Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
(Shaded regions indicate 1 standard error)
Modality Effect***
Inverse-Modality Effect***
Modality effects in free recall: A retrieved context accountJesse K. Pazdera & Michael J. Kahana
University of Pennsylvania
• Modality effect (ME): Enhanced recency for auditory vs. visual items• Inverse-modality effect (IME): Enhanced primacy for visual vs. auditory
items (Murdock & Walker, 1969; Craik, 1969; Grenfell-Essam, Ward, & Tan, 2017)
• Proposed explanations:• Greater capacity/persistence of auditory store (Craik, 1969; Murdock & Walker, 1969)
• Auditory items more temporally distinct (Glenberg & Swanson, 1986)
• Auditory items form stronger associations (Macken et al., 2016)
• Goal #1: Precisely describe the modality effect through the collection and analysis of a large dataset
• Goal #2: Account for modality effects within a retrieved context model of memory (CMR2) (Lohnas, Polyn, & Kahana, 2015; Polyn, Norman, & Kahana, 2009)
Background
Methods
• ME and IME appeared across all presentation rates and list lengths• PFR suggests ME did not result from increased accessibility of auditory words• Auditory presentation produced more distant PLIs than did visual presentation• ME and IME may be simulated by increasing context drift rate (Sim #1) or weakening the
formation of new item associations (Sim #2) during auditory presentation• Both simulations reduced primacy and increased recency performance without altering PFR• Reduced PLI recency is consistent with increased context drift during auditory presentation
Discussion
ReferencesContact
Name: Jesse PazderaEmail: [email protected]: (215) 595-3723
Craik, F. I. M. (1969). Modality effects in short-term storage. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 658–664. Glenberg, A. M., & Swanson, N. G. (1986). A temporal distinctiveness theory of recency and modality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 3–15.Grenfell-Essam, R., Ward, G., & Tan, L. (2017). Common modality effects in immediate free recall and immediate serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
43(12), 1909-1933. Lohnas, L. J., Polyn, S. M., and Kahana, M. (2015). Expanding the scope of memory search: Intralist and interlist effects in free recall. Psychological Review, 122(2), 337-363.Macken, B., Taylor, J. C., Kozlov, M. D., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2016). Memory as embodiment: The case of modality and serial short-term memory. Cognition, 155, 113–124.Murdock, B. B., Jr., & Walker, K. D. (1969). Modality effects in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 665–676.Polyn, S. M., Norman, K. A., and Kahana, M. J. (2009a). A context maintenance and retrieval model of organizational processes in free recall. Psychological Review, 116, 129-156.
• Online immediate free recall experiment using Amazon Mechanical Turk• 2000 participants completed 16 lists + FFR• Manipulations:
• Modality (M), List Length (LL), Presentation Rate (PR)• M varied across subjects; LL and PR varied within subjects
Time Between Onsets:
1.6s – 2.0sor
2.4s – 2.8s
Time Onscreen:0.8s or 1.6s
ISI0.8s – 1.2s
VisualPresentation
AuditoryPresentation
Words Per List:12 or 24
Free Recall:Typed
responses
“QUEEN”
“APPLE”
+
10s
1.5s
……
0.5s
60s
300s
Countdown
QUEEN
APPLE
*****
APPL
Final Free Recall
x16 Trials
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Serial Position Effects
Probability of First Recall
Modeling
n-5 n-4 n-3 n-2 n-1 nSerial Position
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
NormalizedRecallProb.
n-5 n-4 n-3 n-2 n-1 nSerial Position
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Prob.ofFirstRecall
V AS-12S-24F-12F-24
Plot shows recency performance normalized
by the SPC asymptote
Auditory presentation enhanced recency effects
across all conditions
Modality did not affect the likelihood of initiating recall
from the end of the list
(Shaded regions indicate 1 standard error)
Greater recency in visual task**
No difference in total intrusions
(Shaded regions indicate 1 standard error)
Prior-List Intrusions
Features
Context
MCF
(Influences recall)MFC
(Updates context)Context Maintenance and Retrieval Model
(CMR2)
Retriev
al Encoding
Simulation #1: Context Drift Rate
Simulation #2: Association Formation
Visual: βEnc = 0.52970
Auditory:βEnc = 0.53795
Visual:γFC = 0.76231γCF = 0.81379
Auditory:γFC = 0.71231 γCF = 0.77288