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

3. The Process of Remembering
Encoding
Delay
Retrieval

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. Experiment 1 Procedure

8. Experiment 1 Results

9. Results Re-examined

10. 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

11. Experiment 2 Results

12. 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

13. 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?

14. Remembered Affordances

15. Affordances
Can I reach?

16. 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

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

18. 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)?

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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

26. 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?

27. 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

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

29. 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

30. 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

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

32. 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

33. 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?

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 12 Between-Subjects ConditionsPM
Discrepant
.25,.5,.75
Congruent
No PM
Category Priming Proportion
Stimulus Discrepancy
Instruction

39. Accuracy Results

40. RT Results

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

42. 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?