Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 2014–2020 Friday Noon
(2014)
Representational Momentum: Impervious to Error Feedback?
SUSAN E. RUPPEL & CARMEN N. FLEMING, Francis Marion University,
& TIMOTHY L. HUBBARD, Texas Christian University—
Finke and Freyd (1985; Freyd, 1987) claimed that representational
momentum was impervious to error feedback. However, this claim
was based on presentation of feedback during a limited number of
practice trials and on use of inducing stimuli that were identical across
experimental trials. The present experiments examined potential effects
of the amount of feedback, while varying direction and location
of inducing stimuli across trials. Experiment 1 presented the same
limited feedback as that in Finke and Freyd’s study and showed no effect
of feedback on representational momentum. Experiment 2 included
four groups, each of whom received two blocks of trials. Each
group received either (1) no feedback, (2) feedback on the first but
not the second block, (3) feedback on the second but not the first
block, or (4) feedback on both blocks. A consistent effect of feedback
on representational momentum was not observed in Experiment 2. Implications
for theories of representational momentum are discussed.
(2015)
Sharing Eyegaze Is Better Than Speaking in a Time-Critical Consensus
Task. MARK B. NEIDER & XIN CHEN, SUNY, Stony Brook,
CHRISTOPHER A. DICKINSON, University of Delaware, & SUSAN
E. BRENNAN & GREGORY J. ZELINSKY, SUNY, Stony Brook—We
explored collaboration in a 2-person target-detection task where the
first person to find the target had to communicate its location to a
partner. Two partners (A, B) communicated verbally using an intercom
(shared voice, SV) or visually using gaze cursors (shared gaze,
SG). In the SG condition, a yellow ring (gaze cursor) representing A’s
eye position was superimposed over B’s search display, and vice versa.
The partners’ task was to attain mutual gaze (consensus) on a sniper
target. The target, a single red pixel, appeared randomly in the windows
of buildings in a pseudorealistic city scene. Time to consensus
was faster with SG than with SV, and the interval between first and
second partners fixating the target was shorter as well. These results
suggest that sharing eyegaze can be more efficient than speaking,
when people collaborate on tasks requiring the rapid communication
of spatial information.
(2016)
Shared Representational Processes in Spatial Language and Spatial
Working Memory. JOHN J. LIPINSKI, JOHN P. SPENCER, &
LARISSA K. SAMUELSON, University of Iowa—Research by Crawford
et al. (2000) suggests a strong division between representations
in spatial working memory and spatial language, consistent with a
broader theoretical division between “sensorimotor” and “cognitive”
systems (Bridgeman, 1999; Bridgeman et al., 2000; Brungart et al.,
2000). In three experiments, we provide evidence that spatial language
and spatial working memory rely on shared underlying representational
processes. Experiments 1 and 2 show that response delays yield
analogous effects in a spatial working memory task and when participants
give linguistic “above” ratings. Experiment 3 shows that the introduction
of enhanced perceptual structure along the vertical midline
symmetry axis of the task space reduces the impact of this delay in
both tasks. We propose a new model to account for these effects that
builds on the process-based dynamic field theory of spatial working
memory (Spencer & Schöner, 2003, 2005).
(2017)
Valence-Based Spatial Categories: The Role of Stimulus Distribution
and Orientational Metaphor. L. ELIZABETH CRAWFORD &
JOHN T. DRAKE, University of Richmond—In a study of inductive
spatial category learning, we manipulated the spatial distribution of
valenced stimuli to examine whether people form spatial categories
that capture regions of common stimulus valence, and whether category
learning is supported when the distribution is consistent with the
orientational metaphor good is up. Participants viewed positive and
72
negative stimuli in various locations and then reproduced each location
from memory. Some saw positive stimuli in the top half and negative
stimuli in the bottom half of space (metaphor congruent), some
saw the opposite pattern (metaphor incongruent), and some saw a random
distribution of stimuli. In the clustered conditions, but not in the
random condition, estimates were biased toward the centers of the top
and bottom halves of the screen, indicating that participants categorized
the space into valence-based regions. This category effect was
significantly stronger in the metaphor-congruent than in the metaphorincongruent
condition.
(2018)
Spatial Navigation Response to Social Objects in a Virtual Environment.
MARC M. SEBRECHTS, ANDREAS E. FINKELMEYER, &
CHERYL Y. TREPAGNIER, Catholic University of America—Eight
participants were asked to navigate through a virtual mall in order to
locate objects in stores, and paths and comments were recorded. The
virtual mall included both social (two persons conversing) and nonsocial
(two similarly spaced but inanimate) objects. Participant comments
indicated that the environment was treated in a realistic manner.
Individuals typically chose paths that represented the least
distance to their objectives, even when this required passing between
two persons. When distance cost for alternative routes was minimized
and simulated speech between virtual figures was made audible, participants
modified their paths to avoid passing between the represented
persons. The utility of this approach for assessing social awareness
and responsiveness is discussed.
• RETRIEVAL INHIBITION •
(2019)
Conditions Influencing Retrieval-Induced Forgetting in Episodic
Memory. DAVID P. YELLS, Utah Valley State College, & KENNETH
A. DEFFENBACHER, University of Nebraska, Omaha—Retrievalinduced
forgetting (RIF) occurs when practicing a subset of items
from a study list reduces subsequent retrieval of the remaining items
from that list. We attempted to demonstrate RIF in an episodic memory
paradigm using abstract nouns, several different intermediate
practice procedures, and a final recall task. In Experiment 1, RIF occurred
when the practice task was based on the initial letter of the
study items. In Experiment 2, RIF did not occur when the practice task
was based on the color of the study items. In Experiment 3, RIF did
not occur when the practice task was based on the background color
of the study list. Our results further support our contention that in
episodic memory paradigms, the occurrence of RIF is a function of
the nature of the study items, the type of practice task, and the type of
final retrieval task.
(2020)
Retrieval Induced Facilitation: Manifestation of the Testing Effect on
Previous Untested Materials. JASON C. K. CHAN, KATHLEEN B.
MCDERMOTT, & HENRY L. ROEDIGER III, Washington University—
Three experiments used educationally relevant prose materials to examine
how taking initial tests affects later memory for materials not
initially tested (but related to the materials that were tested). Experiments
1 and 2 showed that taking two initial tests on a subset of the
studied materials enhanced accurate recall performance on the initially
untested materials 24 h later, as compared with conditions in
which no retrieval practice had occurred. Importantly, this facilitative
effect was not seen when subjects were given additional study opportunities
(but not retrieval practice), suggesting a retrieval-specific facilitative
mechanism. Experiment 3 demonstrated this facilitative effect
in a single-day design in which tests followed in immediate
succession. These results are in line with some findings from the educational
literature (Rickards, 1979) and predictions emerging from
associative memory theories (e.g., Collins & Loftus, 1975), but are
opposite to predictions emerging from the retrieval-induced forgetting
literature (Anderson et al., 1994).