比较两种单位化操作:对熟悉程度、基于回忆的识别和语义干扰的影响。

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Memory Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-09 DOI:10.1080/09658211.2024.2314516
Fan Zhou, Yingjie Jiang, Yang Yue
{"title":"比较两种单位化操作:对熟悉程度、基于回忆的识别和语义干扰的影响。","authors":"Fan Zhou, Yingjie Jiang, Yang Yue","doi":"10.1080/09658211.2024.2314516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recognition of associative memory can be significantly influenced by the use of an encoding strategy known as unitisation, which has been implemented through various manipulations. However, [Shao, H., Opitz, B., Yang, J., & Weng, X. (2016). Recollection reduces unitised familiarity effect. <i>Memory (Hove, England)</i>, <i>24</i>(4), 535-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1021258] found intriguing distinctions between two common manipulations, the compound task and the imagery task, leading to a dispute. We propose that differences in levels of processing in the imagery task may account for these discrepancies. This study tested our hypothesis using two approaches. The first two experiments utilised the R/K paradigm to investigate the effects of these methods on familiarity-based and recollection-based recognition. The results demonstrated that familiarity was increased in the compound task, while recollection was increased in the imagery task. In the subsequent two experiments, an interference paradigm was employed to examine differences in semantic processing within the two tasks. The results showed that the compound task did not impact participants' inclination towards lures, while the imagery task led to a bias towards semantic lures over episodic lures, suggesting that the two encodings in the imagery task involve different levels of semantic processing. These results support our hypothesis and underscore the importance of carefully choosing comparisons that account for other variables in the study of unitisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":18569,"journal":{"name":"Memory","volume":" ","pages":"308-319"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing two unitisation manipulations: effects on familiarity, recollection-based recognition, and semantic interference.\",\"authors\":\"Fan Zhou, Yingjie Jiang, Yang Yue\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09658211.2024.2314516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The recognition of associative memory can be significantly influenced by the use of an encoding strategy known as unitisation, which has been implemented through various manipulations. However, [Shao, H., Opitz, B., Yang, J., & Weng, X. (2016). Recollection reduces unitised familiarity effect. <i>Memory (Hove, England)</i>, <i>24</i>(4), 535-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1021258] found intriguing distinctions between two common manipulations, the compound task and the imagery task, leading to a dispute. We propose that differences in levels of processing in the imagery task may account for these discrepancies. This study tested our hypothesis using two approaches. The first two experiments utilised the R/K paradigm to investigate the effects of these methods on familiarity-based and recollection-based recognition. The results demonstrated that familiarity was increased in the compound task, while recollection was increased in the imagery task. In the subsequent two experiments, an interference paradigm was employed to examine differences in semantic processing within the two tasks. The results showed that the compound task did not impact participants' inclination towards lures, while the imagery task led to a bias towards semantic lures over episodic lures, suggesting that the two encodings in the imagery task involve different levels of semantic processing. These results support our hypothesis and underscore the importance of carefully choosing comparisons that account for other variables in the study of unitisation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18569,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memory\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"308-319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2314516\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2024.2314516","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

联想记忆的识别能力会受到一种被称为 "单元化"(unitisation)的编码策略的显著影响。然而,[Shao, H., Opitz, B., Yang, J., & Weng, X. (2016)。回忆降低了单位化熟悉效应。Memory (Hove, England), 24(4), 535-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1021258]发现复合任务和意象任务这两种常见操作之间存在耐人寻味的区别,从而引发了争议。我们认为,意象任务中处理水平的差异可能是造成这些差异的原因。本研究采用两种方法检验了我们的假设。前两个实验利用 R/K 范式研究了这些方法对基于熟悉的识别和基于回忆的识别的影响。结果表明,在复合任务中,熟悉度提高了,而在意象任务中,回忆度提高了。在随后的两项实验中,我们采用了干扰范式来考察两项任务中语义处理的差异。结果表明,复合任务不会影响参与者对诱饵的倾向性,而意象任务则会导致对语义诱饵的偏好超过对情节诱饵的偏好,这表明意象任务中的两种编码涉及不同层次的语义加工。这些结果支持了我们的假设,并强调了在单位化研究中谨慎选择考虑其他变量的比较的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing two unitisation manipulations: effects on familiarity, recollection-based recognition, and semantic interference.

The recognition of associative memory can be significantly influenced by the use of an encoding strategy known as unitisation, which has been implemented through various manipulations. However, [Shao, H., Opitz, B., Yang, J., & Weng, X. (2016). Recollection reduces unitised familiarity effect. Memory (Hove, England), 24(4), 535-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1021258] found intriguing distinctions between two common manipulations, the compound task and the imagery task, leading to a dispute. We propose that differences in levels of processing in the imagery task may account for these discrepancies. This study tested our hypothesis using two approaches. The first two experiments utilised the R/K paradigm to investigate the effects of these methods on familiarity-based and recollection-based recognition. The results demonstrated that familiarity was increased in the compound task, while recollection was increased in the imagery task. In the subsequent two experiments, an interference paradigm was employed to examine differences in semantic processing within the two tasks. The results showed that the compound task did not impact participants' inclination towards lures, while the imagery task led to a bias towards semantic lures over episodic lures, suggesting that the two encodings in the imagery task involve different levels of semantic processing. These results support our hypothesis and underscore the importance of carefully choosing comparisons that account for other variables in the study of unitisation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Memory
Memory PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
79
期刊介绍: Memory publishes high quality papers in all areas of memory research. This includes experimental studies of memory (including laboratory-based research, everyday memory studies, and applied memory research), developmental, educational, neuropsychological, clinical and social research on memory. By representing all significant areas of memory research, the journal cuts across the traditional distinctions of psychological research. Memory therefore provides a unique venue for memory researchers to communicate their findings and ideas both to peers within their own research tradition in the study of memory, and also to the wider range of research communities with direct interest in human memory.
×
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