From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The levels-of-processing effect, identified by
and Robert S. Lockhart in 1972, describes
as a function of the depth of mental processing. Deeper levels of analysis produce more elaborate, longer-lasting, and stronger memory traces than shallow levels of analysis. Depth of processing falls on a shallow to deep continuum. Shallow processing (e.g., processing based on
components) leads to a fragile memory trace that is susceptible to rapid decay. Conversely, deep processing (e.g., ) results in a more durable memory trace.
This theory contradicts the multi-store
which represents memory strength as being continuously variable (1968)/ Where assumption that rehearsal always improves long-term memory. They argued that rehearsal that consists simply of repeating previous analyses (maintenance rehearsal) doesn't enhance long-term memory.
In a study from 1975 (Craik and Tulving) participants were given a list of 60 words. Each word was presented along with three questions. The participant had to answer one of them. Those three questions were in one of three categories. One category of questions was about how the word was presented visually ("Is the word shown in italics?"). The second category of questions was about the phonemic qualities of the word ("Does the word begin with the sound 'bee'?"). The third category of questions was presented so that the reader was forced to think about the word within a certain context. ("Can you meet one in the street [a friend]"?) The result of this study showed that the words which contained deep processing (the latter) were remembered better.
, , the , and the explicit nature of a stimulus modify the levels-of-processing effect by manipulating mental processing depth factors.
A stimulus will have a higher
value if it is highly compatible with preexisting semantic structures (Craik, 1972). According to
theories, this is because such a stimulus will have many connections to other encoded memories, which are activated based on closeness in semantic network structure. This activation increases cognitive analysis, increasing the strength of the memory representation. The familiarity modifier has been tested in
experiments, where subjects report false memories when presented with related stimuli.
Specificity of processing describes the increased recall value of a stimulus when presented in the method with which it was inputed. For example, auditory stimuli (spoken words and sounds) have the highest recall value when spoken, and visual stimuli have the highest recall value when a subject is presented with images. In writing tasks, words are recalled most effectively with semantic cues (asking for words with a particular meaning) if they are encoded semantically (self-generated by the subject as being related to a particular meaning). Words are recalled most effectively with data-driven cues (word completion) if they are read, rather than generated by a subject.
Levels of processing have been an integral part of learning about memory. The self-reference effect describes the greater recall capacity for a particular stimulus if it is related semantically to the subject. This can be thought of as a corollary of the familiarity modifier, because stimuli specifically related to an event in a person's life will have widespread activation in that person's semantic network. For example, the recall value of a personality trait adjective is higher when subjects are asked whether the trait adjective applies to them than when asked whether trait adjective has a meaning similar to another trait.
Implicit memory tests, in contrast with explicit memory tests, measure the recall value of a particular stimulus based on later performance on stimulus-related tasks. During these tasks, the subject does not explicitly recall the stimulus, but the previous stimulus still affects performance. For example, in a word-completion implicit memory task, if a subject reads a list containing the word "dog", the subject provides this word more readily when asked for three-letter words beginning in "d". The levels-of-processing effect is only found for explicit memory tests. One study found that word completion tasks were unaffected by levels of semantic encodings achieved using three words with various levels of meaning in common. Another found that typical level-of-processing effects are reversed in w subjects recalled pictures pairs more completely if they were shown a word representing a picture rather than asked to rate a picture for pleasantness (semantic encoding). Typical level-of-processing theory would predict that picture encodings would create deeper processing than lexical encoding.
"Memory over the short term and the long term has been thought to differ in many ways in terms of capacity, the underlying neural substrates, and the types of processes that support performance."
We especially remember information if we relate it to ourselves. Damage to the hippocampus produces an inability to form or retrieve new long-term memories, but the ability to maintain and reproduce a small subset of information over the short term is typically preserved.
Different sensory modes, by their nature, involve different depths of processing, generally producing higher recall value in certain senses than others. However, there is significant room for the modifiers mentioned earlier to affect levels-of-processing to be activated within each sensory mode.
creates the strongest recall value of all senses, and also allows the widest spectrum of levels-of-processing modifiers. It is also one of the most widely studied. Within visual studies, pictures have been shown to have a greater recall value than words – the . However, semantic associations have the reverse effect in picture memories appear to be reversed to those in other memories. When logical details are stressed, rather than physical details, an image's recall value becomes lower. When comparing
(capitalization, letter and word shape), phonological (word sound) and semantic (word meaning)
cues, the highest levels of recall were found with the meanings of the words, followed by their sounds and finally the written and shape-based cues were found to generate the least ability to stimulate recall.
