Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Tính sinh động tăng cường hồi tưởng nhưng không phải sự quen thuộc: Bằng chứng hội tụ từ mô hình nhớ-biết-đoán và quy trình phân tách
Tóm tắt
Những từ đại diện cho sinh vật được nhớ lâu hơn so với những từ đại diện cho vật thể vô tri, đây là một phát hiện mạnh mẽ được gọi là hiệu ứng tính sinh động. Với ý nghĩa thích nghi tiến hóa được giả định của hiệu ứng này, lợi thế trí nhớ của từ ngữ sống động không chỉ ảnh hưởng đến số lượng mà còn đến chất lượng của việc ghi nhớ. Để kiểm tra giả thuyết này, chúng tôi đã so sánh chất lượng trí nhớ nhận thức giữa từ ngữ sinh động và từ ngữ vô tri. Mô hình nhớ-biết-đoán (Thí nghiệm 1) và quy trình phân tách (Thí nghiệm 2) đã được sử dụng để đánh giá cả khía cạnh chủ quan và khách quan của việc ghi nhớ. Dựa trên các tài khoản gần gũi về hiệu ứng tính sinh động tập trung vào việc mã hóa tỉ mỉ và sự chú ý, tính sinh động được dự đoán sẽ tăng cường hồi tưởng chi tiết một cách chọn lọc nhưng không làm ảnh hưởng đến cảm giác quen thuộc không có ngữ cảnh. Các mô hình cây xử lý đa biến đã được áp dụng để làm rõ sự hồi tưởng, sự quen thuộc và các loại quá trình đoán khác nhau. Kết quả thu được từ mô hình nhớ-biết-đoán và quy trình phân tách cho thấy một cách hội tụ rằng tính sinh động chọn lọc tăng cường hồi tưởng nhưng không ảnh hưởng đến sự quen thuộc. Trong cả hai thí nghiệm, các quá trình đoán không bị ảnh hưởng bởi tình trạng tính sinh động của từ ngữ. Do đó, tính sinh động không chỉ làm tăng số lượng mà còn ảnh hưởng đến chất lượng của việc ghi nhớ: Hiệu ứng này chủ yếu được thúc đẩy bởi hồi tưởng. Các kết quả hỗ trợ tài khoản về sự phong phú của việc mã hóa và tài khoản chú ý về hiệu ứng tính sinh động trên trí nhớ.
Từ khóa
#hiệu ứng tính sinh động #hồi tưởng #sự quen thuộc #mô hình nhớ-biết-đoán #quy trình phân táchTài liệu tham khảo
Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210812
Bayen, U. J., Murnane, K., & Erdfelder, E. (1996). Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(1), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.197
Blunt, J. R., & VanArsdall, J. E. (2021). Animacy and animate imagery improve retention in the method of loci among novice users. Memory & Cognition, 49(7), 1360–1369. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01175-0
Bonin, P., Gelin, M., & Bugaiska, A. (2014). Animates are better remembered than inanimates: Further evidence from word and picture stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0368-8
Bonin, P., Gelin, M., Dioux, V., & Méot, A. (2019). “It is alive!” Evidence for animacy effects in semantic categorization and lexical decision. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(4), 965–985. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716419000092
Bonin, P., Gelin, M., Laroche, B., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2015). The “how” of animacy effects in episodic memory. Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000308
Bonin, P., Thiebaut, G., Bugaiska, A., & Méot, A. (2022). Mixed evidence for a richness-of-encoding account of animacy effects in memory from the generation-of-ideas paradigm. Current Psychology, 41, 1653–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02666-8
Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Vaterrodt-Plünnecke, B. (1995). Toward unbiased measurement of conscious and unconscious memory processes within the process dissociation framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.137
Bugaiska, A., Grégoire, L., Camblats, A. M., Gelin, M., Méot, A., & Bonin, P. (2019). Animacy and attentional processes: Evidence from the Stroop task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(4), 882–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818771514
Bugaiska, A., Méot, A., & Bonin, P. (2016). Do healthy elders, like young adults, remember animates better than inanimates? An adaptive view. Experimental Aging Research, 42(5), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2016.1224631
Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892998563752
Daley, M. J., Andrews, G., & Murphy, K. (2020). Animacy effects extend to working memory: Results from serial order recall tasks. Memory, 28(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1699574
Dodson, C. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1996). Some problems with the process-dissociation approach to memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.181
Elliott, E. M., Bell, R., Gorin, S., Robinson, N., & Marsh, J. E. (2022). Auditory distraction can be studied online! A direct comparison between in-person and online experimentation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 34(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.2021924
Erdfelder, E., Auer, T.-S., Hilbig, B. E., Aßfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(3), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108
Erdfelder, E., & Buchner, A. (1995). Process dissociation measurement models: Good versus better (Berichte aus dem Psychologischen Institut der Universität Bonn, No. 21-3). Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11780/163
Erdfelder, E., Cüpper, L., Auer, T.-S., & Undorf, M. (2007). The four-states model of memory retrieval experiences. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.1.61
