Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Dual-process theory holds that memory are based on two processes: familiarity and recollection. Familiarity refers to the feeling of knowing something or someone without the retrieval of additional information. In contrast, recollection includes remembering contextual information about the learning episode. While there is agreement that item memory can be supported by both processes, associative memory is generally thought to be supported by recollection only. However, recent research suggested that familiarity can also contribute to associative memory when the to-be-associated stimuli are unitized during encoding. Graf and Schacter (1989) defined this manipulation as unitization. Subsequently, a large number of behavioral studies, ERP studies, fMRI studies, and studies of older adults began to examine the effect of unitizaiton on associative memory and its processing. The results consistently showed that both top-down unitizaiton and bottom-up unitizaiton increased the contribution of familiarity to associative memory. However, some issues have been overlooked in these studies. First, the vast majority of studies have considered only the effect of single-modality unitization on associative memory, while only a very small number of studies have compared the effect of different unitization on associative memory. A review of these studies reveals that conceptual unitization has a higher level of unitization than perceptual unitization and interactive imagery task, and that interactive imagery task may have a higher level of unitization than conceptual definition task. However, no studies directly compared the level of unitization between conceptual unitization and conceptual definition task, and between perceptual unitization and interactive imagery/conceptual definition tasks. Second, limited by experimental material selection and memory load, most studies have not matched the level of unitization between the studied and rearranged pairs. Liu et al. (2020) first introduced the variable of unitization-congruence, and three studies consistently revealed that unitization-congruence does moderate the effect of unitization on associative memory. This finding not only help resolve the current debates in the literature concerning the influence of unitization on associative memory, but also reveal the optimal condition to benefit associative recognition from unitization—when item pairs with high level of unitization at encoding are rearranged into item pairs with lower level of unitization at retrieval. Again, while it is widely accepted that unitization can facilitate the contribution of familiarity to associative memory, there is disagreement about the effect of unitization on the memory of the individual items that comprise the association. The ‘benefits-only’ account argues that unitization facilitates associative memory without impairing item memory, whereas the ‘benefits and costs’ account argues that unitization facilitates associative memory at the expense of item memory. A review of existing studies suggests that limited cognitive resources and semantic relatedness between the old and new words may be important in explaining these two accounts. Finally, there are three apparently different hypotheses about the mechanisms by which unitization occurs, namely, the item hypothesis, the schema hypothesis, and the semantic elaboration hypothesis. Combining the effects of unitization on associative and item memory, the item hypothesis seems more reasonable. In summary, we can not only compare the facilitation effect of different unitization on associative memory but also explore its lifelong development pattern in further study, provided that unitization-congruence needs to be taken into account.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2022-05-26
Abstract：
Associative recognition is generally thought to require recollection while familiarity cannot support it. However, recent studies suggested that familiarity can also contribute to associative recognition when the to-be-associated stimuli are unitized during encoding. Here, we reviewed these studies and concluded that: (1) The effect of unitization on associative recognition was affected by unitization-congruence (i.e. whether the level of unitization were changed from study to test); (2) The effect of unitization on item recognition might be moderated by two factors, one is the semantic relatedness between the old and new words, the other is the limited cognitive resources; (3) There are three possible theoretical explanations for the mechanisms of unitization, namely, the item account, the schema account, and the semantic elaboration hypothesis. In future research, we can not only compare the facilitation effect of different unitization on associative memory but also explore its lifelong development pattern, provided that unitization-congruence needs to be taken into account.