Lili Sahakyan Leilani B. Goodmon

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Lili Sahakyan Leilani B. Goodmon"

Laurel Adams
8 years ago
Views:

1 Unconscious influences on conscious forgetting Lili Sahakyan Leilani B. Goodmon Presentation for Festschrift in honor of Do glas L Nelson Presentation for Festschrift in honor of Douglas L. Nelson March, 2008

2 Standard List Method Paradigm List 1 List 1 Forget Remember List 2 List 2 Remember Remember Memory Test

3 Typical Findings List 1 List 1 Forget Remember List 2 List 2 Remember Remember Memory Test

4 Context Change as a Mechanism of Directed Forgetting F - group R - group List 1 List 1 Forget Remember List 2 List 2 Recall Recall

5 Associative Structure of PLANET VENUS PLUTO UNIVERSE PLANET MARS MOON SPACE EARTH SATURN STAR

6 Memory Test = Extra-List Cuing Studied Targets PLANET WIN POLITE CORK... Test Cues SPACE? CONTEST? MANNERS? STOPPER?

7 Effects of Pre-existing existing Associations Most effects of pre-existing associations can be grouped by the types of connections they involve: target-to-associates links associates-to-associates links associates-to-target links

8 nice wall weddin g party pretty Xmas color Large Set Size (17) house DECORATION design ornament create tree army cake flower balloo n holida y detergen t dirty work cloth es LAUNDRY wash Small Set Size (8) soap bask clean et

9 A 16 A 17 A 18 A 1 A 2 A 4 A3 Target-to-Cue Strength A 15 A 14 TARGET A 5 A 6 A 13 A 8 A 7 A 11 A 9 A 12 A 10

10 A 18 A 1 A 2 A3 Target-to-Cue Strength A 17 A 16 A4 A 4 A 15 A 14 TARGET A 5 A 6 better test cue A 13 A 12 A 11 A 10 A 9 A 8 A 11 A 9 A 8 A 7 Target-to-Cue to Strength Effect Associates that are more strongly activated by the target during study are more successful in retrieving the target at test (compared to weaker associates)

11 RUDE KIND High connectivity NASTY GENEROUS POLITE MANNERS SWEET NICE BOARD Low connectivity it SCREW CHAMPAGNE FLOAT CORK WINE STOPPER BOTTLE

12 LOTTERY ACHIEVEMENT High resonance MONEY VICTORY WIN LOSE Low resonance CONQUER SCREW BOARD CHAMPAGNE FLOAT CORK WINE STOPPER BOTTLE

13 Context moderates these effects Changing physical or mental context between the study and test reduces the influence of pre-existing associations (e.g., Nelson et al., 1998; Nelson & Goodmon, 2002; Nelson, Goodmon & Akirmak, 2007; Nelson, Goodmon, & Ceo, 2007)

14 Implications for Current Studies If directed forgetting involves a context change, we should observe a reduction of effects of associative variables in the Forget group Exp 1: Set Size (T-A links) Exp 2: Backward strength (T-A links) Exp 3: Connectivity (A-A links) Exp 4: Resonance (A-T links)

15 General Method 8 items of one level of associative variable 8 items of another level of associative variable Forget 8 items of one level of associative variable Remember 8 items of another level of associative variable Test: Extra-list Cued Recall Presentation ti rate: 4 s/item Controlled Associative Variables Set size Connectivity Resonance Forward strength Backward strength Number and strength thof indirect connections Target frequency Concreteness

16 Set Size Effect small set large set Proportion List 1 Reca all Remember Forget Set size: F(1, 70) = 43.12, p <.001 Cue: F(1, 70) = 10.72, p <.01 Set size x Cue : F(1, 70) = 5.65, p <.05

17 Connectivity Effect high connectivity low connectivity List 1 Reca all Proportion Remember Forget Connectivity: F(1, 70) = , p <.001 Cue: F(1, 70) = 10.37, p <.01 Connectivity x Cue : F(1, 70) = 7.66, p <.01

18 Backward Target-to to-cue Strength Effect high strength low strength Pr roportion List 1 Recal ll Remember Forget Backward Strength: F(1, 70) = 18.97, p <.001 Cue: F(1, 70) = 11.86, p <.001 Backward Strength x Cue : F(1, 70) = 4.46, p <.05

19 List 1 Reca all Proportion Resonance Effect high resonance low resonance.00 Remember Forget Resonance: F(1, 70) = 8.07, p <.01 Cue: F(1, 70) = 9.89, p <.01 Resonance x Cue : F(1, 70) = 3.38, p =.07

20 Explaining the effects of context disruption Interactive cuing assumption the probability of target recovery is jointly determined by an extra-list cue and context cues P r ( T Q, C) = P r (T Q) * (t) c, where t is the length of the retention interval, and c is a context loss parameter that varies with the procedure used to induce the context loss. It must be estimated from the data P r ( T Q, C) = P r (T Q) * C, where C represents the degree of contextual loss induced by experimental manipulation (i.e., forget instruction).

