she had previously been instructed to study. Test items generally include words, syllables, digits/numbers, or lists of letters. Presumably, individuals that exhibit the "chunking" process in their responses are forming clusters of responses based on the items' semantic relatedness or perceptual features. The chunks are often meaningful to the participant."

I suggest we add information about how/why chunking is a memory technique which aids individuals in recalling more. "The chunks are often meaningful to the participant, and this meaning aids recall. An individual who could typically recall 6 items could create 6 meaningful chunks of say 3 digits, and through these chunks could recall 18 digits. For example, in a number recall task, a history fanatic could chunk numbers to create 6 meaningful dates, then recall those 6 dates, thereby recalling the ~24 numbers which made up those 6 dates. But this would only be useful to someone to whom those chunks of numbers (the history fanatic's dates) had meaning as one item"Annasjenkins (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)annasjenkins[reply]

With regard to the comment made by user Annasjenkins, I think the article sufficiently explained the importance of domain expertise in the process of chunking under the fifth section Expertise and skilled memory effects. Furthermore, the last sentence of the first paragraph sets the stage for the fifth section by mentioning meaningfulness. However, I do agree the article could be improved by stating how chunking aids recall earlier on. It isn't until the fourth section Memory training systems that we are given a clear example of how to chunk a long string of digits into more meaningful groups. Therefore, we could insert the paragraph written by user Annasjenkins into the introduction following the final sentence of paragraph one. Sowallabear (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of chunking given in the first paragraph is misleading in so far as its role in encoding is never explicitly stated. Granted, we can only indirectly measure encoding through testing one's recall, but it should be made clear that chunking is indeed an encoding strategy. Chunking is a memory task that involves elaborative encoding, whereby an otherwise arbitrary set of information is made meaningful to an individual. The last sentence of paragraph one does well to mention the importance of idiosyncrasy in the process of chunking, but I suggest we edit the definition to better reflect chunking as an encoding strategy rather than merely grouping during recall. Sowallabear (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, there is evidence that Chinese-speaking students are more easily able to learn basic math than English-speaking ones because the number words are briefer and more consistent with base 10."

This does not make any sense, right? I mean, Chinese mother tongue speakers may have advantages learning sequences of digits, but digits are not "math". Plus, "more consistent with base 10" does not make sense, neither from a linguistic perspective, nor a mathematical one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.98.184 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be changed. There is a difference between learning math and memorizing a series of numbers.Annasjenkins (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)annasjenkins[reply]

I also agree this should be changed or removed. The statement refers to some "evidence" to back up the (decidedly incorrect) idea, but there is no citation or source given. Jasonbrovich (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and after your feedback, I deleted that sentence from the first paragraph.

Comment to team: As I read the first paragraph, it is confusing because I believe it referring to chunks in recall, what is more commonly called clustering. That is, when recalling a list of categorized items, I recall the related items (e.g., all the animals) one after another. This is not the same as using chunking to increase one's memory, and using one's knowledge to reduce the number of things that need to be encoded. Elizareader (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following up with the previous comments, I believe that it is necessary to take out information from the first paragraph that relates to clustering (The term used to describe subjects being likely to recall items from the same category sequentially even though the items are separated in the list) more than chunking (a process by which individual pieces of information are bound together into a meaningful whole). I suggest to take these sentences out from the first paragraph and add them to another Wiki entry under clustering: "has been used to describe diverse phenomena in psychology and cognitive science.[1] Among other meanings, it is a phenomenon whereby individuals group responses when performing a memory task. Tests where individuals can demonstrate "chunking" commonly include serial and free recall tasks. Both tasks require the individual to reproduce items that he or she had previously been instructed to study. Test items generally include words, syllables, digits/numbers, or lists of letters. Presumably, individuals that exhibit the "chunking" process in their responses are forming clusters of responses based on the items' semantic relatedness or perceptual features. The chunks are often meaningful to the participant." For the first paragraph of this "Chunking" entry, I would suggest to add the definition, and an example such as "it is easier to remember chunks such as “YMCA-IBM-DHL” instead of remembering strings of letters “Y-M-H-A-C-I-D-B-M-L”. " Adaaka (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that taking out the clustering information is an important change to make, as it would remove any misleading information relating to what chunking is exactly. In my opinion, however, it would not be necessary to add the clustering information anywhere else in the article, as it seems to be a separate phenomenon based on the brain's ability to categorize things by type, rather than to form chunks out of arbitrary letters, numbers, etc. based on expertise. Perhaps you could link to Chunking as a separate Wikipedia article, rather than including its information within this one. Darcy.watts (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the definition of chunking needs to be further refined. It is more so a short-term retention process than long-term, and this needs to be specified. Schachterjo19 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I believe there is important research by Johnson (1970) that is mentioned in the article, but never fully developed. The article fails to mention the 4 main parts of chunking, as defined by Johnson, chunk, memory code, decode, and recode. I think if these are added and elaborated on, it will greatly improve the article. Schachterjo19 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

