No position-specific interference from prior lists in cued recognition: A challenge for position coding (and other) theories of serial memory

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Gordon D. Logan , Gregory E. Cox , Simon D. Lilburn , Jana E. Ulrich
{"title":"No position-specific interference from prior lists in cued recognition: A challenge for position coding (and other) theories of serial memory","authors":"Gordon D. Logan ,&nbsp;Gregory E. Cox ,&nbsp;Simon D. Lilburn ,&nbsp;Jana E. Ulrich","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2024.101641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Position-specific intrusions of items from prior lists are rare but important phenomena that distinguish broad classes of theory in serial memory. They are uniquely predicted by position coding theories, which assume items on all lists are associated with the same set of codes representing their positions. Activating a position code activates items associated with it in current and prior lists in proportion to their distance from the activated position. Thus, prior list intrusions are most likely to come from the coded position. Alternative “item dependent” theories based on associations between items and contexts built from items have difficulty accounting for the position specificity of prior list intrusions. We tested the position coding account with a position-cued recognition task designed to produce prior list interference. Cuing a position should activate a position code, which should activate items in nearby positions in the current and prior lists. We presented lures from the prior list to test for position-specific activation in response time and error rate; lures from nearby positions should interfere more. We found no evidence for such interference in 10 experiments, falsifying the position coding prediction. We ran two serial recall experiments with the same materials and found position-specific prior list intrusions. These results challenge all theories of serial memory: Position coding theories can explain the prior list intrusions in serial recall and but not the absence of prior list interference in cued recognition. Item dependent theories can explain the absence of prior list interference in cued recognition but cannot explain the occurrence of prior list intrusions in serial recall.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"149 ","pages":"Article 101641"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028524000124/pdfft?md5=361705f3c0a5c3c3397cf4b41b1dd031&pid=1-s2.0-S0010028524000124-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028524000124","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

Position-specific intrusions of items from prior lists are rare but important phenomena that distinguish broad classes of theory in serial memory. They are uniquely predicted by position coding theories, which assume items on all lists are associated with the same set of codes representing their positions. Activating a position code activates items associated with it in current and prior lists in proportion to their distance from the activated position. Thus, prior list intrusions are most likely to come from the coded position. Alternative “item dependent” theories based on associations between items and contexts built from items have difficulty accounting for the position specificity of prior list intrusions. We tested the position coding account with a position-cued recognition task designed to produce prior list interference. Cuing a position should activate a position code, which should activate items in nearby positions in the current and prior lists. We presented lures from the prior list to test for position-specific activation in response time and error rate; lures from nearby positions should interfere more. We found no evidence for such interference in 10 experiments, falsifying the position coding prediction. We ran two serial recall experiments with the same materials and found position-specific prior list intrusions. These results challenge all theories of serial memory: Position coding theories can explain the prior list intrusions in serial recall and but not the absence of prior list interference in cued recognition. Item dependent theories can explain the absence of prior list interference in cued recognition but cannot explain the occurrence of prior list intrusions in serial recall.

在提示识别中没有来自先前列表的特定位置干扰:位置编码(及其他)序列记忆理论面临的挑战
先前列表中项目的特定位置侵入是一种罕见但重要的现象,它区分了序列记忆中的几大类理论。位置编码理论假定所有列表中的项目都与代表其位置的同一组编码相关联,而位置编码理论则唯一地预测了这种现象。激活位置编码会激活当前列表和先前列表中与之相关的项目,其比例与项目与激活位置的距离成正比。因此,先前的列表入侵最有可能来自编码位置。其他 "项目依赖 "理论基于项目之间的关联和由项目构建的语境,很难解释先前列表入侵的位置特异性。我们通过一项旨在产生先前列表干扰的位置提示识别任务对位置编码理论进行了测试。位置提示应该会激活位置编码,而位置编码应该会激活当前列表和先前列表中附近位置的项目。我们展示了先前列表中的诱饵,以测试特定位置对反应时间和错误率的激活作用;附近位置的诱饵应该会产生更多干扰。在 10 次实验中,我们没有发现这种干扰的证据,从而推翻了位置编码的预测。我们用相同的材料进行了两次序列记忆实验,发现了特定位置的先验列表干扰。这些结果对所有序列记忆理论提出了挑战:位置编码理论可以解释序列记忆中的先验列表干扰,但不能解释提示识别中的先验列表干扰。项目依赖理论可以解释在提示识别中没有先验列表干扰,但不能解释在序列回忆中出现先验列表干扰。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信