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： It is widely accepted that unitization can promote familiarity-based associative recognition, but its effect on recognition of individual components remains unclear. A few studies have focused on this question and shown two different accounts: One is “benefits and costs” account which argues that unitization promote associative recognition at the cost of item recognition, the other is “benefits-only” account which holds that unitization can promote associative recognition without impairing item recognition. In the current study, we aimed to explore how unitization influence associative and item recognition. Twenty-nine participants took part in the study. To avoid fatigue effects, three study-test cycles were completed with a short break (2 min) in between. For each cycle, 96 word pairs were encoded at a rate of 4 s each, with a 900~1100 ms fixation cross between trials. Forty-eight word pairs were presented in compound word pairs (CW) and 48 word pairs were presented in non-compound word pairs (NCW). After a 2-min distracting phase, participants took part in an associative recognition test, in which 64 word pairs were presented: (1) CW-intact word pairs, (2) CW-rearranged word pairs, (3) NCW-intact word pairs, and (4) NCW-rearranged word pairs. In order to matched the level of unitzation between the studied and tested word pairs, two compound word pairs were rearranged into a new compound word pairs, and the same is true of non-compound word pairs. The remaining four words were used as old stimuli in item recognition test. After all three cycles are completed, participants then took part in an item recognition test. The item test was also divided into three cycles. For each cycle, 96 single words were presented: (1) Compound-old words, (2) Non-compound-old words, and (3) new words. In both associative and item recognition tests, participants were instructed to press the “F” if the word pairs or words had been learned at encoding and to press the “J” otherwise. Meanwhile, the EEG was recorded. First, the results showed higher level of unitization and faster RTs for compound word pairs than for non-compound word pairs at encoding. It indicated that the manipulation of unitization was effective in the current study. Second, concerning associative recognition, an enhanced recognition performance, with a larger familiarity-related FN400 effect and recollection-related LPC effect, was observed for compound word pairs than for non-compound word pairs. This results suggested that unitization could improve associative recognition performance through increasing the contribution of familiarity and recollection simultaneously. And finally, an equivalent item recognition performance between the two word pairs was found, despite the compound word pairs elicited a larger FN400 effect than the non-compound word pairs. This indicated that unitization did not impair the item recognition performance. In summary, the current study suggests that unitization not only facilitates associative recognition but also does not impair item recognition, supporting the “benefits-only” account. Importantly, familiarity can support associative recognition when the two items were unitized into a new presentation. This means that unitization is an effective strategy for improving associative memory, especially for groups with impaired recollection.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2022-06-03
Abstract：
It is widely accepted that unitization can promote familiarity-based associative recognition, but its effect on recognition of individual components remains unclear. A few studies have focused on this question and shown two different accounts: One is “benefits and costs” account which argues that unitization promote associative recognition at the cost of item recognition, the other is “benefits-only” account which holds that unitization can promote associative recognition without impairing item recognition. In the current study, we aimed to explore how unitization influence associative and item recognition.
Twenty-nine participants took part in the study. To avoid fatigue effects, three study-test cycles were completed with a short break (2 min) in between. For each cycle, 96 word pairs were encoded at a rate of 4 s each, with a 900 ~ 1100 ms fixation cross between trials. Forty-eight word pairs were presented in compound word pairs (CW) and 48 word pairs were presented in non-compound word pairs (NCW). After a 2-min distracting phase, participants took part in an associative recognition test, in which 64 word pairs were presented: (1) CW-intact word pairs, (2) CW-rearranged word pairs, (3) NCW-intact word pairs, and (4) NCW-rearranged word pairs. In order to matched the level of unitzation between the studied and tested word pairs, two compound word pairs were rearranged into a new compound word pairs, and the same is true of non-compound word pairs. The remaining four words were used as old stimuli in item recognition test. After all three cycles are completed, participants then took part in an item recognition test. The item test was also divided into three cycles. For each cycle, 96 single words were presented: (1) Compound-old words, (2) Non-compound-old words, and (3) new words. In both associative and item recognition tests, participants were instructed to press the “F” if the word pairs or words had been learned at encoding and to press the “J” otherwise. Meanwhile, the EEG was recorded.
First, the results showed higher level of unitization and faster RTs for compound word pairs than for non-compound word pairs at encoding. It indicated that the manipulation of unitization was effective in the current study. Second, concerning associative recognition, an enhanced recognition performance, with a larger familiarity-related FN400 effect and recollection-related LPC effect, was observed for compound word pairs than for non-compound word pairs. This results suggested that unitization could improve associative recognition performance through increasing the contribution of familiarity and recollection simultaneously. And finally, an equivalent item recognition performance between the two word pairs was found, despite the compound word pairs elicited a larger FN400 effect than the non-compound word pairs. This indicated that unitization did not impair the item recognition performance.
