Delineating the Effect of Semantic Congruency on Episodic Memory: The Role of Integration and Relatedness

Abstract

A fundamental challenge in the study of learning and memory is to understand the role of existing knowledge in the encoding and retrieval of new episodic information. The importance of prior knowledge in memory is demonstrated in the congruency effect—the robust finding wherein participants display better memory for items that are compatible, rather than incompatible, with their pre-existing semantic knowledge. Despite its robustness, the mechanism underlying this effect is not well understood. In four studies, we provide evidence that demonstrates the privileged explanatory power of the elaboration-integration account over alternative hypotheses. Furthermore, we question the implicit assumption that the congruency effect pertains to the truthfulness/sensibility of a subject-predicate proposition, and show that congruency is a function of semantic relatedness between item and context words.

Distinctiveness Benefits Novelty (and Not Familiarity), but Only Up to a Limit: The Prior Knowledge Perspective

“…The objective of our study was to better characterize the contribution of distinctiveness at encoding to previous contradicting findings attributing mnemonic advantage to novelty and familiarity (Axmacher et al, 2010;Badham & Maylor, 2015;Bein et al, 2015;Gronau & Shachar, 2015;Hirshman et al, 1989;Kishiyama & Yonelinas, 2003;Meeter, Murre, & Talamini, 2004;Michelon et al, 2003;Schulman, 1974;Stoppel et al, 2009;Tulving & Kroll, 1995;van Kesteren et al, 2012). Across two experiments and using two behavioral measures we found that an experimental list-based distinctiveness manipulation-varying experimental proportions-differentially affected items encoded in a conceptually novel (incongruent) or familiar (congruent) context: Distinctiveness was monotonically correlated with memory performance and reaction time (RT) for items encoded in a novel context, whereas memory and RT performance for familiar items was overall stable across all proportion conditions.…”

“…and to indicate their "yes/no" response by pressing one of two possible keyboard keys. This task was chosen for compatibility with previous SCE studies (Bein et al, 2015;Schulman, 1974). Notably, novel stimuli (e.g., "purple BANANA") required a different response than familiar stimuli, further stressing their distinctiveness.…”

“…These stimuli were selected from a larger list of 360 pairs that were used in previous experiments (Bein et al, 2015), based on the consistency of congruency ratings in pilot studies (for details, see Reggev, Bein, & Maril, 2016). The nouns and adjectives were 2-7 letters long (mean nouns: 3.96 letters, mean adjectives: 4.84 letters).…”

“…In a seemingly direct contradiction, a large body of work demonstrates a mnemonic advantage for repetitive familiar items (e.g., Badham & Maylor, 2015;Bein et al, 2015;Craik & Tulving, 1975;Ebbinghaus, 1885Ebbinghaus, /1913Maril et al, 2011;Poppenk, K€ ohler, & Moscovitch, 2010;Schulman, 1974). One prominent example is the "semantic congruency effect" (SCE), whereby stimuli that are congruent with previous knowledge are better remembered than novel stimuli that are incongruent with pre-existing semantic representations (Bein et al, 2015;Brewer & Treyens, 1981;Craik & Tulving, 1975;Gronau & Shachar, 2015;Schulman, 1974;Tibon, Gronau, Scheuplein, Mecklinger, & Levy, 2014;van Kesteren, Ruiter, Fern andez, & Henson, 2012).…”

“…One prominent example is the "semantic congruency effect" (SCE), whereby stimuli that are congruent with previous knowledge are better remembered than novel stimuli that are incongruent with pre-existing semantic representations (Bein et al, 2015;Brewer & Treyens, 1981;Craik & Tulving, 1975;Gronau & Shachar, 2015;Schulman, 1974;Tibon, Gronau, Scheuplein, Mecklinger, & Levy, 2014;van Kesteren, Ruiter, Fern andez, & Henson, 2012). Case in point, the elements of the schema-congruent stimulus "yellow banana" are associated with better retrieval rates in subsequent recall and recognition tests than the elements of the schema-incongruent stimulus "purple banana" (Bein et al, 2015;Schulman, 1974). Notably, schema-incongruent pairs constitute conceptual novelty, the unfamiliar combination of familiar words or the variation of conceptually familiar schematic prototypes (Kagan, 2009;Wisniewski, 1997).…”