Semantic Effects in Verbal Short-term Memory

Investigating the impact of semantic knowledge and similarity on verbal short-term memory, this study delves into how imageability of words influences recall. Key findings highlight the influence of semantic relatedness and the imageability effect on memory retention, shedding light on the mechanisms underlying verbal information processing.

• Semantic Effects
• Verbal Memory
• Short-term Memory
• Memory Recall
• Cognitive Psychology

constan Follow

Uploaded on Sep 14, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Semantic Effects In Verbal Short-term Memory: Where Do They Come From? Kowialiewski Benjamin Majerus Steve

2. Introduction Verbal short-term memory: temporary storage of verbal information Recall

3. Introduction Semantic knowledge has a dramatic influence on vSTM span. A A A B B B Related A B C D E F Unrelated

4. Introduction Semantic similarity effect A A A B B B Ex: leaf tree branch arm leg hand A B C D E F Ex: lake hand road flute mask dress

5. Introduction A A A B B B High imageability words A B C D E F Low imageability words

6. Introduction Imageability effect A A A B B B Ex: pork waffel leg pencil ball cage A B C D E F Ex: stress wave tax glory gender smart

7. Introduction Martin, Saffran, & Dell (1996) Cowan (2001) Oberauer (2002) Majerus (2013) Long-term memory Focus of attention

8. Introduction Martin, Saffran, & Dell (1996) Cowan (2001) Oberauer (2002) Majerus (2013)

9. Introduction Martin, Saffran, & Dell (1996) Cowan (2001) Oberauer (2002) Majerus (2013)

10. Introduction Martin, Saffran, & Dell (1996) Cowan (2001) Oberauer (2002) Majerus (2013)

11. Dell (1986) Martin, Saffran & Dell (1996) Introduction RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

12. Dell (1986) Martin, Saffran & Dell (1996) Introduction: the semantic similarity effect RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

13. Dell (1986) Martin, Saffran & Dell (1996) Introduction: the semantic similarity effect RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

14. Dell (1986) Martin, Saffran & Dell (1996) Introduction: the semantic similarity effect RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

15. Dell (1986) Martin, Saffran & Dell (1996) Introduction: the semantic similarity effect RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG Decay!

16. Introduction Interactive activations should continue to occur when the focus of attention is taken away from linguistic representations.

17. Dell (1986) Martin, Saffran & Dell (1996) Introduction: the semantic similarity effect RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

18. Experiment 1

19. Method: Experiment 1 Ex: leaf tree branch arm leg hand Ex: lake hand road flute mask dress

20. Method: Experiment 1 Ex: leaf tree branch arm leg hand Ex: lake hand road flute mask dress

21. Method: Experiment 1 Recall Recall Interference Recall Recall Interference Recall Interference Recall

22. Method: Experiment 1 5 seconds Interference 45 45 42 39

23. Method: Experiment 1 RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

24. Method: Experiment 1 RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

25. Results: Experiment 1 1.0 1.0 N o interference Interference 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 P ro p o rtio n R e ca lle d P ro p o rtio n R e ca lle d 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 Related 0.2 0.2 Unrelated 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 S e ria l P o sitio n S e ria l P o sitio n Interference x Semantic: BF10 = 4688 N = 30

26. Experiment 2a

27. Method: Experiment 2a Imageability effect A A A B B B Ex: pork waffel leg pencil ball cage A B C D E F Ex: stress wave tax glory gender smart

28. Method: Experiment 2a RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

29. Results: Experiment 2a 1.0 1.0 N o interference Interference 0.9 0.9 High imageability 0.8 0.8 Low imageability 0.7 0.7 P ro p o rtio n R e ca lle d P ro p o rtio n R e ca lle d 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 S e ria l P o sitio n S e ria l P o sitio n Interference x Imageability: BF01 = 1.93 N = 30

30. Experiment 2b

31. Method: Experiment 2b Recall Recall Interference Recall Recall Interference Recall Interference Recall

32. Method: Experiment 2b Recall Recall Recall Recall Interference Recall Interference Recall Interference

33. Results: Experiment 2b 1.0 1.0 N o interference Interference 0.9 0.9 High imageability 0.8 0.8 Low imageability 0.7 0.7 P ro p o rtio n R e ca lle d P ro p o rtio n R e ca lle d 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 S e ria l P o sitio n S e ria l P o sitio n Interference x Imageability: BF01 = 3.98 N = 30

34. Discussion The semantic similarity effect was stronger under interference. This was not observed as regards the imageability effect.

35. Discussion RAT DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG

36. Discussion CAT LOG

37. Discussion CAT

38. Discussion CAT

39. Discussion CAT

40. Discussion Imageability effect Normal pace Slow pace Campoy, Castell , Provencio, Hitch, & Baddeley (2015)

41. Discussion Kowialiewski & Majerus (2018), JML

42. Conclusion Interactive activation can occur automatically, when attention is driven away from vSTM content. This is not the case as regards high imageability words, whose semantic features require deeper activation within the linguistic system.

43. Thank you for your attention

44. Discussion Evans, Lambon Ralph, & Woollams (2012)

45. Dell (1986) Martin, Saffran & Dell (1996) Introduction DOG CAT MAT LOG FOG RAT M C D A O G T

46. Discussion CAT

47. Discussion CAT