Research Topics in Memory The Survival Processing Effect Remembered Affordances Prospective Memory Retrieval
Jan 29, 2016
Research Topics in Memory
The Survival Processing EffectRemembered AffordancesProspective Memory Retrieval
The Process of Remembering
Encoding
Delay
Retrieval
The Survival Processing EffectAn evolutionary origin of our memory
system Nairne, Thompson, & Pandeirada (2007)
Survival processing of items was shown to enhance subsequent recall and recognition
The effect is robust even when compared to good mnemonic processing strategies e.g., pleasantness
Nairne & Pandeirada (2010) Ancestral survival scenarios were shown to
enhance recall more than modern survival scenarios
The Current StudyTwo experiments and three
hypotheses
Stem completion task (Experiment 1): More likely to complete letter strings with words they studied in the survival scenario
Category production task (Experiment 2): Produce a higher proportion of studied words processed in a survival scenario
Design Between-subjects independent variable
Rating scenario: Survival, moving, and pleasantness
Dependent variable Proportion of rated words retreived
Experiment 1 Procedure
Experiment 1 Results
Results Re-examined
Experiment 2 Procedure
Experiment 2 Results
ConclusionExperiment 1
High baseline in moving scenario drove memory score differences
Experiment 2No survival effect on the
proportion of studied items retrieved
Discussion
How would you interpret these results?
What do these results mean from an evolutionary standpoint?
Could a problem with our method account for the lack of results?
Remembered Affordances
Affordances
Can I reach?
Affordances Possibilities to behave Action-scaled
Depend on perceiver-environment fit Change over short and long timescales Nestedness
Require the performance of prerequisite behaviors
Involve expected changes in action capabilities Functional Equivalence
Two objects change affordances in the same way regardless of the specific means
Remembered Affordances
Figure reprinted from Boschker et al. (2002)
Research Questions Do people’s reaching estimates change
when the means for performing the reach are absent instead of present?
If two different objects bring about the same change in action capability, is the perception and memory of these objects’ affordances the same (functionally equivalent)?
Experiment 1: Procedure
Can I reachWith arm ?
Can I reach With stick?
Can I reach With Stick?
Can I reach With stick?
Stick_Present Stick_Present_2Hand Stick_Absent
Figure 1. Mean perceived maximum reaching height in the four conditions Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error.
Results1.Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Hand < Stick
2. Perceived Maximum Reaching Height: Hand < Stick Present = Stick Absent
3. Ratio of perceived/actual reaching height:Hand = Stick Present = Stick Absent
Experiment 2: Procedure
Can I reachWith arm ?
Can I reach With step?
Can I reach With step?
Can I reach With step?
Step_Present Step_Present_2Floor Step_Absent
Figure 2. Mean perceived maximum reaching height in the four conditions Experiment 2. Error bars indicate standard error.
Results1.Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Floor < Step
2. Perceived Maximum Reaching Height: Floor < Step Present = Step Absent
3. Ratio of perceived/actual reaching height:Floor = Stick Present = Stick Absent
Experiment 3: Procedure
Can I reach With stick?
Can I reach With step?
Can I reach With arm? Can I reach
With stick?
Can I reach With step?
Step_Present Floor/Arm Step_AbsentStick_AbsentStick_Present
Figure 3. Mean perceived maximum reaching height in the five conditions Experiment 3. Error bars indicate standard error.
Hypotheses1. Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Floor/Hand < Stick = Step
2. Perceived Maximum Reaching Height: Floor/Hand < Stick Present = Stick AbsentFloor/Hand < Step Present = Step Absent
3. No difference in Ratio of Perceived to Actual Maximum Reaching Height in any conditions
4. Functional Equivalence:Stick Present = Step Present; Stick Absent = Step Absent
Conclusions Experiments 1 and 2
Perception of reaching ability was action scaled when objects were present and absent
Experiment 3 Replicated first two experiments Objects that changed max reaching
height by the same amount were perceived and remembered to be functionally equivalent
Discussion
What do these results mean for remembered affordances?
What else might this apply to (e.g. other affordances)?
What could this mean for memory in general?
Prospective Memory Retrieval Prospective memory: PM Memory for future intentions Time-based
Completing a future intention after a pre-specified interval e.g., Going to class
Event-based Completing an intention after the presentation of a
pre-specified cue e.g., Remembering to turn off the lights at your
house before you leave
Standard PM Paradigm
Ongoing task Lexical decision task Word/picture rating task Category judgment taskEmbedded PM task Category member Word/picture Palindromes
Common Dependent Measures Accuracy
The proportion of correct PM actions committed Often used to evaluate the effects of independent
variables on PM performance
Ongoing Task Cost/Interference The difference in RTs of ongoing task responses
with and without an embedded PM task The relative cost of embedding a PM task within an
ongoing task Used as a measure of participants’ degree of
allocated attention to the PM task
Retrieval: The Attention DebateIs attention necessary for completing PM
actions? Preparatory Attention and Memory model: PAM
Attention to the PM task is necessary for completing intended actions (Smith et al., 2007)
Multiprocess model: MP Multiple strategies may be employed to execute
intended actions Spontaneous retrieval
My thesis topic! Preparatory attentional processes
Spontaneous Retrieval
Discrepancy Attribution Hypothesis (Whittlesea and Williams 2001a. 2001b.) Gauging familiarity based on a discrepancy
in processing
Probabilistic Learning Organisms are good at abstracting
environmental regularities (Brunswick, 1943)
Processing regular environments creates expectancies for similar contexts
Violations of these expectancies can create processing perturbations
This process might be useful as a discrepancy-plus-search mechanism
Research Questions Could the presentation of several words of
a single category in an ongoing task prime the expectation of a category member?
Might the violation of this expectation support a discrepancy-plus-search mechanism?
How much category priming must occur before PM is affected?
What is the role of attention in this paradigm?
Design
Between-Subjects Factors Instruction
PM: PM instructions for the experimental block
Recall: Recall instructions with the same items used for the PM task Allows us to explore the role of
attention in the experimental block Similar RTs for two conditions = less
attentional resources allocated
DesignBetween-Subjects Factors
Stimulus Discrepancy Congruent: Items in the ongoing task from the same
category as the PM cues Discrepant: Items in the ongoing task from a different
category than the PM cues
Category Priming Proportion Proportion of items from the dominant category in the
priming and experimental blocks: .25, .5, .75 Allows me to gauge the point at which stimulus
discrepancy alters PM accuracy
DesignWithin-Subjects Factor
Block1. Baseline block: Stimuli from random categories
Used to compare RTs to other blocks to asses attentional allocation
2. Priming block: Proportions of category exemplars depending on category priming proportion condition Used to prime categories Used as a distracter task to discourage attention to PM task
3. Experimental block: Same as priming block with the introduction of a PM task depending on experimental block condition Used to asses the stimulus discrepancy manipulation
Procedure
12 Between-Subjects Conditions
InstructionStimulus
Discrepancy
Category Priming
Proportion
Accuracy Results
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.25 0.5 0.75
Proportion Condition
Prop
ortio
n of
Cor
rect
PM
Res
pons
es
discrepant
congruent
RT Results
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
PM Recall
Instruction Condition
Bloc
k 1
- Blo
ck 3
RT
Diff
eren
ce
discrepant
congruent
Conclusions
Discrepant ongoing task items increased PM accuracy
.25 items from a category may be sufficient for spontaneous retrieval
Discussion
How do these results relate back to the research questions?
Describe the process that led to the accuracy results.
What do these results mean for the retrieval debate?