SLIDE 1
term Memory? Kowialiewski Benjamin Gorin Simon Majerus Steve - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
term Memory? Kowialiewski Benjamin Gorin Simon Majerus Steve - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Does Semantic Knowledge Influence Serial Order Processing In Short- term Memory? Kowialiewski Benjamin Gorin Simon Majerus Steve Introduction Verbal short-term memory: temporary storage of verbal information Recall Introduction Item
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Introduction
4 8 5 2
Item information Serial order information
SLIDE 4
Introduction
Linguistic knowledge stored in long-term memory influence verbal STM Ex: Words vs. Nonwords Semantically related vs. unrelated words
SLIDE 5
Introduction
4 8 5 2
Item information Serial order information
SLIDE 6
Introduction
4 8 5 2
Item information Serial order information
?
SLIDE 7
Introduction
Burgess & Hitch (2006)
SLIDE 8
Introduction
Majerus (2013)
SLIDE 9
Introduction
Short break
Temporal grouping There usually is a recall advantage for temporally grouped sequences. Both for item and serial order information.
SLIDE 10
Semantic grouping
Related condition A A A B B B Ex: leaf – tree – branch – arm – leg – hand Unrelated condition A B C D E F Ex: lake – hand – road – flute – mask – dress
SLIDE 11
Procedure
Unrelated – Ungrouped A A A B B B Related - Ungrouped A B C D E F A B C D E F Unrelated – Grouped A A A B B B Related - Grouped
SLIDE 12
Results
Item analysis Temporal grouping: BF10 > 100 , η² = .737 Semantic grouping: BF10 > 100, η² = .932 Temporal * Semantic: BF10 = 18.46, η² = .159
T e m p o ra l Ite m s re c a lle d
G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d 1 2 3 4 5 6 S e m a n tic a lly re la te d S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d
N = 39
SLIDE 13
Results
Order analysis Temporal grouping: BF10 > 100, η² = .696 Semantic grouping: BF01 = 1.17, η² = .077 Temporal * Semantic: BF10 = 1.7, η² = .135
T e m p o ra l O rd e r s c o re
G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d 0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0 S e m a n tic a lly re la te d S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d
N = 39
SLIDE 14
Results
Semantic grouping seems to have no impact on the proportion of order errors But: more fine-grained analysis also exist.
SLIDE 15
Results
Between-group transpositions Within-group transpositions
SLIDE 16
Results
Between-group transpositions Within-group transpositions
Temporal grouping: BF10 > 100, η² = .270 Semantic grouping: BF10 > 100, η² = .681 Temporal * Semantic: BF10 > 100, η² = .242
N = 39
T e m p o ra l In te rg ro u p e rro rs
G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d 0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0 S e m a n tic a lly re la te d S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d
T e m p o ra l In tra g ro u p e rro rs
G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d 0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0 S e m a n tic a lly re la te d S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d
SLIDE 17
Results
A A A B B B Experiment 2 A B A B A B Experiment 3 Experiment 4 A B A B A B
SLIDE 18
Discussion/Conclusion
Acheson, MacDonald & Postle (2011) Poirier, Saint-aubin, Mair, Tehan, Tolan (2015) Ginsburg, Archambeau, van Dijck, Chetail, & Gevers (2017) Our results support recent evidence showing that serial order processing may partially be coded through semantic knowledge
SLIDE 19
Discussion/Conclusion
Majerus (2013)
SLIDE 20
Discussion/Conclusion
What is the exact nature of these interactions?
SLIDE 21
Discussion/Conclusion
Page & Norris (1998) Poirier, Saint-aubin, Mair, Tehan, Tolan (2015)
SLIDE 22