Associative independence revisited: competition between conflicting associations can be resolved or even reversed in one trial

Abstract

In one type of association-memory paradigm, after studying pairs of the form AB, AC, participants must recall both B and C in response to A. Counterintuitively, yet often replicated, recall probabilities of B and C are typically uncorrelated ("associative independence"). This face-value independence is now understood to reflect a negative correlation due to AB and AC competing, approximately offset by a positive correlation produced by subject- and item-variability. The outcome might vary with stimulus material; for noun-pairs, and with a single study trial per pair, AB and AC have been found to be positively correlated. We replicated the positive correlation between AB and AC for noun-pairs, but this did not differ from the correlation expected for independent memory tests, suggesting that for noun pairs, AB and AC are independent on average. In Experiment 2, participants instructed to form separate images for AB and AC again produced an independence pattern, but participants instructed to combine AB and AC into an integrative image produced a facilitation pattern. Thus, the relationship between AB and AC varies, and can be influenced by study strategy. Association-memory models may need to accommodate a diverse range of AB-AC relationships, and studies that build on AB/AC learning may need to consider whether AB/AC start out with a competitive, facilitatory or independent relationship.

Evaluating mechanisms of proactive facilitation in cued recall

“…Likewise, Burton et al (2015), employing a similar design, observed a positive correlation between recall of B and D given A as a cue. Postman and Gray (1977) also observed that when given A while having studied A-B, A-D, participants were most successful at retrieving D if they first recalled B.…”

“…The variability in recognizing repeated items across lists may also explain why proactive facilitation has gone largely unnoticed in the literature for so very long. As discussed, Burton et al (2015) have suggested that the differences in paired-associate techniques (e.g., learning to a criterion) may have contributed to masking the proactive facilitation effects.…”

“…Wahlheim and Jacoby (2013), apply this idea by suggesting that participants store a recursive representation of A-B embedded in A-D when a participant detects that A switched partners from List 1 to List 2. Additionally, Burton et al (2015) observed evidence of proactive facilitation (they call it associative facilitation) and found that it was most robust when participants were instructed to form mediators between the A-B and A-D pairs. Benjamin & Tullis (2010) have also proposed that recursive reminding may also provide insight into spacing effects.…”

Beneficial and detrimental effects of schema incongruence on memory for contextual events

“…In the studies reported here, we used events consisting of four pairs. Each pair shared a common component (A-B, B-C, C-D, D-A), to promote retrieval of the previous pair during study (Caplan et al 2014), as well as to allow for components to be integrated into an event (Burton et al 2017;Schlichting and Preston 2017). We extend previous literature on schema effects by actively eliciting contextual predictions that stem from existing schemas, as opposed to relying solely on the level of relatedness of two items.…”

Effects of Intensity-Specific Acute Exercise on Paired-Associative Memory and Memory Interference

“…Finally, proactive and retroactive interference were measured as a percentage. Using the cued recall results from List 1 and 2, proactive interference was measured by subtracting the percentage of correctly recalled FG pairs from the percentage of AC pairs (i.e., AC-FG) and RI by subtracting the percentage of correctly recalled DE pairs from the percentage of AB pairs (i.e., AB-DE) [65].…”