Auditory stimuli follow conventional levels-of-processing rules, although are somewhat weaker in general
value when compared with vision. Some studies suggest that auditory weakness is only present for
(direct recall), rather than . When test subjects are presented with auditory versus visual word cues, they only perform worse on directed recall of a spoken word versus a seen word, and perform about equally on implicit free-association tests. Within auditory stimuli, semantic analysis produces the highest levels of recall ability for stimuli. Experiments suggest that levels-of-processing on the auditory level is directly correlated with neural activation.
memory representations are similar in nature to visual representations, although there is not enough data to reliably compare the strength of the two kinds of stimuli. One study suggests that there is a difference in mental processing level due to innate differences between visual and tactile stimuli representations. In this study, subjects were presented with an object in both visual and tactile form (a subject is shown a sphere but cannot touch it, and later is given a similar sphere to only hold and not view). Subjects had more trouble identifying size difference in visual fields than using tactile feedback. A suggestion for the lower level of size processing in visual fields is that it results from the high variance in viewed object size due to perspective and distance.
memory is weaker than visual memory, achieving a successful identification rate of only 70-80% of visual memory. Levels-of-processing effects have been found within odor memory if subjects are asked to "visualize" smells and associate them with a particular picture. Subjects who perform this task have a different recall value on explicit memory tests than subjects who memorize smells using self-chosen methods. The difference in recall value, however, depends on the subject, and the subject's ability to form images from odors. Attributing verbal attributes to odors has similar effects. Semantic processing of odors (e.g. attributing the "mud" odor to "smell like a puddle") has found to have the most positive effects on recall.
Several brain imaging studies using
techniques have shown that higher levels of processing
with more brain activity and activity in different parts of the brain than lower levels. For example, in a lexical analysis task, subjects showed activity in the
only when identifying whether the word represented a living or nonliving object, and not when identifying whether or not the word contained an "a". Similarly, an auditory analysis task showed increased activation in the left inferior prefrontal cortex when subjects performed increasingly
word manipulations. Synaptic aspects of word recognition have been correlated with the
and the cortex lining the junction of the inferior frontal and inferior precentral sulcus. The self-reference effect also has neural correlates with a region of the medial , which was activated in an experiment where subjects analyzed the relevance of data to themselves. Specificity of processing is explained on a neurological basis by studies that show brain activity in the same location when a visual memory is encoded and retrieved, and lexical memory in a different location. Visual memory areas were mostly located within the bilateral .
Levels-of-processing effects interact in various ways with . In particular, levels-of-processing effects appear to be strengthened in patients with , selectively strengthened in
patients, unaffected in
patients, and reversed in
Memory encoding strength derived from higher levels-of-processing appears to be conserved despite other losses in memory function with age. Several studies show that, in older individuals, the ability to process semantically in contrast with non-semantically is improved by this disparity. Neural imaging studies show decreased
activity when words and images are presented to older subjects than with younger subjects, but roughly equal activity when assessing semantic connections.
Panic disorders appear to modify levels-of-processing by increasing ability to
words with threatening meanings over positive and neutral words. In one study, both implicit (free recall) and explicit (memory of emotional aspects) memorization of word lists were enhanced by threatening meanings in such patients.
Modern studies show an increased effect of levels-of-processing in Alzheimer patients. Specifically, there is a significantly higher recall value for semantically encoded stimuli over physically encoded stimuli. In one such experiment, subjects maintained a higher recall value in words chosen by meaning over words selected by numerical order.
In autistic patients, levels-of-processing effects are reversed in that semantically presented stimuli have a lower recall value than physically presented stimuli. In one study,
processing created higher recall value in word list-recall tests. Other studies have explicitly found non-semantically processed stimuli to be more accurately processed by autistic patients than in non-autistic patients. No clear conclusions have been drawn as to the cause of this oddity.
Eysenck, M. (2006). Learning and Long-term memory. In Fundamentals of cognition (Second ed.). Hove, England: Psychology Press
Craik and Tulving 1975
Rhodes, MG; Anastasi JS (2000).
(PDF). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 7 (1): 158–62.  . :. Archived from
(pdf) on .
Toth, JP (1996). . Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. 50 (1): 123–38.  . :. Archived from
Vaidya, CJ; Zhao M; Desmond JE; Gabrieli JDE (2002).
(pdf). Neuropsychologia. 40 (12): .  . :.
Blaxton, TA (1989).
