The warning stimulus as retrieval cue: The role of associative memory in temporal preparation

Los, Sander A.; Nieuwenstein, Jurre; Bouharab, Anass; Stephens, David; Meeter, Martijn; Kruijne, Wouter

doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101378

Cited by 22 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 136 publications

(196 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, throughout the transfer phase, there was a flatter RT-foreperiod function for the group that had experienced the exponential distribution in the acquisition phase than for the group that had experienced the anti-exponential distribution. Under conventional hazard-based explanations, participants should quickly recalibrate to the current distribution and, therefore, should not exhibit any substantial transfer effects (see Los et al, 2017 , 2021 , for in-depth coverage). Subsequently, Mattiesing et al (2017) replicated this finding in a study in which the transfer phase was completed 1 week after the acquisition phase.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer effects in auditory temporal preparation occur using an unfilled but not filled foreperiod

Crowe

Los

Schindler

et al. 2021

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How quickly participants respond to a ‘go’ after a ‘warning’ signal is partly determined by the time between the two signals (the foreperiod) and the distribution of foreperiods. According to Multiple Trace Theory of Temporal Preparation (MTP), participants use memory traces of previous foreperiods to prepare for the upcoming go signal. If the processes underlying temporal preparation reflect general encoding and memory principles, transfer effects (the carry-over effect of a previous block’s distribution of foreperiods to the current block) should be observed regardless of the sensory modality in which signals are presented. Despite convincing evidence for transfer effects in the visual domain, only weak evidence for transfer effects has been documented in the auditory domain. Three experiments were conducted to examine whether such differences in results are due to the modality of the stimulus or other procedural factors. In each experiment, two groups of participants were exposed to different foreperiod distributions in the acquisition phase and to the same foreperiod distribution in the transfer phase. Experiment 1 used a choice-reaction time (RT) task and the warning signal remained on until the go signal but there was no evidence for transfer effects. Experiment 2 and 3 used a simple- and choice-RT task, respectively, and there was silence between the warning and go signals. Both experiments revealed evidence for transfer effects which suggests that transfer effects are most evident when there is no auditory stimulation between the warning and go signals.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer effects in auditory temporal preparation occur using an unfilled but not filled foreperiod

Crowe

Los

Schindler

et al. 2021

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Blocks in either phase thus comprised 120 trials in total, with randomly intermixed FPs and S1 types. Because the S1 was unique on each trial, we expected that differential preparation would take longer to develop than in our earlier work Los et al (2021).…”

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Another study (Los et al, 2021) highlighted how associations may modulate preparation implicitly, outside of voluntary control. Experiments consisted of two phases: an 'Acquisition phase' where two different S1s (e.g., a tone or flash) were associated with either an exponential or anti-exponential FP distribution, followed by a 'Transfer phase' where FPs were distributed uniformly for either S1 (cf.…”

Section: Implicitly Learning When To Be Ready: From Instances To Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While both Cravo et al (2017) and Los et al (2021) demonstrate that long-term memory associations can guide preparation, there are marked differences between these paradigms in how associations were operationalized. The results of Cravo et al (2017) resemble 'declarative' memory, as participants seemingly used explicit knowledge of each S1-FP association.…”

Section: Implicitly Learning When To Be Ready: From Instances To Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results of Cravo et al (2017) resemble 'declarative' memory, as participants seemingly used explicit knowledge of each S1-FP association. The results of Los et al (2021), however, are more akin to 'procedural' memory, where repeated practice with either S1 results in a statistical 'rule' guiding PREPARATION FOR CATEGORIES 6 preparation without explicit knowledge. Such differences impede strong conclusions regarding the exact nature of associations that modulate preparation, and whether declarative knowledge may be imperative to learn from unique individual instances.…”

Section: Implicitly Learning When To Be Ready: From Instances To Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Implicitly learning when to be ready: from instances to categories

Kruijne¹,

Galli²,

Los³

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[Manuscript submitted for review]There is growing appreciation for the role of long-term memory in guiding temporal preparation. In experiments with variable foreperiods between a warning stimulus (S1) and a target stimulus (S2), preparation is affected by foreperiod distributions experienced in the past, long after the distribution has changed. Such memory-guided preparation shapes preparation largely implicitly and outside of a participants’ control. Recent studies have demonstrated the associative nature of such memory-guided preparation. When distinct S1s predict different foreperiods, they can trigger dissociative preparation accordingly. Here, we demonstrate that memory-guided preparation allows for another key feature of learning: the ability to generalize across acquired associations and apply them to novel situations. Participants completed a foreperiod task where S1 was a unique image of either a face or a scene on each trial. Images of either category were paired with different distributions with predominantly shorter versus predominantly longer foreperiods. Participants displayed dissociative preparation to never-before seen images of either category, without being aware of the predictive nature of these categories. They continued doing so in a subsequent transfer phase, after they had been informed that these contingencies no longer held. A novel rolling regression analysis revealed at a fine timescale how category-guided preparation gradually developed throughout the task, and illustrated how instructions at the start of the transfer phase interacted with these influences from long-term memory. These results offer new insights into temporal preparation as the product of a largely implicit process governed by associative learning from past experiences.

show abstract

FMTP: A unifying computational framework of temporal preparation across time scales.

Salet¹,

Kruijne²,

Rijn³

2022

Psychological Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporal preparation is the cognitive function that takes place when anticipating future events. This is commonly considered to involve a process that maximizes preparation at time points that yield a high hazard. However, despite their prominence in the literature, hazard-based theories fail to explain the full range of empirical preparation phenomena. Here, we present the formalized multiple trace theory of temporal preparation (fMTP), an integrative model which develops the alternative perspective that temporal preparation results from associative learning. fMTP builds on established computational principles from the domains of interval timing, motor planning, and associative memory. In fMTP, temporal preparation results from associative learning between a representation of time on the one hand and inhibitory and activating motor units on the other hand. Simulations demonstrate that fMTP can explain phenomena across a range of time scales, from sequential effects operating on a time scale of seconds to long-term memory effects occurring over weeks. We contrast fMTP with models that rely on the hazard function and show that fMTP’s learning mechanisms are essential to capture the full range of empirical effects. In a critical experiment using a Gaussian distribution of foreperiods, we show the data to be consistent with fMTP’s predictions and to deviate from the hazard function. Additionally, we demonstrate how changing fMTP’s parameters can account for participant-to-participant variations in preparation. In sum, with fMTP we put forward a unifying computational framework that explains a family of phenomena in temporal preparation that cannot be jointly explained by conventional theoretical frameworks.

show abstract

The warning stimulus as retrieval cue: The role of associative memory in temporal preparation

Abstract: Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Cited by 22 publications

References 136 publications

Transfer effects in auditory temporal preparation occur using an unfilled but not filled foreperiod

Transfer effects in auditory temporal preparation occur using an unfilled but not filled foreperiod

Implicitly learning when to be ready: from instances to categories

FMTP: A unifying computational framework of temporal preparation across time scales.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About