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 information 4 8 5 2 Serial order information

Introduction Linguistic knowledge stored in long-term memory influence verbal STM Ex: Words vs. Nonwords Semantically related vs. unrelated words

Introduction Item information 4 8 5 2 Serial order information

Introduction Item information 4 8 5 2 Serial order information ?

Introduction Burgess & Hitch (2006)

Introduction Majerus (2013)

Introduction Short break Temporal grouping There usually is a recall advantage for temporally grouped sequences. Both for item and serial order information.

Semantic grouping A A A B B B Related condition Ex: leaf – tree – branch – arm – leg – hand A B C D E F Unrelated condition Ex: lake – hand – road – flute – mask – dress

Procedure A B C D E F Unrelated – Ungrouped A B C D E F Unrelated – Grouped A A A B B B Related - Ungrouped A A A B B B Related - Grouped

Results N = 39 Item analysis 6 Temporal grouping: 5 BF 10 > 100 , η ² = .737 Ite m s re c a lle d 4 Semantic grouping: BF 10 > 100, η ² = .932 3 Temporal * Semantic: S e m a n tic a lly re la te d BF 10 = 18.46, η ² = .159 2 S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d 1 0 G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d T e m p o ra l

Results N = 39 Order analysis 1 .0 0 .9 Temporal grouping: 0 .8 BF 10 > 100, η ² = .696 0 .7 O rd e r s c o re Semantic grouping: 0 .6 BF 01 = 1.17, η ² = .077 0 .5 Temporal * Semantic: S e m a n tic a lly re la te d 0 .4 BF 10 = 1.7, η ² = .135 S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .0 G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d T e m p o ra l

Results Semantic grouping seems to have no impact on the proportion of order errors But: more fine-grained analysis also exist.

Results Between-group transpositions Within-group transpositions

Results Between-group transpositions Within-group transpositions N = 39 1 .0 1 .0 0 .9 0 .9 S e m a n tic a lly re la te d 0 .8 0 .8 In te rg ro u p e rro rs In tra g ro u p e rro rs S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d 0 .7 0 .7 Temporal grouping: 0 .6 0 .6 BF 10 > 100, η ² = .270 0 .5 0 .5 Semantic grouping: 0 .4 0 .4 BF 10 > 100, η ² = .681 S e m a n tic a lly re la te d 0 .3 0 .3 Temporal * Semantic: S e m a n tic a lly u n re la te d 0 .2 0 .2 BF 10 > 100, η ² = .242 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d G ro u p e d U n g ro u p e d T e m p o ra l T e m p o ra l

Results A A A B B B Experiment 2 A B A B A B Experiment 3 A B A B A B Experiment 4

Discussion/Conclusion Our results support recent evidence showing that serial order processing may partially be coded through semantic knowledge Acheson, MacDonald & Postle (2011) Poirier, Saint-aubin, Mair, Tehan, Tolan (2015) Ginsburg, Archambeau, van Dijck, Chetail, & Gevers (2017)

Discussion/Conclusion Majerus (2013)

Discussion/Conclusion What is the exact nature of these interactions?

Discussion/Conclusion Page & Norris (1998) Poirier, Saint-aubin, Mair, Tehan, Tolan (2015)

Thank you for your attention