(pdf). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 15 (4): 657–668. :.
Symons, CS; Thompson BT (1997).
(pdf). Psychological Bulletin. 121 (3): 371–394.  . :.
Kelley, WM; Macrae CN; Wyland CL; Caglar S; Inati S; Heatherton TF (2002). "Finding the Self? An Event-Related fMRI Study". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 14 (5): 785–794.  . :.
Roediger, HL (1990). "Implicit memory: Retention without remembering". American Psychologist. 45 (9): .  . :.
Schacter, DL; McGlynn SM (1989). "Implicit memory: Effects of elaboration depend on unitization". The American Journal of Psychology. University of Illinois Press. 102 (2): 151–181.  .  . :.
Roediger, HL; Stadler ML; Weldon MS; Riegler GL (1992). "Direct comparison of two implicit memory tests: word fragment and word stem completion". Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition. 18 (6): .  . :.
Rose, N. S.; Craik, F. M. (2012). "A processing approach to the working memory/long-term memory distinction: Evidence from the levels-of-processing span task". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, And Cognition. 38 (4): . :.
Baddeley, A.; Warrington, E. (1970). "Amnesia and the distinction between long- and short-term memory". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 9: 176–189. :.
Intraub, H; Nicklos S (1985). "Levels of processing and picture memory: the physical superiority effect". Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition. 11 (2): 284–98.  .  . :.
Craik, FIM; Lockhart RS (1972). "Levels of processing: A framework for memory research". Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior. 11 (6): 671–84. :.
Habib, R; Nyberg L (1997).
(pdf). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 4 (1): 130–133. :.[]
Fletcher, PC; Shallice T; Dolan RJ (1998).
(pdf). Brain. 121 (7): .  . :.
Srinivas K, K Greene AJ; Easton RD (1997).
(pdf). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 4 (4): 535–540. :.[]
Schab, FR (1991). "Odor memory: taking stock". Psychological Bulletin. 109 (2): 242–51.  .  . :.
Kapur, S; FIM C E T AA W S H GM Brown (1994). . . 91 (6): .   .  . :.
Friederici, AD; Opitz B; Yves von Cramon D (2000).
(pdf). Cereb. Cortex. 10 (7): 698–705.  . :.
Kelley, WM; Macrae CN; Wyland CL; Caglar S; Inati S; Heatherton TF (2002). "Finding the self? An event-related fMRI study". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 14 (5): 785–794.  . :.
Grady, CL; Craik FIM (2000). "Changes in memory processing with age". Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 10 (2): 224–231.  . :.
Cloitre, M; Liebowitz MR (1991). "Memory bias in panic disorder: An investigation of the cognitive avoidance hypothesis". Cognitive Therapy and Research. 15 (5): 371–386. :.
Scott, L. C.; G. K. W G. S. R A. N. Exton-S J. M. Gardiner (1991). "Further evidence of preserved memory function in Alzheimer's disease". International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 6 (8): 583–588. :.
Toichi, M; Kamio Y (2002). "Long-term memory and levels-of-processing in autism". Neuropsychologia. 40 (7): 964–969.  . :.
Bertone, A; Mottron L; Jelenic P; Faubert J ().
(abstract). Brain. 128 (10): .  . :.
: Hidden categories:Taj Mahal - UNESCO World Heritage CentreTaj Mahal - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
How we work
Where we are
Special themes
Major programmes
UNESCO Worldwide
in countries
UNESCO in other languages
For the Press
and partners
Opportunities
Prizes and Celebrations
UNESCOand ...
&>> &>> & >> &>>
An immense mausoleum of white marble, built in Agra between 1631 and 1648 by order of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his favourite wife, the Taj Mahal is the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage.
Description is available under license
Le Taj Mahal
Immense mausol&e fun&raire de marbre blanc &difi&e entre 1631 et 1648 & Agra sur l'ordre de l'empereur moghol Shah Jahan pour perp&tuer le souvenir de son &pouse favorite, le Taj Mahal, joyau le plus parfait de l'art musulman en Inde, est l'un des chefs-d'&uvre universellement admir&s du patrimoine de l'humanit&.
Description is available under license
??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ????
