Pairs do not suffer interference from other types of pairs or single items in associative recognition

Abstract

What is the source of interference on a memory test following study of a list containing different types of pairs? Many current models predict that pairs and singles of all types will jointly interfere and therefore harm memory. Such list length effects have often been observed for lists of a single-item type (e.g., a list of words). Here, we examine interference for lists containing multiple types of pairs (e.g., word-word, face-face, word-face). In three experiments, we manipulate the number of each type on the study list. In associative recognition, discrimination fell as the number of pairs of the same type rose, but the number of pairs of other types had little effect. That is, we found a list length effect within, but not between, classes of stimuli. We highlight the importance of representation and propose alternatives to current model representations that can predict such findings.

A Dynamic Approach to Recognition Memory

“…If tested with a picture, the probe will tend to be encoded with features that overlap with picture traces, but not with word traces, leading to a larger number of M and N outcomes with picture traces and P and T outcome with word traces. Thus, outcomes P and T can be used to correctly reject a test item that comes from a different class, in accord with findings that interference only manifests as a function of the number of studied items of the same type as the test item (Criss & Shiffrin, 2004b).…”

“…Criss and Shiffrin (2004b) suggest how this kind of representation can be augmented to represent different types of pairs. While this representation makes sense when all the items studied and tested are pairs, it is harder to justify when, as in the two studies under consideration, both single items and pairs can appear at either study or test.…”

Parallel interactive retrieval of item and associative information from event memory

“…For associations, interference is typically investigated in terms of "fan", i.e., the number of pairs that contain an overlapping element (Anderson, 1983a), such that the ability to tell whether a pair is intact or rearranged is impaired when the pair contains an item that has appeared in many pairs during study (Wickelgren & Corbett, 1977). While we found no evidence that self-pairs (AA and BB) interfered with whole pairs (AB) in this way, we would expect that presenting overlapping pairs (e.g., AC, AD) would selectively interfere with the retrieval of associative mismatch information and leave item mismatch retrieval unaffected (assuming equal item frequency), a pattern that has been reported before using accuracy measures (Criss & Shiffrin, 2004Buchler et al, 2008Buchler et al, , 2011Aue et al, 2012). It is not immediately clear to us whether overlapping pairs would also interfere with the retrieval of a holistic match; since match information arises jointly from both item and associative sources, it seems likely that interfering associations could intrude on the holistic match, but additional study would be needed to decide this question.…”

“…Models of episodic memory offer many approaches toward representing associations in a form that is separable from items, such as links in a network (Anderson, 1983b;Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984), concatenation of item features (Hintzman, 1988;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997), features added to memory traces (Criss & Shiffrin, 2004;Cox & Shiffrin, in press), outer products (Humphreys et al, 1989), or convolutions (Murdock, 1982). These models offer little guidance, however, regarding how those representations actually enter into memory in the first place.…”

“…Paradoxically, these results are more consistent with a strong interaction between item and associative retrieval in which item information serves to "gate" associative retrieval by providing a baseline or context against which later associative information is judged (Hockley, 1991;Criss & Shiffrin, 2005;Cox & Shiffrin, in press). A gating mechanism also explains why focusing on items impairs associative memory, but focusing on associations has no negative impact on item memory (Hockley & Cristi, 1996a) and why associative interference occurs only among pairs comprised of the same types of items (Criss & Shiffrin, 2004;Aue et al, 2012). Once again, these interactions imply not just that item and associative information are stored in the same memory structure, but that the processes used to retrieve them are not independent.…”