Verbal working memory encodes phonological and semantic information differently

Kowialiewski, Benjamin; Krasnoff, Julia; Mızrak, Eda; Oberauer, Klaus

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105364

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that order recall benefits from semantic grouping is in striking contrast with the usual null effect of semantic similarity on order memory, when pure lists of semantically similar or dissimilar words are compared (Kowialiewski, Krasnoff, et al, 2023;Neale & Tehan, 2007;Neath et al, 2022;Poirier & Saint-Aubin, 1995;Saint-Aubin & Poirier, 1999). However, as we did not include pure semantically similar lists, we cannot rule out the possibility that there are some peculiarities in our materials by which semantic similarity improved order memory even without a grouping structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Some studies found a deleterious impact of semantic similarity on memory for order (Saint-Aubin et al, 2005;Tse, 2010;Tse et al, 2011), and some authors have argued that this might be explained by the way semantic similarity is manipulated (Ishiguro & Saito, 2020). However, several recent studies using large samples have shown a systematic absence of detrimental effect of semantic similarity on memory for order across a variety of experimental conditions and different semantic similarity metrics (Kowialiewski, Krasnoff, et al, 2023;Neath et al, 2022). 1 If WM encoded semantic information through item-context binding, we expect that semantically similar items should be recalled more often in the wrong order than semantically dissimilar items.…”

Section: Similarity and Order Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The null effect of semantic similarity on order memory is a wellreplicated phenomenon (Kowialiewski, Krasnoff, et al, 2023;Neale & Tehan, 2007;Neath et al, 2022;Poirier & Saint-Aubin, 1995Saint-Aubin & Poirier, 1999). However, most manipulations of semantic similarity involved lists composed of purely similar or dissimilar items.…”

Section: Cases Of Effects Of Semantic Similarity On Order Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When items are cued, other items sharing these markers are also partially retrieved, thus increasing the probability to retrieve an adjacent than distant item when a transposition occurs. The binding mechanism also predicts that it should be possible to retrieve a context when an item is given (i.e., retrieving "position 1" from the word "monkey"), a prediction which has received empirical support in the verbal WM literature (Guérard et al, 2009;Kowialiewski, Krasnoff, et al, 2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People tend to confuse similar items in their order more often than dissimilar ones, a classical phenomenon observed across a variety of domains (Guitard & Cowan, 2020;Gupta et al, 2005;Jalbert et al, 2008;Lin & Luck, 2009;Logie et al, 2016;Saito et al, 2008;Visscher et al, 2007). In contrast to other types of similarity, semantic similarity does not decrease people's ability to recall items in their presentation order (Kowialiewski, Krasnoff, et al, 2023;Neale & Tehan, 2007;Poirier & Saint-Aubin, 1995;Saint-Aubin & Poirier, 1999). Still, there are some studies-reviewed below-showing subtle but intriguing effects of semantic similarity on order memory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Does semantic similarity affect immediate memory for order? Usually not, but sometimes it does.

Kowialiewski,

Majerus,

Oberauer

2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recall performance in working memory (WM) is strongly affected by the similarity between items. When asked to encode and recall list of items in their serial order, people confuse more often the position of similar compared to dissimilar items. Models of WM explain this deleterious effect of similarity through a problem of discriminability between WM representations. In contrast, when lists of items that are all semantically similar are compared to lists of dissimilar items, semantic similarity does not negatively impact order memory, questioning the idea that semantic information is part of the WM content. This study reports four experiments in which semantic similarity was manipulated using lists composed of multiple semantic categories. These experiments revealed two main patterns. First, semantic similarity can increase, rather than decrease, order memory. Second, semantic knowledge reliably constrains the way items migrate; when migrating, items tend to do so more often toward the position of other similar items, rather than migrating toward other dissimilar items. These results challenge the way current models of WM represent similarity. The plausibility of different theoretical accounts and mechanisms is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Similarity and Order Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cases Of Effects Of Semantic Similarity On Order Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Does semantic similarity affect immediate memory for order? Usually not, but sometimes it does.

Kowialiewski,

Majerus,

Oberauer

2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Semantic relatedness can impair memory for item locations

Lu,

Zhu,

Risko

2023

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing the response suppression mechanism of working memory.

Kowialiewski,

Oberauer

2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many working memory (WM) paradigms involve recalling multiple items from the same memory set. Participants rarely repeat items they have already recalled, avoiding repetition errors. To prevent these errors, WM models incorporate a response suppression mechanism that removes recalled items from the set of response options. Despite its importance for our understanding of WM, response suppression has received limited direct testing. To address this gap, we used computational models implementing two hypothetical mechanisms of response suppression to derive predictions and tested these predictions experimentally. Participants were asked to recall the same items multiple times during a single trial. If already recalled items are removed from the response set to prevent repetition errors, memory performance should be impaired when the same item is tested again. Contrary to this, we found that memory performance was unimpaired when the same item was tested a second time, and even displayed a recall advantage. Therefore, this study demonstrates the implausibility of response suppression to account for how people avoid repetition errors. We discuss alternative explanations.

show abstract

Verbal working memory encodes phonological and semantic information differently

Cited by 9 publications

References 59 publications

Does semantic similarity affect immediate memory for order? Usually not, but sometimes it does.

Does semantic similarity affect immediate memory for order? Usually not, but sometimes it does.

Semantic relatedness can impair memory for item locations

Testing the response suppression mechanism of working memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About