?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????????. ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????.
source: UNESCO/ERI
Description is available under license
泰姬陵是一座由白色大理石建成的巨大陵墓清真寺，是莫卧儿皇帝沙贾汗(Shah Jahan)为纪念他心爱的妃子于1631年至1648年在阿格拉修建的。泰姬陵是印度穆斯林艺术的瑰宝奇葩，是世界遗产中令世人赞叹的经典杰作之一。
source: UNESCO/ERI
Description is available under license
Мавзолей Тадж-Махал (город Агра)
Великолепный мавзолей из белого мрамора был возведен в Агре между 1631 и 1648 гг. по приказу могольского императора Шах-Джахана в память о его любимой жене. Тадж-Махал & это жемчужина мусульманского искусства в Индии и один из всеми признанных шедевров всемирного наследия.
source: UNESCO/ERI
Description is available under license
Edificado entre 1631 y 1648 por orden del emperador mogol Shah Jahan para perpetuar la memoria de su esposa favorita, este grandioso mausoleo de m&rmol blanco es el m&s precioso joyel del arte musulm&n en la India y una de las obras maestras universalmente admiradas del patrimonio cultural de la humanidad.
source: UNESCO/ERI
Description is available under license
タージ?マハル
1632年から22年の歳月をかけて、アグラの町に建てられた霊廟。ムガール帝国第5代のシャー?ジャハーンが、亡くなった最愛の妃ムムターズ?マハルのために建立した。中心のドームの高さは58m、周辺に4本のミナレット（尖塔）がそびえている。外観はペルシア風だが、内部はインド的な造りで、世界的にも最も美しいイスラーム建築の傑作といわれている。
Dit gigantische mausoleum – opgetrokken uit wit marmer – werd tussen 1631 en 1648 gebouwd in Agra in opdracht van de Mogolse Keizer Shah Jahan, ter nagedachtenis aan zijn favoriete echtgenote Mumtaz Mahal. Het is het kroonstuk van de islamitische kunst in India en wordt universeel gezien als één van de meesterstukken op de Werelderfgoedlijst. Het mausoleum is gebouwd op de rechteroever van de (rivier) Yamuna en staat in een geweldige Mogolse tuin die bijna 17 hectaren beslaat. De Taj Mahal wordt beschouwd als het grootste architectonische werk binnen de Indo-islamitische cultuur. Het reli?fwerk in het marmer en de ingelegde edel- en halfedelstenen maken het een buitengewoon monument.
& M & G Therin-Weise
Outstanding Universal Value
Brief synthesis
The Taj Mahal is located on the right bank of the Yamuna River in a vast Mughal garden that encompasses nearly 17 hectares, in the Agra District in Uttar Pradesh. It was built by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal with construction starting in 1632 AD and completed in 1648 AD, with the mosque, the guest house and the main gateway on the south, the outer courtyard and its cloisters were added subsequently and completed in 1653 AD. The existence of several historical and Quaranic inscriptions in Arabic script have facilitated setting the chronology of Taj Mahal. For its construction, masons, stone-cutters, inlayers, carvers, painters, calligraphers, dome builders and other artisans were requisitioned from the whole of the empire and also from the Central Asia and Iran. Ustad-Ahmad Lahori was the main architect of the Taj Mahal.
The Taj Mahal is considered to be the greatest architectural achievement in the whole range of Indo-Islamic architecture. Its recognised architectonic beauty has a rhythmic combination of solids and voids, concave and con such as arches and domes further increases the aesthetic aspect. The colour combination of lush green scape reddish pathway and blue sky over it show cases the monument in ever changing tints and moods. The relief work in marble and inlay with precious and semi precious stones make it a monument apart.
The uniqueness of Taj Mahal lies in some truly remarkable innovations carried out by the horticulture planners and architects of Shah Jahan. One such genius planning is the placing of tomb at one end of the quadripartite garden rather than in the exact centre, which added rich depth and perspective to the distant view of the monument. It is also, one of the best examples of raised tomb variety. The tomb is further raised on a square platform with the four sides of the octagonal base of the minarets extended beyond the square at the corners. The top of the platform is reached through a lateral flight of steps provided in the centre of the southern side. The ground plan of the Taj Mahal is in perfect balance of composition, the octagonal tomb chamber in the centre, encompassed by the portal halls and the four corner rooms. The plan is repeated on the upper floor. The exterior of the tomb is square in plan, with chamfered corners. The large double storied domed chamber, which houses the cenotaphs of Mumtaz Mahal and Shah Jahan, is a perfect octagon in plan. The exquisite octagonal marble lattice screen encircling both cenotaphs is a piece of superb workmanship. It is highly polished and richly decorated with inlay work. The borders of the frames are inlaid with precious stones representing flowers executed with wonderful perfection. The hues and the shades of the stones used to make the leaves and the flowers appear almost real. The cenotaph of Mumtaz Mahal is in perfect centre of the tomb chamber, placed on a rectangular platform decorated with inlaid flower plant motifs. The cenotaph of Shah Jahan is greater than Mumtaz Mahal and installed more than thirty years later by the side of the latter on its west. The upper cenotaphs are only illusory and the real graves are in the lower tomb chamber (crypt), a practice adopted in the imperial Mughal tombs.
