S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Sunday Morning Papers 270–276
items in new pairings), inverted-format pairs (studied pairs in which
the picture–word format of each item was switched), half-old pairs (1
studied item, 1 unstudied item), and new pairs (2 unstudied items). Patients,
particularly those with confabulation, committed more false
alarms to inverted-format pairs than did controls. In contrast, false
alarms to rearranged pairs and other lures did not differ between
groups. These findings suggest that AR and SM tap distinct processes,
with only the latter depending on ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
8:40–8:55 (270)
Cognitive Functioning Mediates the Use of Distinctive Processing
in Reducing Memory Illusions. AYANNA K. THOMAS, Tufts University,
& MARK A. MCDANIEL, Washington University—Recent
studies suggest that distinctive processing can reduce errors of commission
(Arndt & Reder, 2003). The present study examines the relationship
between two aspects of distinctive processing (item-specific
and relational) in younger adults, high frontal lobe functioning (FLF)
older adults, and low FLF older adults. Variables presumed to affect
both relational and item-specific processing were manipulated. Younger
adults and high FLF older adults showed reductions in errors of commission
when item-specific processing was executed. Furthermore,
item-specific processing did not necessarily lead to impoverished relational
processing; however, low FLF older adults showed reductions in
errors of commission only when relational processing was impoverished.
The results suggest that item-specific and relational processing
may be performed in parallel and may not compete for finite resources.
However, cognitive decline did affect the use of item-specific and relational
information. These findings suggest a model that accounts for
distinctive processing as a function of age-related cognitive decline.
9:00–9:15 (271)
Adaptive Memory: Is Survival Processing Special? JAMES S.
NAIRNE & JOSEFA N. S. PANDEIRADA, Purdue University—
Nairne, Thompson, and Pandeirada (2007) recently proposed that our
memory systems might be “tuned” to remember information that is
processed for survival, perhaps as a result of fitness advantages accrued
in our ancestral past. Across several experiments participants
showed superior memory when unrelated words were rated for survival,
at least when compared with several “deep” processing control
conditions. The present experiments extend this “survival effect” to
related lists containing survival-relevant categories. Rating words for
survival in a categorized list, compared to rating the same words for
pleasantness, produced the best recall, even though individual-item
processing (e.g., rating for pleasantness) in a related list is thought to
be an optimal procedure for enhancing subsequent recall. We also report
the results of a category-sorting experiment in which items were
sorted into the same four categories, but those categories were labeled
as either survival-relevant or not.
9:20–9:35 (272)
Differential Effects of Emotional Content in Working Memory and
Recognition. SUSANNE M. JAEGGI, MARTIN BUSCHKUEHL, &
WALTER J. PERRIG, University of Bern (sponsored by Rudolf
Groner)—Emotional content enhances memory performance. In general,
there is a positive recall bias and sometimes, there is a slight advantage
for negative material, which is explained by attentional
processes. Only a few studies investigate the impact of emotional content
on both working memory performance and long-term memory
within subjects. We used a working memory task with neutral, happy,
and angry faces as emotional stimuli. In a surprise recognition task 1 h
after task completion, participants had to indicate which faces were
presented in the working memory task before. We found differential
effects of emotional content in the working memory task and recognition:
Whereas in the working memory task, performance was best for
the angry faces, participants had the longest reaction times to the angry
faces in the recognition task, a dissociation which is interpreted by automatic
and attention-related processes in the working memory condition,
and by mood-repair processes in the recognition task.
42
9:40–9:55 (273)
Inhibition of Eye Movements to Memorized Locations. ARTEM V.
BELOPOLSKY & JAN THEEUWES, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam—
Recent research has shown a direct link between spatial working memory
and activation of the eye movement system. It was argued that
keeping a location in working memory may be nothing else than the
preparation of an eye movement. The present study further examined
this question. Participants were asked to maintain a location in memory
and on half of the trials to make a saccade in response to a central
cue. On half of the trials, the location of the saccade target coincided
with a location kept in memory. We found that participants were
slower in making a saccade to a location kept in spatial working memory
relative to other locations. This inhibition was significantly
greater than inhibition of return caused by the mere presentation of
the cue. The results suggest strong involvement of oculomotor system
in maintenance of spatial working memory.
Concept Learning
Beacon A, Sunday Morning, 8:00–10:00
Chaired by Carol A. Seger, Colorado State University
8:00–8:15 (274)
Four Lessons From Cognitive Neuroscience for Category Learning.
CAROL A. SEGER, Colorado State University—First, abstraction and
generalization processes in category learning are situational and limited.
Some neural systems can generalize to new stimuli; others cannot.
Second, cognitive processes recruited during a categorization task that
researchers often assume to be inconsequential in actuality affect
learning. For example, small differences in the characteristics of the
feedback signal in category learning tasks have significant effects on
neural recruitment and resulting learning. Third, categorization is
procedural (that is, reliant on motor systems) to a greater degree than
generally appreciated. Neural systems underlying motor processing
are recruited during categorization, and category knowledge is often
specific to a particular associated motor response. Fourth, the same
neural systems are often recruited regardless of whether category
learning is implicit or explicit. Therefore, the accessibility of learning
to conscious awareness may not be a fundamental distinction that
can be used to differentiate between learning systems.
8:20–8:35 (275)
Mental Models and Boolean Concept Learning. GEOFFREY P.
GOODWIN & PHILIP N. JOHNSON-LAIRD, Princeton University—
A common source of new concepts is a Boolean combination of existing
concepts—for example, pregnant or nursing women, and not on
medication. As this example illustrates, any Boolean concept can be
defined solely from a combination of properties using negation (not),
conjunction (and), and inclusive disjunction (or). A common intuition
underlying theories of the learning of these concepts is that individuals
attempt to simplify the information presented to them; for example,
they seek a parsimonious decision tree or, in a recent account, a
minimal description of the concept. Here, we show that the intuition is
correct, but that what is minimized is neither a decision tree nor a description,
but the mental models of the concept. A single, theoretically
derived parameter—number of mental models—predicts the difficulty
of learning Boolean concepts better than more elaborate previous accounts.
The results of a new experiment also corroborate the theory.
8:40–8:55 (276)
Task Switching in Category Learning: Evidence for Stimulus-
Dependent Representation. MICHAEL A. ERICKSON, University
of California, Riverside—ATRIUM, a multiple-system model of category
learning, posits that within a single category-learning task people
can learn to utilize different systems with different representations
to classify different stimuli. This is referred to as stimulus-dependent
representation (SDR). The use of SDR implies that people are switching
from task to task as trials demand. Thus, the use of SDR can be