21 at the Estimating C parameter Because the model predicts the recall rate of individual cuetarget pairings, the data was scored at the item level to estimate C. P r ( T Q, C) = P r (T Q) * C We regressed the observed recall of individual cue-target pairs on the predicted recall rate provided by PIER model Observ ved recall PIER prediction The slope of the best-fitting regression line estimates C, with lower values of C imply greater change of context

22 Remember = (.59)x +.17 Forget = (.31)x +.16

23 Remember = (.58)x +.19 Forget = (.29)x +.19

24 Remember = (.59)x +.11 Forget = (.35)x +.11

25 Remember = (.59)x +.12 Forget = (.34)x +.11

26 PIER Model Predictions The model predicts that each link in the associative network should be affected to the same degree by contextual change directed forgetting should have a similar impact on recall regardless of the manipulated implicit variable C estimates should be approximately the same for the set. C estimates should be approximately the same for the set size, connectivity, resonance, or backward strength studies.

27 Backward T-Q strength F(1, 30) = 21.35, p <.001, R 2 =.42 St Set size F(1, 30) = 33.52, p <.001, R 2 =.55 Connectivity F(1, 30) = 28.55, p <.001, R 2 =.51 Resonance F(1, 30) = 37.85, p <.001, R 2 =.58

28 Backward T-Q strength F(1, 30) = 5.06, p <.05, R 2 =.15 Set size F(1, 30) = 3.95, p =.06, R 2 =.13 Connectivity F(1, 30) = 11.44, p <.01, R 2 =.29 Resonance F(1, 30) = 4.81, p <.05, R 2 =.15

29 CONCLUSIONS Directed forgetting can be obtained with extra-list t cued recall Directed forgetting produces effects similar to those observed in studies of context disruption it reduces the influence of pre-existing associations on memory Model fits revealed that all the links in the associative network were affected to the same extent by directed forgetting across the studies Conscious attempts to forget impact not only consciously accessible information but also information that is implicitly activated and yet is not consciously reportable

30 THANK YOU

31 APPENDIX

32 The PIER Model: Processing Implicit &Explicit Representations The Target Activation Process The Cue Target Intersection Process

33 Target Activation Equation n n n ST )= ST,T )+ SA,T + ( ) ( ST,A )+ i ) ( ) ( i ) SA,A i=1 j i j j=1 i=1 ( ) Uses summation rule to add up the activation from the following sources: target self strength (nominally 1.0) associates-to-targetto target target-to-associates associates-to-associates

34 Computing Target Activation Equation TARGET A 1 A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 A 6 A 7 A 8 TARGET A A 2 A A 4.01 A 5.53 A A 7 A Net Strength TARGET s Activated State [(1.12)+(.79)+(.53)+(.29)+(.08)+(.97)+(.36)+(.04)+(.03)] = 4.10

35 Cue-Target Intersection Strength Takes into account the associative information activated by the cue and by the target overlap of two implicit representations S ( Qq,T )=) S SI I qt ( t )+) SqqS Iq ( ) where q t S qt is forward cue-to-target strength from free association norms S(I t ) is implicit activation strength of the target S qq is cue-to-cue self strength (nominally, 1.0) S(I q ) is implicit activation strength of the cue

36 Probability of Target Recovery on immediate test Cue-Target Intersection Pr( T I Qq)= ( ) S Q q,t ( ) SQ q,t n n S ( Q T) )+ A q + A q t t Cue-Target Intersection Competing Associates of Target Competing Associates of Cue

37 Retrieval Matrix using A 8 as a test cue on an immediate test Cue-Target Target CUE Competitors Competitors Intersection (target) (cue) A 8 Target Cue Q-T Intersection Strength = (.08 * 4.10) + (1.00 *.03) =.37 Target Recovery =.37 =.47 [(.37) + ( )]

38 Selected papers from Sahakyan Lab: Sahakyan, L. & Delaney, P. F. (2005). Directed forgetting in recognition testing and incidental learning: Support for a two-factor account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), Sahakyan, L. (2004). Destructive effects of forget instructions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), Sahakyan, L. & Kelley, C.M. (2002). A contextual change account of the directed forgetting effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), Sahakyan, L. & Delaney, P. F. (2003). Can encoding differences explain the benefits of directed forgetting in the list method paradigm? Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), Sahakyan, L. & Goodmon, L. B. (2007). The influence of directional associations on directed forgetting and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), Key Papers Cited in the Presentation File: Nelson, D. L., & McEvoy, C. L. (2005). Implicitly activated memories: The missing links of remembering. In C. Izawa & N. Ohta (Eds.), Human Learning and Memory: Advances in Theory and Application: The 4th Tsukuba International Conference on Memory (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Nelson, D.L., McKinney, V.M., Gee, N.R., & Janczura, G.A. (1998). Interpreting the influence of implcitly activated memories on recall and recognition. Psychological Review, 105, Nelson, D. L., & Goodmon, L.B. (2003). Disrupting attention: The need for retrieval cues in working memory theories. Memory & Cognition, 31, Nelson, D. L., Goodmon, L.B., & Akirmak, U. (2007). Implicitly activated memories are associated to general context cues. Memory & Cognition, 35, Nelson, D. L., Goodmon, L.B., & Ceo, D. (2007). How does delayed testing reduce effects of implicit memory: Context infusion or cuing with context? Memory & Cognition, 35,

Interpretive Report of WMS IV Testing

Interpretive Report of WMS IV Testing Examinee and Testing Information Examinee Name Date of Report 7/1/2009 Examinee ID 12345 Years of Education 11 Date of Birth 3/24/1988 Home Language English Gender