The four free-standing minarets at the corners of the platform added a hitherto unknown dimension to the Mughal architecture. The four minarets provide not only a kind of spatial reference to the monument but also give a three dimensional effect to the edifice.
The most impressive in the Taj Mahal complex next to the tomb, is the main gate which stands majestically in the centre of the southern wall of the forecourt. The gate is flanked on the north front by double arcade galleries. The garden in front of the galleries is subdivided into four quarters by two main walk-ways and each quarters in turn subdivided by the narrower cross-axial walkways, on the Timurid-Persian scheme of the walled in garden. The enclosure walls on the east and west have a pavilion at the centre.
The Taj Mahal is a perfect symmetrical planned building, with an emphasis of bilateral symmetry along a central axis on which the main features are placed. The building material used is brick-in-lime mortar veneered with red sandstone and marble and inlay work of precious/semi precious stones. The mosque and the guest house in the Taj Mahal complex are built of red sandstone in contrast to the marble tomb in the centre. Both the buildings have a large platform over the terrace at their front. Both the mosque and the guest house are the identical structures. They have an oblong massive prayer hall consist of three vaulted bays arranged in a row with central dominant portal. The frame of the portal arches and the spandrels are veneered in white marble. The spandrels are filled with flowery arabesques of stone intarsia and the arches bordered with rope molding.
Criterion (i): Taj Mahal represents the finest architectural and artistic achievement through perfect harmony and excellent craftsmanship in a whole range of Indo-Islamic sepulchral architecture. It is a masterpiece of architectural style in conception, treatment and execution and has unique aesthetic qualities in balance, symmetry and harmonious blending of various elements.
Integrity is maintained in the intactness of tomb, mosque, guest house, main gate and the whole Taj Mahal complex. The physical fabric is in good condition and structural stability, nature of foundation, verticality of the minarets and other constructional aspects of Taj Mahal have been studied and continue to be monitored. To control the impact of deterioration due for atmospheric pollutants, an air control monitoring station is installed to constantly monitor air quality and control decay factors as they arise. To ensure the protection of the setting, the adequate management and enforcement of regulations in the extended buffer zone is needed. In addition, future development for tourist facilities will need to ensure that the functional and visual integrity of the property is maintained, particularly in the relationship with the Agra Fort.
Authenticity
The tomb, mosque, guest house, main gate and the overall Taj Mahal complex have maintained the conditions of authenticity at the time of inscription. Although an important amount of repairs and conservation works have been carried out right from the British period in India these have not compromised to the original qualities of the buildings. Future conservation work will need to follow guidelines that ensure that qualities such as form and design continue to be preserved.
Protection and management requirements
The management of Taj Mahal complex is carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India and the legal protection of the monument and the control over the regulated area around the monument is through the various legislative and regulatory frameworks that have been established, including the Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 and Rules 1959 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation); which is adequate to the overall administration of the property and buffer areas. Additional supplementary laws ensure the protection of the property in terms of development in the surroundings.
An area of 10,400 sq km around the Taj Mahal is defined to protect the monument from pollution. The Supreme Court of India in December, 1996, delivered a ruling banning use of coal/coke in industries located in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) and switching over to natural gas or relocating them outside the TTZ. The TTZ comprises of 40 protected monuments including three World Heritage Sites - Taj Mahal, Agra Fort and Fatehpur Sikri.
The fund provided by the federal government is adequate for the buffer areas. The fund provided by the federal government is adequate for the overall conservation, preservation and maintenance of the complex to supervise activities at the site under the guidance of the Superintending Archaeologist of the Agra Circle. The implementation of an Integrated Management plan is necessary to ensure that the property maintains the existing conditions, particularly in the light of significant pressures derived from visitation that will need to be adequately managed. The Management plan should also prescribe adequate guidelines for proposed infrastructure development and establish a comprehensive Public Use plan.
Events &(2)
Uttar Pradesh, Agra District
N27 10 27.012 E78 2 31.992
Date of Inscription: 1983
World Heritage Map is loading.. please wait
State of Conservation (SOC) by year
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&& &&&&}