Advertisement

Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 496–510 | Cite as

Are mnemonic failures and benefits two sides of the same coin?: Investigating the real-world consequences of individual differences in memory integration

  • Nicole L. VargaEmail author
  • Trent Gaugler
  • Jennifer Talarico
Article
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

Theories of reconstructive memory have long been influenced by investigations of false recognition errors, in which old/new judgements are compromised by spontaneous activation of associated but nonpresented concepts. Recent evidence similarly suggests that reconstructive memory processes (so-called memory integration) also support positive learning behaviors, such as inferential reasoning. Despite prevailing hypotheses, the question of whether a common integration process underlies these seemingly disparate mnemonic outcomes is not well understood. To address this question, young adults, recruited from two institutions, completed the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (Deese, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814, 1995) and Bransford and Franks (Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331–350, 1971) false recognition paradigms, as well as an inferential paradigm (Varga & Bauer, Memory & Cognition, 45, 1014–1027, 2017b), all of which depend on integration of related information in memory. Across two experiments, the well-established tasks were adapted such that successful memory integration resulted in the same negative outcome (i.e., false recognition; Experiment 1) or positive outcome (i.e., inferential reasoning; Experiment 2). By capturing variability in item-to-item responding within and among tasks for each person, a common memory integration process was found to elicit positive and negative consequences in paradigms that required the combination of individual units to construct a composite understanding, but only when memory for directly learned and novel, integrated items were modeled together. Furthermore, linking task-related behavior to academic performance revealed that a greater propensity to integrate factual information (but not arbitrary materials) was related to higher SAT scores. Together, these results provide evidence for domain-general and domain-specific reconstructive mechanisms and their role in supporting educational success beyond the laboratory.

Keywords

Memory integration Reconstructive memory Semantic memory Recognition memory Episodic memory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by funding from NIH HD67359. The authors extend their sincere appreciation to Patricia J. Bauer for helpful discussions, valuable feedback, and ongoing support throughout the completion of this work. The authors also thank Allison McHayle and Zeyu Xue for collecting data at Lafayette College, as well as Veronica Morgan for assistance with obtaining academic records at Emory University. Finally, the authors extend their appreciation to all the individuals who participated in the research, without whom this work would not have been possible.

Supplementary material

13421_2018_887_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (124 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 124 kb)

References

  1. Alnosaier, W. S. (2007). Kenward-Roger approximate F test for fixed effects in mixed linear models. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, P. J., & Jackson, F. L. (2015). Semantic elaboration: ERPs reveal rapid transition from novel to known. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(1), 271–282. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037405 Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, P. J., & Varga, N. L. (2017). Similarity and deviation in event segmentation and memory integration: Commentary on Richmond, Gold, & Zacks, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). When things that were never experienced are easier to “remember” than things that were. Psychological Science, 9(6), 484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiappe, D., & MacDonald, K. (2005). The evolution of domain-general mechanisms in intelligence and learning. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(1), 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. College Board Research. (2009). ACT and SAT concordance tables (Office of Research and Development Research Notes, RN-40). Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchnote-2009-40-act-sat-concordance-tables.pdf
  9. Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esposito, A. G., & Bauer, P. J. (2017). Going beyond the lesson: Self-generating new factual knowledge in the classroom. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 153, 110–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kanning, M. K., Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Schlicht, W. M. (2013). How to investigate within-subject associations between physical activity and momentary affective states in everyday life: A position statement based on a literature overview. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(187), 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00187 Google Scholar
  14. Kenward, M. G., & Roger, J. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53, 983–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kumaran, D., & McClelland, J. L. (2012). Generalization through the recurrent interaction of episodic memories: A model of the hippocampal system. Psychological Review, 119(3), 573–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumaran, D., Summerfield, J. J., Hassabis, D., & Maguire, E. A. (2009). Tracking the emergence of conceptual knowledge during human decision making. Neuron, 63, 889–901. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.07.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marsh, E. J., Cantor, A. D., & Brashier, N. M. (2016). Believing that humans swallow spiders in their sleep: False beliefs as side effects of the processes that support accurate knowledge. In B Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 64, pp. 93–132). Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. McClelland, J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O’Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review, 102(3), 419–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(2), 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meade, M. L., Watson, J. M., Balota, D. A., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). The roles of spreading activation and retrieval mode in producing false recognition in the DRM paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Reilly, R. C., & Rudy, J. W. (2001). Conjunctive representations in learning and memory: Principles of cortical and hippocampal function. Psychological Review, 108(2), 311–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Preston, A. R., Shrager, Y., Dudukovic, N. M., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2004). Hippocampal contribution to the novel use of relational information in declarative memory. Hippocampus, 14(2), 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Qualtrics [Computer software]. (2016). Provo, UT: Qualtrics. Available from http://www.qualtrics.com
  24. Reinitz, M. T., & Hannigan, S. L. (2004). False memories for compound words: Role of working memory. Memory & Cognition, 32(3), 463–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814.Google Scholar
  26. Roediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2001). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roediger, H. L., III., Balota, D. A., & Watson, J. M. (2001). Spreading activation and arousal of false memories. In H. L. Roediger, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 95–115). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A., & Koutstaal, W. (1998). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schlichting, M. L., Mumford, J. A., & Preston, A. R. (2015). Learning-related representational changes reveal dissociable integration and separation signatures in the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. Nature Communications, 6(8151), 1–10.Google Scholar
  30. Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2015). Memory integration: Neural mechanisms and implications for behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schooler, J. W., & Tanaka, J. W. (1991). Composites, compromises, and CHARM: What is the evidence for blend memory representations?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(1), 96–100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.120.1.96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shohamy, D., & Wagner, A. D. (2008). Integrating memories in the human brain: Hippocampal-midbrain encoding of overlapping events. Neuron, 60(2), 378–389. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Varga, N. L., & Bauer, P. J. (2013). Effects of delays on 6-year-old children’s self-generation and retention of knowledge through integration. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 326–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Varga, N. L., & Bauer, P. J. (2017a). Using event-related potentials to inform the neurocognitive processes underlying knowledge extension through memory integration. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29(11), 1932–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Varga, N. L., & Bauer, P. J. (2017b). Young adults self-derive and retain new factual knowledge through memory integration. Memory & Cognition, 45, 1014–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Varga, N. L., Esposito, A. G., & Bauer, P. J. (2019). Cognitive correlates of memory integration across development: Explaining variability in an educationally relevant phenomenon. Manuscript under revision.Google Scholar
  37. Varga, N. L., Stewart, R. A., & Bauer, P. J. (2016). Integrating across episodes: Investigating the long-term accessibility of self-derived knowledge in 4-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watson, J. M., Bunting, M. F., Poole, B. J., & Conway, A. R. (2005). Individual differences in susceptibility to false memory in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 76–85.Google Scholar
  39. Zeithamova, D., Dominick, A. L., & Preston, A. R. (2012). Hippocampal and ventral medial prefrontal activation during retrieval-mediated learning supports novel inference. Neuron, 75(1), 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeithamova, D., & Preston, A. R. (2010). Flexible memories: Differential roles for medial temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex in cross-episode binding. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(44), 14676–14684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole L. Varga
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Trent Gaugler
    • 3
  • Jennifer Talarico
    • 4
  1. 1.PsychologyEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.University of TexasAustinUSA
  3. 3.MathematicsLafayette CollegeEastonUSA
  4. 4.PsychologyLafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations