Evidence Against Novelty-Gated Encoding in Serial Recall.
Mathematical modelling
Short-term memory
Working memory
Journal
Journal of cognition
ISSN: 2514-4820
Titre abrégé: J Cogn
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101732790
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
04
09
2021
accepted:
26
01
2022
entrez:
8
9
2022
pubmed:
9
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Novelty-gated encoding is the assumption that events are encoded more strongly into memory when they are more novel in comparison to previously encoded events. It is a core assumption of the SOB model of serial recall (Farrell & Lewandowsky, 2002). We present three experiments testing some predictions from novelty-gated encoding. Experiment 1 shows that the probability of recalling the third item in a list correctly does not depend on whether it is preceded by phonologically similar or dissimilar items. Experiment 2 shows that in lists of items from three classes (nonwords, spatial locations, and abstract drawings) the probability of recalling an item does not depend on whether it is preceded by items from the same or another class. Experiment 3 used a complex-span paradigm varying the phonological similarity of words that are read aloud as distractors in between memory items. Contrary to a prediction from novelty-gated encoding, similar distractors did not impair memory more than dissimilar distractors. The results question the assumption of novelty-gated encoding in serial recall. We discuss alternative explanations for the phenomena that this assumption has previously helped to explain. The present evidence against novelty-gated encoding might point to boundary conditions for the role of prediction error in the acquisition of memories.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36072121
doi: 10.5334/joc.207
pmc: PMC9400662
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
17Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Références
Mem Cognit. 1986 Nov;14(6):451-68
pubmed: 3796283
Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Feb;18(1):10-45
pubmed: 21327362
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Jul;36(4):958-78
pubmed: 20565212
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Sep;24(5):1162-81
pubmed: 9747528
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Mar;9(1):59-79
pubmed: 12026954
Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Jun;15(3):535-42
pubmed: 18567251
Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):677-732
pubmed: 18729596
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 Jul;40(4):1110-41
pubmed: 24564540
Psychol Bull. 2014 Mar;140(2):339-73
pubmed: 24079725
Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Jun;22(6):475-478
pubmed: 29655607
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Sep;44(9):1430-1443
pubmed: 29553767
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Jun;101:1-12
pubmed: 30922977
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):656-74
pubmed: 15099134
Br J Psychol. 1964 Nov;55:429-32
pubmed: 14237884
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000 Aug;53(3):626-46
pubmed: 10994221
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Jan;39(1):110-25
pubmed: 22563635
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Sep;23(9):798-809
pubmed: 31301953
Psychol Rev. 2008 Jul;115(3):544-76
pubmed: 18729591
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Apr;43(4):537-551
pubmed: 27668482
Psychol Rev. 2006 Apr;113(2):201-33
pubmed: 16637760
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Mar;61(3):392-9
pubmed: 17935003
Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Oct;24(5):1651-1657
pubmed: 28150124
Psychol Rev. 2019 Nov;126(6):880-932
pubmed: 31524425
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Oct;19(5):779-819
pubmed: 22715024
Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):769-86
pubmed: 16523997
Psychol Rev. 1998 Oct;105(4):761-81
pubmed: 9830378
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Sep;29(5):838-49
pubmed: 14516217
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(1):33-44
pubmed: 23682972
J Mem Lang. 2017 Jun;94:149-165
pubmed: 28579691