The impact of distractor processing on semantic memory retrieval: The role of interference-by-process and inhibition

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Martin Marko , Adam Kubinec , Veronika Zelenayová , Igor Riečanský
{"title":"The impact of distractor processing on semantic memory retrieval: The role of interference-by-process and inhibition","authors":"Martin Marko ,&nbsp;Adam Kubinec ,&nbsp;Veronika Zelenayová ,&nbsp;Igor Riečanský","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The retrieval of concepts from semantic memory is fundamental to higher-order cognitive functions and complex behaviors. Despite its vulnerability to disruption—particularly from irrelevant auditory stimuli with semantic content—the mechanisms through which such distractors hinder coherent semantic processing and retrieval remain poorly understood. To address this issue, we conducted four experiments using a novel retrieval interference paradigm, manipulating both the demands on semantic search and retrieval (automatic–associative vs. controlled–dissociative) and the type of distractor (acoustic–meaningless vs. semantic–meaningful, prepotent or remote). Our results show that meaningful distractors significantly disrupt semantic memory retrieval, especially under controlled retrieval demands, while acoustic distractors have minimal impact. Through examining task difficulty, interference habituation, and working memory capacity, we provide converging evidence that the disruption was primarily driven by an interference-by-process mechanism, wherein incidental distractor processing evokes task-irrelevant activation within the semantic network. Moreover, interference was stronger when distractors were semantically close to the retrieval cue, indicating that difficulty in suppressing prepotent, cue-related activations contributes to retrieval disruption. Based on these findings, we propose an activation-suppression framework, whereby semantic interference arises from the interplay between automatic spreading activation and the need for inhibitory control to suppress task-incongruent conceptual activations. These results refine our understanding of the mechanisms underlying semantic retrieval and highlight the putative role of cognitive control in managing semantic distraction.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"266 ","pages":"Article 106314"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725002550","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The retrieval of concepts from semantic memory is fundamental to higher-order cognitive functions and complex behaviors. Despite its vulnerability to disruption—particularly from irrelevant auditory stimuli with semantic content—the mechanisms through which such distractors hinder coherent semantic processing and retrieval remain poorly understood. To address this issue, we conducted four experiments using a novel retrieval interference paradigm, manipulating both the demands on semantic search and retrieval (automatic–associative vs. controlled–dissociative) and the type of distractor (acoustic–meaningless vs. semantic–meaningful, prepotent or remote). Our results show that meaningful distractors significantly disrupt semantic memory retrieval, especially under controlled retrieval demands, while acoustic distractors have minimal impact. Through examining task difficulty, interference habituation, and working memory capacity, we provide converging evidence that the disruption was primarily driven by an interference-by-process mechanism, wherein incidental distractor processing evokes task-irrelevant activation within the semantic network. Moreover, interference was stronger when distractors were semantically close to the retrieval cue, indicating that difficulty in suppressing prepotent, cue-related activations contributes to retrieval disruption. Based on these findings, we propose an activation-suppression framework, whereby semantic interference arises from the interplay between automatic spreading activation and the need for inhibitory control to suppress task-incongruent conceptual activations. These results refine our understanding of the mechanisms underlying semantic retrieval and highlight the putative role of cognitive control in managing semantic distraction.
干扰物加工对语义记忆提取的影响:加工干扰和抑制的作用
从语义记忆中提取概念是高阶认知功能和复杂行为的基础。尽管它容易受到干扰,特别是来自不相关的带有语义内容的听觉刺激,但这种干扰因素阻碍连贯语义处理和检索的机制仍然知之甚少。为了解决这一问题,我们使用一种新的检索干扰范式进行了四个实验,操纵语义搜索和检索的需求(自动联想与控制分离)和干扰类型(声学无意义vs语义有意义,优势或远程)。研究结果表明,有意义干扰显著干扰语义记忆检索,尤其是在受控检索需求下,而声干扰对语义记忆检索的影响最小。通过检查任务难度、干扰习惯化和工作记忆容量,我们提供了一致的证据,证明干扰主要是由过程干扰机制驱动的,其中偶然的干扰处理会在语义网络中唤起与任务无关的激活。此外,当干扰物在语义上接近检索线索时,干扰更强,这表明抑制优势线索相关激活的困难导致了检索中断。基于这些发现,我们提出了一个激活-抑制框架,其中语义干扰产生于自动扩散激活和抑制控制抑制任务不一致概念激活之间的相互作用。这些结果完善了我们对语义检索机制的理解,并强调了认知控制在管理语义分心中的假定作用。
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
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信