Research Topics in Memory The Survival Processing Effect Remembered Affordances Prospective Memory Retrieval

The Process of Remembering Encoding Delay Retrieval

The Survival Processing Effect An evolutionary origin of our memory system Nairne, Thompson, & Pandeirada (2007) Survival processing of items was shown to enhance subsequent recall and recognition The effect is robust even when compared to good mnemonic processing strategies e.g., pleasantness Nairne & Pandeirada (2010) Ancestral survival scenarios were shown to enhance recall more than modern survival scenarios

Two experiments and three hypotheses The Current Study Two experiments and three hypotheses Stem completion task (Experiment 1): More likely to complete letter strings with words they studied in the survival scenario Category production task (Experiment 2): Produce a higher proportion of studied words processed in a survival scenario

Design Between-subjects independent variable Rating scenario: Survival, moving, and pleasantness Dependent variable Proportion of rated words retreived

Experiment 1 Procedure

Experiment 1 Results

Results Re-examined

Experiment 2 Procedure Participants produced words related to three categories. Four exemplars of each category were processed by participants in the rating task (studied items) Participants rated words in one of three conditions before completing a sudoku puzzle

Experiment 2 Results

Conclusion Experiment 1 Experiment 2 High baseline in moving scenario drove memory score differences Experiment 2 No survival effect on the proportion of studied items retrieved

Discussion How would you interpret these results? What do these results mean from an evolutionary standpoint? Could a problem with our method account for the lack of results?

Remembered Affordances

Affordances Can I reach?

Affordances Possibilities to behave Action-scaled Depend on perceiver-environment fit Change over short and long timescales Nestedness Require the performance of prerequisite behaviors Involve expected changes in action capabilities Functional Equivalence Two objects change affordances in the same way regardless of the specific means

Remembered Affordances Figure reprinted from Boschker et al. (2002)

Research Questions Do people’s reaching estimates change when the means for performing the reach are absent instead of present? If two different objects bring about the same change in action capability, is the perception and memory of these objects’ affordances the same (functionally equivalent)?

Experiment 1: Procedure Can I reach With stick? Can I reach With arm ? Can I reach With Stick? Can I reach With stick? Stick_Present Hand Stick_Absent Stick_Present_2

Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Hand < Stick Results Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Hand < Stick  2. Perceived Maximum Reaching Height: Hand < Stick Present = Stick Absent 3. Ratio of perceived/actual reaching height: Hand = Stick Present = Stick Absent Figure 1. Mean perceived maximum reaching height in the four conditions Experiment 1. Error bars indicate standard error.

Experiment 2: Procedure Can I reach With arm ? Can I reach With step? Can I reach With step? Can I reach With step? Step_Present Floor Step_Absent Step_Present_2

Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Floor < Step Results Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Floor < Step  2. Perceived Maximum Reaching Height: Floor < Step Present = Step Absent 3. Ratio of perceived/actual reaching height: Floor = Stick Present = Stick Absent Figure 2. Mean perceived maximum reaching height in the four conditions Experiment 2. Error bars indicate standard error.

Experiment 3: Procedure Can I reach With step? Can I reach With arm? Can I reach With step? Can I reach With stick? Can I reach With stick? Stick_Present Step_Present Floor/Arm Stick_Absent Step_Absent

Stick Present = Step Present; Stick Absent = Step Absent Hypotheses 1. Actual Maximum Reaching Height: Floor/Hand < Stick = Step  2. Perceived Maximum Reaching Height:   Floor/Hand < Stick Present = Stick Absent Floor/Hand < Step Present = Step Absent 3. No difference in Ratio of Perceived to Actual Maximum Reaching Height in any conditions 4. Functional Equivalence: Stick Present = Step Present; Stick Absent = Step Absent Figure 3. Mean perceived maximum reaching height in the five conditions Experiment 3. Error bars indicate standard error.

Conclusions Experiments 1 and 2 Perception of reaching ability was action scaled when objects were present and absent Experiment 3 Replicated first two experiments Objects that changed max reaching height by the same amount were perceived and remembered to be functionally equivalent

Discussion What do these results mean for remembered affordances? What else might this apply to (e.g. other affordances)? What could this mean for memory in general?

Prospective Memory Retrieval Prospective memory: PM Memory for future intentions Time-based Completing a future intention after a pre- specified interval e.g., Going to class Event-based Completing an intention after the presentation of a pre-specified cue e.g., Remembering to turn off the lights at your house before you leave

Standard PM Paradigm Ongoing task Lexical decision task Word/picture rating task Category judgment task Embedded PM task Category member Word/picture Palindromes

Common Dependent Measures Accuracy The proportion of correct PM actions committed Often used to evaluate the effects of independent variables on PM performance Ongoing Task Cost/Interference The difference in RTs of ongoing task responses with and without an embedded PM task The relative cost of embedding a PM task within an ongoing task Used as a measure of participants’ degree of allocated attention to the PM task

Retrieval: The Attention Debate Is attention necessary for completing PM actions? Preparatory Attention and Memory model: PAM Attention to the PM task is necessary for completing intended actions (Smith et al., 2007) Multiprocess model: MP Multiple strategies may be employed to execute intended actions Spontaneous retrieval My thesis topic! Preparatory attentional processes

Spontaneous Retrieval Discrepancy Attribution Hypothesis (Whittlesea and Williams 2001a. 2001b.) Gauging familiarity based on a discrepancy in processing

Probabilistic Learning Organisms are good at abstracting environmental regularities (Brunswick, 1943) Processing regular environments creates expectancies for similar contexts Violations of these expectancies can create processing perturbations This process might be useful as a discrepancy-plus-search mechanism

Research Questions Could the presentation of several words of a single category in an ongoing task prime the expectation of a category member? Might the violation of this expectation support a discrepancy-plus-search mechanism? How much category priming must occur before PM is affected? What is the role of attention in this paradigm?

Between-Subjects Factors Design Between-Subjects Factors Instruction PM: PM instructions for the experimental block Recall: Recall instructions with the same items used for the PM task Allows us to explore the role of attention in the experimental block Similar RTs for two conditions = less attentional resources allocated

Between-Subjects Factors Design Between-Subjects Factors Stimulus Discrepancy Congruent: Items in the ongoing task from the same category as the PM cues Discrepant: Items in the ongoing task from a different category than the PM cues Category Priming Proportion Proportion of items from the dominant category in the priming and experimental blocks: .25, .5, .75 Allows me to gauge the point at which stimulus discrepancy alters PM accuracy

Within-Subjects Factor Design Within-Subjects Factor Block Baseline block: Stimuli from random categories Used to compare RTs to other blocks to asses attentional allocation Priming block: Proportions of category exemplars depending on category priming proportion condition Used to prime categories Used as a distracter task to discourage attention to PM task Experimental block: Same as priming block with the introduction of a PM task depending on experimental block condition Used to asses the stimulus discrepancy manipulation

Procedure Baseline block Memory instructions Priming block Pleasantness rating task with stimuli from random categories Memory instructions PM/recall instructions for later blocks Priming block Pleasantness rating task with category primes as stimuli Experimental block Pleasantness rating task with category primes Embedded PM task: Press a key after encountering single word

12 Between-Subjects Conditions PM Discrepant .25,.5,.75 Congruent No PM Category Priming Proportion Stimulus Discrepancy Instruction

Accuracy Results

RT Results

Conclusions Discrepant ongoing task items increased PM accuracy .25 items from a category may be sufficient for spontaneous retrieval

Discussion How do these results relate back to the research questions? Describe the process that led to the accuracy results. What do these results mean for the retrieval debate?