Erdfelder, E., & Kroneisen, M. (2014). Proximate cognitive mechanisms underlying the survival processing effect. In B. L. Schwartz, M. L. Howe, M. P. Toglia, & H. Otgaar (Eds.), What is adaptive about adaptive memory? (pp. 172–198). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199928057.003.0010
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
Félix, S. B., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Nairne, J. S. (2019). Adaptive memory: Longevity and learning intentionality of the animacy effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 31(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2019.1586716
Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Functional aspects of recollective experience. Memory & Cognition, 16(4), 309–313. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197041
Gardiner, J. M., Java, R. I., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1996). How level of processing really influences awareness in recognition memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(1), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.50.1.114
Gardiner, J. M., & Parkin, A. J. (1990). Attention and recollective experience in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 18(6), 579–583. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197100
Gardiner, J. M., Richardson-Klavehn, A., & Ramponi, C. (1997). On reporting recollective experiences and “direct access to memory systems.” Psychological Science, 8(5), 391–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00431.x
Gelin, M., Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2018). Do animacy effects persist in memory for context? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 965–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1307866
Gelin, M., Bugaiska, A., Méot, A., & Bonin, P. (2017). Are animacy effects in episodic memory independent of encoding instructions? Memory, 25(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1117643
Gelin, M., Bugaiska, A., Méot, A., Vinter, A., & Bonin, P. (2019). Animacy effects in episodic memory: Do imagery processes really play a role? Memory, 27(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1498108
Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198438
Heister, J., Würzner, K.-M., Bubenzer, J., Pohl, E., Hanneforth, T., Geyken, A., & Kliegl, R. (2011). dlexDB – Eine lexikalische Datenbank für die psychologische und linguistische Forschung [dlexDB – A lexical database for psychological and linguistic research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 62(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000029
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F
Jacoby, L. L. (1998). Invariance in automatic influences of memory: Toward a user’s guide for the process-dissociation procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.24.1.3
Joordens, S., & Merikle, P. M. (1993). Independence or redundancy? Two models of conscious and unconscious influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(4), 462–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.4.462
Kazanas, S. A., Altarriba, J., & O’Brien, E. G. (2020). Paired-associate learning, animacy, and imageability effects in the survival advantage. Memory & Cognition, 48(2), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-01007-2
Kroneisen, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2011). On the plasticity of the survival processing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1553–1562. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024493
Kroneisen, M., Erdfelder, E., & Buchner, A. (2013). The proximate memory mechanism underlying the survival-processing effect: Richness of encoding or interactive imagery? Memory, 21(4), 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.741603
Kroneisen, M., Rummel, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2014). Working memory load eliminates the survival processing effect. Memory, 22(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.815217
Kroneisen, M., Rummel, J., & Erdfelder, E. (2016). What kind of processing is survival processing? Effects of different types of dual-task load on the survival processing effect. Memory & Cognition, 44(8), 1228–1243. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0634-7
Leding, J. K. (2019). Adaptive memory: Animacy, threat, and attention in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 47(3), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0873-x
Leding, J. K. (2020). Animacy and threat in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 48(5), 788–799. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01017-5
Leiner, D. J. (2020). SoSci Survey (version 3.2.24) [computer software]. Available at https://www.soscisurvey.de
Madan, C. R. (2021). Exploring word memorability: How well do different word properties explain item free-recall probability? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(2), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01820-w
Meinhardt, M. J., Bell, R., Buchner, A., & Röer, J. P. (2018). Adaptive memory: Is the animacy effect on memory due to emotional arousal? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(4), 1399–1404. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1485-y
Meinhardt, M. J., Bell, R., Buchner, A., & Röer, J. P. (2020). Adaptive memory: Is the animacy effect on memory due to richness of encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(3), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000733
