Selective attention and recognition: effects of congruency on episodic learning

Rosner, Tamara M; D'Angelo, Maria C.; MacLellan, Ellen; Milliken, Bruce

doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0572-6

Cited by 46 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An additional contribution that emerges from our data is a possible boundary condition for recent demonstrations of enhanced memory for incongruent attention-attracting stimuli (Krebs et al, 2015;Rosner, D'Angelo, MacLellan, & Milliken, 2015). In these studies, recognition memory for conflict-inducing incongruent stimuli (e.g., a male face on which the incongruent label "FEMALE") was better than recognition memory for congruent or neutral stimuli.…”

Section: The Unique Benefit Of Novelty?supporting

confidence: 54%

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

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novelty is a pivotal player in cognition, and its contribution to superior memory performance is a widely accepted convention. On the other hand, mnemonic advantages for familiar information are also well documented. Here, we examine the role of experimental distinctiveness as a potential explanation for these apparently conflicting findings. Across two experiments, we demonstrate that conceptual novelty, an unfamiliar combination of familiar constituents, is sensitive to its experimental proportions: Improved memory for novelty was observed when novel stimuli were relatively rare. Memory levels for familiar items, in contrast, were completely unaffected by experimental proportions, highlighting their insensitivity to list-based distinctiveness. Finally, no mnemonic advantage for conceptual novelty over familiarity was observed even when novel stimuli were extremely rare at study. Together, these results imply that novel and familiar items are processed via partially distinct mechanisms, with (at least some facets of) novelty not providing a mnemonic advantage over familiarity.

show abstract

Section: The Unique Benefit Of Novelty?supporting

confidence: 54%

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

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are two ways in which we could interpret these results: 1) the target receives enhanced attention and therefore it is better encoded or 2) the distractor is suppressed (inhibited) following the selection of the target, so its memory is impaired. However when comparing active and passive conditions, there is no difference in memory for targets, demonstrating that the action does not enhance target processing (Rosner et al, 2014). Instead, distractors in the active condition are less accurately remembered than in the passive one, supporting the inhibitory account (Houghton & Tipper, 1994 However, despite the lack of significant interactions between the active modes (active/passive) and the type of object (target/distractor), we can still observe that, especially in the Where non-episodic measure, there is a trend for selective distractor suppression in the active condition with no change for the target.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Indeed only few studies have looked into the impact of selective attention on episodic encoding, with rather mixed results. Some studies have suggested that actively selected targets receive a boost that increases their encoding in an episodic trace (Rosner et al, 2014;Uncapher & Rugg, 2009;Uncapher & Wagner, 2009). But several others have failed to find such evidence (Christou & Bulthoff, 1999;Plancher et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An action to an object does not improve its episodic encoding but removes distraction.

Laurent

Ensslin

Marı́-Beffa

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is some debate as to whether responding to objects in our environment improves episodic memory or doesn't impact it. Some authors claim that actively encoding objects improves their representation in episodic memory. Conversely, episodic memory has also been shown to improve in passive conditions, suggesting that the action itself could interfere with the encoding process. This study looks at the impact of attention and action on episodic memory using a novel WWW task that includes information about object identity (What), spatial (Where) and temporal (When) properties. With this approach we studied the episodic memory of two types of object: Target, where attention or an action is defined, and Distractor, object to be ignored, following two selective states: active vs. passive selection. When targets were actively selected, we found no evidence of episodic memory enhancement compared to passive selection; but instead memory from irrelevant sources was suppressed. The pattern was replicated across a 2D static display and a more realistic 3D virtual environment. This selective attention effect on episodic memory was not observed on non-episodic measures, demonstrating a link between attention and the encoding of episodic experiences. Keywords:What-Where-When task; episodic memory; recognition and cue recall; sensorymotor implication; inhibition. 2In our daily experience we often need to avoid responding to objects in an automatic manner in order to pursue a goal. When shopping for groceries, we may find ourselves actively avoiding the cream cakes in order to get the items on the fruit and vegetable list. In a pub, we may need to suppress grasping other glasses on the table to pick our own. In many cases, these situations occur without us being aware of it; but at other times they can become part of our autobiographical experience. While most would agree that selected objects can be stored in episodic memory, it is less clear what happens with the objects that we reject. The purpose of this research is to study how the active selection of a target among distractors is represented in episodic memory.The most common view is that objects which are the targets of goal-directed actions receive a boost in processing that enhances their representations in episodic memory (Engelkamp & Zimmer, 1994;Zimmer, et al, 2001). But there is little account of how distractors are represented. Here we present a set of three experiments to demonstrate that, contrary to the previous view, responding to an object does not influence target encoding but acts instead upon distractors, inhibiting them and preventing them from being represented in the episodic trace. Measures of Episodic MemoryBefore we analyse how distractors can be affected by responses to the targets, we need to clarify a few theoretical points. The first problem that we encounter is the multiplicity of tasks used to measure episodic memory, and even the concept itself. Originally, Endel Tulving (1972) coined the term 'episodic memory' with reference to the ...

show abstract

“…

AbstractTwo recent studies have reported that incongruent selective attention items are better remembered than congruent items on a surprise recognition memory test (Krebs, Boehler, De Belder, & Egner, 2013;Rosner, D'Angelo, MacLellan, & Milliken, 2014). These findings suggest that an increased need for cognitive control may trigger encoding mechanisms at the time of study that result in better recognition of those items at test, a form of the desirable difficulty effect (Bjork, 1994).

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Congruency effects on recognition memory: A context effect

Rosner¹,

Milliken²

2017

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two recent studies have reported that incongruent selective attention items are better remembered than congruent items on a surprise recognition memory test (Krebs, Boehler, De Belder, & Egner, 2013;Rosner, D'Angelo, MacLellan, & Milliken, 2014). These findings suggest that an increased need for cognitive control may trigger encoding mechanisms at the time of study that result in better recognition of those items at test, a form of the desirable difficulty effect (Bjork, 1994). The experiments in the present paper demonstrate that this effect can depend on whether differences in selective attention difficulty are blocked or intermixed at the time of encoding. These results suggest that additional encoding time itself does not invariably result in better recognition for more difficult selective attention items. Instead, the dependence of recognition memory on encoding difficulty appears to reflect a context-sensitive control response to encoding difficulty.

show abstract

Selective attention and recognition: effects of congruency on episodic learning

Cited by 46 publications

References 53 publications

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

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

An action to an object does not improve its episodic encoding but removes distraction.

Congruency effects on recognition memory: A context effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About