Retrieving effectively from source memory: Evidence for differentiation and local matching processes

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Cognitive Psychology Pub Date : 2024-01-05 DOI:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101617
Sinem Aytaç , Aslı Kılıç , Amy H. Criss , David Kellen
{"title":"Retrieving effectively from source memory: Evidence for differentiation and local matching processes","authors":"Sinem Aytaç ,&nbsp;Aslı Kılıç ,&nbsp;Amy H. Criss ,&nbsp;David Kellen","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The ability to distinguish between different explanations of human memory abilities continues to be the subject of many ongoing theoretical debates. These debates attempt to account for a growing corpus of empirical phenomena in item-memory judgments, which include the <em>list strength effect</em>, the <em>strength-based mirror effect,</em> and <em>output interference</em>. One of the main theoretical contenders is the Retrieving Effectively from Memory (REM) model. We show that REM, in its current form, has difficulties in accounting for source-memory judgments – a situation that calls for its revision. We propose an extended REM model that assumes a local-matching process for source judgments alongside source differentiation. We report a first evaluation of this model’s predictions using three experiments in which we manipulated the relative source-memory strength of different lists of items. Analogous to item-memory judgments, we observed a null list strength effect and a strength-based mirror effect in the case of source memory. In a second evaluation, which relied on a novel experiment alongside two previously published datasets, we evaluated the model’s predictions regarding the manifestation of output interference in item and lack of it in source memory judgments. Our results showed output interference severely affecting the accuracy of item-memory judgments but having a null or negligible impact when it comes to source-memory judgments. Altogether, these results support REM’s core notion of differentiation (for both item and source information) as well as the concept of local matching proposed by the present extension.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"149 ","pages":"Article 101617"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028523000750","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ability to distinguish between different explanations of human memory abilities continues to be the subject of many ongoing theoretical debates. These debates attempt to account for a growing corpus of empirical phenomena in item-memory judgments, which include the list strength effect, the strength-based mirror effect, and output interference. One of the main theoretical contenders is the Retrieving Effectively from Memory (REM) model. We show that REM, in its current form, has difficulties in accounting for source-memory judgments – a situation that calls for its revision. We propose an extended REM model that assumes a local-matching process for source judgments alongside source differentiation. We report a first evaluation of this model’s predictions using three experiments in which we manipulated the relative source-memory strength of different lists of items. Analogous to item-memory judgments, we observed a null list strength effect and a strength-based mirror effect in the case of source memory. In a second evaluation, which relied on a novel experiment alongside two previously published datasets, we evaluated the model’s predictions regarding the manifestation of output interference in item and lack of it in source memory judgments. Our results showed output interference severely affecting the accuracy of item-memory judgments but having a null or negligible impact when it comes to source-memory judgments. Altogether, these results support REM’s core notion of differentiation (for both item and source information) as well as the concept of local matching proposed by the present extension.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从源记忆中有效检索:分化和局部匹配过程的证据
如何区分对人类记忆能力的不同解释,一直是许多理论界争论不休的话题。这些争论试图解释项目记忆判断中越来越多的经验现象,其中包括列表强度效应、基于强度的镜像效应和输出干扰。从记忆中有效检索(REM)模型是主要的理论竞争者之一。我们的研究表明,目前形式的 REM 模型在解释来源记忆判断方面存在困难,因此需要对其进行修正。我们提出了一个扩展的 REM 模型,该模型假定来源判断的局部匹配过程与来源区分同时进行。我们利用三个实验对该模型的预测进行了首次评估,在这三个实验中,我们操纵了不同项目列表的相对来源记忆强度。与项目记忆判断类似,我们在来源记忆中观察到了空列表强度效应和基于强度的镜像效应。在第二项评估中,我们通过一项新颖的实验和之前发表的两个数据集,评估了该模型对输出干扰在项目记忆判断中的表现以及在源记忆判断中缺乏输出干扰的预测。我们的结果表明,输出干扰严重影响了项目记忆判断的准确性,但对源记忆判断的影响则为零或可以忽略不计。总之,这些结果支持 REM 的核心概念 "区分"(对项目信息和来源信息而言)以及本扩展提出的 "局部匹配 "概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Cognitive Psychology is concerned with advances in the study of attention, memory, language processing, perception, problem solving, and thinking. Cognitive Psychology specializes in extensive articles that have a major impact on cognitive theory and provide new theoretical advances. Research Areas include: • Artificial intelligence • Developmental psychology • Linguistics • Neurophysiology • Social psychology.
期刊最新文献
Free time, sharper mind: A computational dive into working memory improvement. Editorial Board Building compressed causal models of the world Doing things efficiently: Testing an account of why simple explanations are satisfying Perceptual inference corrects function word errors in reading: Errors that are not noticed do not disrupt eye movements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1