Mieth, L., Röer, J. P., Buchner, A., & Bell, R. (2019). Adaptive memory: Enhanced source memory for animate entities. Memory, 27(8), 1034–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2019.1617882
Moshagen, M. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.42
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2008). Adaptive memory: Remembering with a stone-age brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00582.x
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2016). Adaptive memory: The evolutionary significance of survival processing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635613
Nairne, J. S., VanArsdall, J. E., & Cogdill, M. (2017). Remembering the living: Episodic memory is tuned to animacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416667711
Nairne, J. S., VanArsdall, J. E., Pandeirada, J. N. S., Cogdill, M., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Adaptive memory: The mnemonic value of animacy. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2099–2105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480803
New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(42), 16598–16603. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703913104
Opfer, J. E., & Gelman, S. A. (2011). Development of the animate-inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (Vol. 2nd Ed., pp. 213–238). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325485.ch8
Pereverseff, R. S., & Bodner, G. E. (2020). Comparing recollection and nonrecollection memory states for recall of general knowledge: A nontrivial pursuit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(11), 2207–2225. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000941
Popp, E. Y., & Serra, M. J. (2016). Adaptive memory: Animacy enhances free recall but impairs cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000174
Popp, E. Y., & Serra, M. J. (2018). The animacy advantage for free-recall performance is not attributable to greater mental arousal. Memory, 26(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1326507
Rawlinson, H. C., & Kelley, C. M. (2021). In search of the proximal cause of the animacy effect on memory: Attentional resource allocation and semantic representations. Memory & Cognition, 49(6), 1137–1152. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01154-5
Röer, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2013). Is the survival-processing memory advantage due to richness of encoding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1294–1302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031214
Schröder, A., Gemballa, T., Ruppin, S., & Wartenburger, I. (2012). German norms for semantic typicality, age of acquisition, and concept familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0164-y
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the ultimate–proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393528
Serra, M. J. (2021). Animate and inanimate words demonstrate equivalent retrieval dynamics despite the occurrence of the animacy advantage. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 661451. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661451
Sharot, T., Delgado, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2004). How emotion enhances the feeling of remembering. Nature Neuroscience, 7(12), 1376–1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1353
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.117.1.34
Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14(5), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02453
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080017
Umanath, S., & Coane, J. H. (2020). Face validity of remembering and knowing: Empirical consensus and disagreement between participants and researchers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1400–1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917672
VanArsdall, J. E., Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Blunt, J. R. (2013). Adaptive memory: Animacy processing produces mnemonic advantages. Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000186
VanArsdall, J. E., Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Cogdill, M. (2015). Adaptive memory: Animacy effects persist in paired-associate learning. Memory, 23(5), 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.916304
VanArsdall, J. E., Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Cogdill, M. (2017). A categorical recall strategy does not explain animacy effects in episodic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1159707
Williams, H. L., & Lindsay, D. S. (2019). Different definitions of the nonrecollection-based response option(s) change how people use the “remember” response in the remember/know paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 47(7), 1359–1374. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00938-0
Williams, H. L., & Moulin, C. J. (2015). Know versus familiar: Differentiating states of awareness in others’ subjective reports of recognition. Memory, 23(7), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.945460
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2002.2864
Yonelinas, A. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (2012). The process-dissociation approach two decades later: Convergence, boundary conditions, and new directions. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0205-5