Is this by any chance original research? If not, it still needs some work to be more encyclopedic and it needs references. For your convenience:

There are also a few more style guides and things like that at the top of my user page, which you can get to by clicking on my user name at the end of this sentence. -Seth Mahoney 00:50, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. It is not that I am not aware of those guidelines, rather I feel I need to articulate my point by using a number of scales, sometimes not clearly separated as they are not either in reality. I guess you are familiar with fractals, if not, please, have a go at them and then we could continue discussing the subject in more specific details.

Apogr 16:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The style guidelines exist for a reason, and were put together by democratic process. Not that they are they holiest of holies, but they aren't to be disregarded because one editor fines them confining. Please do some editing, including correcting the style and providing print references, or this page will have to be listed on Votes for Deletion. -Seth Mahoney 19:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead with the deletion and remember one last quote from Goethe

"Die Beschreibung zeigt sich der Meister"

Or in English "deliminiting makes you a master" which has several senses as you call it (in fact contexts) one being that finding the delimiters of anything in focus is the keyword in undertstanding, with verbal input as one example.

When people had no means to protray things but in two dimensions, in drawings, for instance, the relation of things were also identified in a limited fashion, mainly hierarchical.

Now we can imagine and represent a lot more number of relationas, spatial networks included, which are more difficult to repreent in a linear (textual) fashion, no doubt. But denying it or calling it original research is a simple narow-minded blunder.

Lots of luck for the censorship displayed in taxoboxing.

Apogr 08:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Considering that you haven't bothered to address anyone's concerns about the style of this page or about getting any references (if it is not original research, you should be able to find references) except with personal attacks, and considering that my only request was that you adhere to the existing Wikipedia style guidelines, your tone is entirely unwarranted. -Seth Mahoney 17:10, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, you're welcome to participate in the deletion debate if you want. For the record, it is looking like the consensus will be to either make this page a redirect or to rewrite it from scratch. -Seth Mahoney 18:35, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you folks, now the articel looks as it should be. ~~

"Incorrect" association?

What, exactly, is "incorrect" about associating the concept with Miller's paper, in which Miller uses the word "chunk," notes that "The span of immediate memory seems to be almost independent of the number of bits per chunk," and gives an example of the use of "chunking" to memorize 40-bit strings of binary digits?

Miller suggested that 2-3 bits of information (ie, 7'ish items) might be encoded per dimension of some attribute. Remembering 40-digit numbers is about creating an association between short sequences and and information held in longer term memory. Will look up some sources. Derek farn 10:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a source for this being "incorrect," and give a source that indicates what the correct origin would be, if not Miller. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Miller's 7±2 paper is quite clear on there not being a fixed number of bits in the span of immediate memory, and that the number of bits can be affected by recoding and chunking. 7±2 is not the number of bits. The reason he calls it a "magical" number is that it kept popping up in different contexts, not just "bits." The span of immediate memory is, according to Miller—I don't know what they're saying these days—about seven vaguely defined thingies. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on cognitive science at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that "George Miller... proposed that memory limitations can be overcome by recoding information into chunks, mental representations that require mental procedures for encoding and decoding the information." [1]. Historically, in the psychological literature the source of chunking is generally attributed to Miller. Perhaps the section in this article on Magic number 7 could be summarised and then linked to the main article. A more general description of chunking and its uses could then be expanded. --Comaze 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Are you volunteering :-) Derek farn 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chunking and digit span

Apparently Chinese speakers outperform other language speakers in digit span memory tasks. There is empirical evidence to suggest that this is due to the differences in length of names of the digits. See this article for example: Digit "Span and Articulatory Suppression: A Cross-linguistic Comparison"doi:10.1080/713752545. Digit span was covered in my cognitive psychology lectures on chunking. Should it be covered in the current article? It is relevant to how items can enter short term store (or working memory). ----Action potential ^{t c} 11:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under Expertise and Skilled Memory Effects

A well-known chunking study was conducted by Chase and Ericsson, who worked with an undergraduate student, SF, over two years. Chase and Ericsson wanted to see if a person's digit span could be improved with practice. SF began the experiment with a normal span of 7 digits. By the end of the experiment, his digit span had grown to 80 numbers. The increase was caused by SF's ability as a long-distance runner to chunk numbers into marathon times. He also expanded his strategy by incorporating ages and years. (From the book The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model for 21st Century Schools) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samliu365 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the paragraph that currently exists under this heading, this addition may seem a bit redundant as a separate paragraph. I would suggest combining the two like this:

Studies have shown that people have better memories when they are trying to remember items with which they are familiar. Similarly, people tend to create chunks, with which they are familiar. This familiarity allows them to remember more individual pieces of content, and also more chunks as a whole. One well-known chunking study was conducted by Chase and Ericsson, who worked with an undergraduate student, SF, over two years. Chase and Ericsson wanted to see if a person's digit span could be improved with practice. SF began the experiment with a normal span of 7 digits. SF was a long-distance runner, and chunked strings of digits into race times to increase his digit span, and by the end of the experiment his digit span had grown to 80 numbers. He later expanded his strategy by incorporating ages and years, but his chunks were always familiar, and thus allowed him to recall the chunks more easily. (From the book The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model for 21st Century Schools) Jasonbrovich (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also potentially add how it affects mental athletes in competitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomainDecrop (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working memory task performance and chunking in early Alzheimer’s disease

Do you think a section about a specific memory condition (Alzheimer’s diseaseİ and the effect of chunking is a good idea? If yes, I will try to find a secondary source about the article. Adaaka (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although this wouldn't be necessarily needed for the article, I think if you could find something relating the two it could show how effective chunking is as a mnemonic. There could also be some potentially interesting information if the person has some memories from earlier on in life if they could use that information for the process of chunking. Like chunking numbers into recognizable marathon times or area codes.Ospring1234 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs That Should Be Moved to Clustering Wiki Page

The first characteristic is that when individuals incorrectly recall an item in a serial recall task, it tends to come from a similar item. For example, it may be an item that they placed in the same grouping. Individuals that employ this strategy for recall will commonly misplace items they are grouping. Since one must recall items in the precise order they were presented during the serial recall task, any item that is even one position out of place is deemed incorrect. Therefore, according to how many groups an individual breaks the list into, misplacement of an item will be limited to within the confine of the size of the group.

The most convincing evidence for the existence of "chunking" is illustrated in the analysis of response times. When looking at this aspect of the test/response phase of a recall task, one observes response time as a function of output position. Therefore, this analysis allows for the measurement of the process of recall in each task participant. The recall or forgetting curve illustrate that each item in a cluster typically requires about the same amount of time to recall. This can be observed as strings of items where the response times are both similar, as well as very rapid. However, one can also see in these response time curves that the time between the "chunks" follows a different trend entirely. Items or periods of output where the individual is not recalling items that belong to a group require a significantly larger amount of time. Therefore, prior to the beginning and end of recall of a group of items in a "chunk," there is a jump in response time in the curve.Adaaka (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it would be a solid addition to this article (although I'm not sure why it's under this specific section). If you could maybe find an example of how response times for chunking have been measured in experiments it would just serve to strengthen this additional section Jasonbrovich (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short-term Memory Section

I think this section could be taken out as the content of it has already been mentioned earlier. Would other contributors agree with me?Adaaka (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! I think it would logically make sense to just condense this with the short term vs. long term section. I don't think that two sections on short-term memory are really needed. Ehardiman (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sources for Improvement to the Article

I am currently working to improve this article and make it more suitable for Wikipedia. Here are some sources and studies that I found which I thought were good.

How Does Chunking Help Working Memory? by Mirko Thalmann
The Role of Chunking and Organization in The Process of Recall. by Neil Johnson
Post-iconic visual storage: Chunking in the reproduction of briefly displayed visual patterns. by DJ Bartram
What’s magic about magic numbers? Chunking and data compression in short-term memory. by Fabian Mathy
The Magical number Seven Plus or minus Two. by George Miller

If you had the chance could you take a look and let me know what you think? Thanks,Mpsmith15 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

I found a number of references listed at the bottom of the page that need to be added as inline citations. I plan to find where the information was derived from and cite them within the actual page. Schachterjo19 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made by Schachterjo19

I think that your plan to use the references and cite their use within the article and also add information from the references will be a very valuable addition to this page and will make it stronger and more informative. It is extremely important that readers know where the information that they are consuming has come from, and you will be able to do this for them. Great idea! Jnasco (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smithzorah, AngeAri, Jellycat98, AzulB.13, Annann789, Katherine2424, AnneMilo, Silvadiane20, Bri.ana5050, Alessandro219, Faithw19, Gcastillo5814, Dhermatology, Edwin2233 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AnneMilo (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]