Differential fan effect and attentional focus

Sohn, Myeong-Ho; Anderson, John R.; Reder, Lynne M.; Goode, Adam

doi:10.3758/bf03196627

Cited by 29 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This conclusion is opposite to that reached by Sohn et al (2004) who employed the fan-effect paradigm. The logic underlying their comparisons differed to a large extent from that employed in the present study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…To ensure that participants formed person-based mental models, explicit instructions were given to participants to organize facts by person; such a manipulation was effectively employed by Sohn et al (2004).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we focus on two accounts, propositional networks and mental models. These accounts have been compared by Sohn, Anderson, Reder, and Goode (2004), who used the standard fan-effect paradigm (e.g., Anderson, 1974) and varied attentional focus during learning. They found support for the propositional network account (but see Radvansky, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this possibility seems unlikely for two reasons. First, as in the person-focus condition of the study by Sohn et al (2004), participants received person-anchored questions in the present study. Second, to strengthen the person focus, in Experiment 2 participants were explicitly instructed to organize facts around each person.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The effects of memory set size and information structure on learning and retention

Kole

Healy

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates how memory set size and information structure affect learning and retention, using materials employed earlier by Van Overschelde and Healy (2001) to study learning under conditions of information overload. Participants in the present study learned either 48 or 144 facts about individuals, designated as small set and large set, respectively. Participants in the small-set group learned either 12 facts about each of 4 individuals or 4 facts about each of 12 individuals, whereas participants in the large-set group learned 12 facts about each of 12 individuals. Participants were then tested on either 12 facts about each of 4 individuals (4-person condition) or 4 facts about each of 12 individuals (12-person condition).Although the effect of memory set size is well understood (e.g., Ward, 2002), the effect of information structure is not easily predicted; different theoretical accounts make different predictions. Here we focus on two accounts, propositional networks and mental models. These accounts have been compared by Sohn, Anderson, Reder, and Goode (2004), who used the standard fan-effect paradigm (e.g., Anderson, 1974) and varied attentional focus during learning. They found support for the propositional network account (but see Radvansky, 2005). Propositional NetworksIn propositional networks, concepts are represented as nodes, and relationships between concepts as links between nodes (Anderson, 1983). Learning is the formation of a link between two nodes. In retrieving information, a memory probe activates a node, and this activation is transferred along all the links connected to that node (i.e., spreading activation). As the number of links to a node increases, less activation is transferred along each link. The attenuation of transferred activation results in decreased performance in terms of speed or accuracy (the fan effect).A propositional network account would predict an advantage for the 12-person small-set group in the present study. This prediction follows from the fact that in the 12-person small-set group, participants learn 4 facts about 12 individuals, thus activation would spread along only 4 links associated with each person node. In all other groups, participants learn 12 facts about each individual, thus activation would spread along 12 links associated with each node. Mental ModelsRadvansky (2005; Radvansky & Zacks, 1991) offers a different account of the fan effect based on mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983) or situation models (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). He argues that when learning new information, a mental model is constructed. For example, if learning facts about individuals, each individual is represented by a different mental model, and facts about an individual are integrated into the appropriate mental model. Mental models are stored in long-term memory; so retrieving information is a two-step process in which the appropriate mental model is retrieved from long-term to working memory, and the contents of the mental model are examined within working memory.Th...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of memory set size and information structure on learning and retention

Kole

Healy

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These accounts have recently been contrasted (Sohn, Anderson, Reder, & Goode, 2004), with support provided for the propositional network account (but see Radvansky, 2005). However, it is not clear how this propositional network account could accommodate the findings of Van Overschelde and Healy (2001), including the surprising decrease in performance across rounds for the case involving low prior knowledge.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using prior knowledge to minimize interference when learning large amounts of information

Kole

Healy

2007

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A memory-based model of Hick’s law

Schneider

Anderson

2011

Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose and evaluate a memory-based model of Hick's law, the approximately linear increase in choice reaction time with the logarithm of set size (the number of stimulus-response alternatives). According to the model, Hick's law reflects a combination of associative interference during retrieval from declarative memory and occasional savings for stimulusresponse repetitions due to non-retrieval. Fits to existing data sets show that the model accounts for the basic set-size effect, changes in the set-size effect with practice, and stimulus-response repetition effects that challenge the information-theoretic view of Hick's law. We derive the model's prediction of an interaction between set size, stimulus fan (the number of responses associated with a particular stimulus), and stimulus-response transition, which is subsequently tested and confirmed in two experiments. Collectively, the results support the core structure of the model and its explanation of Hick's law in terms of basic memory effects. KeywordsHick's law; choice reaction time; memory; fan effect; cognitive modeling Choice reaction time (RT) has been of interest to cognitive psychologists for well over 50 years. In a typical choice RT paradigm, a set of stimuli is associated with a set of responses, usually with a one-to-one mapping of stimuli onto responses. A stimulus is presented on each trial and the task is to choose the corresponding response, with correct RT serving as the primary dependent measure. Research involving this paradigm has revealed that as set size (the number of stimulus-response alternatives) increases, RT becomes longer (e.g., Hick, 1952;Hyman, 1953;Merkel, 1885; for reviews, see Luce, 1986, Chapter 10;E. E. Smith, 1968;Teichner & Krebs, 1974;Welford, 1960). More specifically, there is an approximately linear increase in RT with the logarithm of set size (n):(1) Figure 1 shows fits of Equation 1 to four representative data sets. The close match between Equation 1 (or variants of it) and the empirical set-size effect has led to both being referred to interchangeably as Hick's law (after Hick, 1952). Hick's law seems to be one of the few "laws" that exist in cognitive psychology and it is a benchmark effect in the study of choice RT (Luce, 1986;E. E. Smith, 1968;Teichner & Krebs, 1974;Welford, 1960).Address correspondence to: Darryl W. Schneider, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA, Phone: 1-412-334-7758, dws@cmu.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptCogn Psychol. Author manuscript; avai...

show abstract

Differential fan effect and attentional focus

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

The effects of memory set size and information structure on learning and retention

The effects of memory set size and information structure on learning and retention

Using prior knowledge to minimize interference when learning large amounts of information

A memory-based model of Hick’s law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About