In summary, the current study suggests that unitization not only facilitates associative recognition but also does not impair item recognition, supporting the “benefits-only” account. Importantly, familiarity can support associative recognition when the two items were unitized into a new presentation. This means that unitization is an effective strategy for improving associative memory, especially for groups with impaired recollection.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Associative memory (item 1 - item 2) has three discrete components: item 1, item 2, and the association between item 1 and item 2. The recognition of item 1 and item 2 is referred to as item recognition, whereas the recognition of the pairing relationship between item1 and item2 is called associative recognition. The dual-process theory posits that both familiarity and recollection can contribute to item recognition, though associative recognition can only be supported by recollection. Nonetheless, many recent studies found otherwise, particularly when the to-be-learned items are perceived as a single unitized representation during the study, familiarity can also contribute to associative recognition. However, very few studies have yet to examine the role of unitization on item recognition in associative memory. Currently, there are two opposing point of views. One is the ‘benefits only’ account, which claims that unitization can increase the associative recognition without affecting the item recognition; the other is the ‘costs and benefits’ account, which claims that the unitization increases the associative recognition at the cost of item recognition. Future studies are needed to investigate the impact of unitization on item recognition in associative memory and its neural mechanisms. Understanding the specific role of unitization in item and associative recognition will help to select appropriate encoding methods for specific memory tasks to improve memory performance.
Subjects: Psychology >> Experimental Psychology submitted time 2023-09-07
Abstract： Attentional blink (AB) is a phenomenon in which identifying the second of two targets (T2) is impaired when it appears 200~500 ms after the first target (T1). This phenomenon reflects the limitation of conscious processing in the temporal dimension. However, emotional T2 can attenuate AB compared to neutral T2. This provides an observation window and research means for understanding the preferential processing of emotional stimuli. The phenomenon of emotional T2 attenuating AB is influenced by factors such as the difficulty of T1, the task demand of T2 and emotional expectation. The brain regions primarily involved in emotional T2 attenuating AB include the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex, and orbitofrontal cortex. In the temporal dimension, compared to neutral T2, emotional T2 exhibits enhanced effects in both the early and late stages of cognitive processing. The “Attentional Enhancement and Consolidation Competition Hypothesis” was proposed to explain the underlying mechanism of emotional T2 attenuating AB. The early attentional capture of emotional information mediated by the amygdala is key to reducing AB for emotion, while task demand and other top-down factors modulate the late consolidation process.
Subjects: Other Disciplines >> Synthetic discipline submitted time 2023-10-09 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： In collaborative memory, the memory performances of collaborative and equal-sized nominal groups were measured by the number of correctly recalled items. By comparing the correct recall results between the two groups, collaboration during the retrieval phase is seen to possibly result in collaborative inhibition and collaborative facilitation. However, recall error items were also essential indicators of collaboration. Several studies have considered error recall items as indicators to show that collaboration is beneficial in reducing errors. The phenomenon of collaborative groups recording significantly fewer recall errors than nominal groups is referred to as the “error pruning effect.” The mechanisms and moderators of the collaborative inhibition effect have been explored in several previous studies, but evidence on the mechanism of the “error pruning effect” is scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the robustness of error pruning in collaborative memory and to examine the potential mechanisms and moderators. Studies were identified with several keywords, including “collaborative memory”, “collaborative recall”, “collaborative inhibition”, and “collaborative facilitation”. English language databases, including Web of Science, Science Direct, EBSCO, and ProQuest, as well as the Chinese language database CNKI, were searched. From 38 empirical studies (from a total sample N = 6225), 64 independent samples were included. We chose the random-effect model to conduct the meta-analysis using CMA 3.3. The 64 independent samples showed considerable heterogeneity. Moreover, no substantial publication bias was found in the studies, which was confirmed by the funnel plot, fail-safe number, and trim and fill methods. Standardized mean differences measured by Hedges’ g were used as the effect size index in the meta-analysis. The main effect showed a large and robust error pruning effect and collaborative inhibition effect in the results. Moreover, the results indicated that the collaborative inhibition effect commonly accompanies the error pruning effect. Further analysis revealed that collaborative approaches and interpersonal relationships moderate the error pruning effect. In particular, collaboration of free-flowing and consensus building enhanced the error pruning effect, while collaboration had no significant effect on the inhibition effect. The type of material had no significant effect on error pruning, while story material increased collaborative inhibition. Familiar relationships increased the error pruning effect, but they weakened collaborative inhibition. Overall, the study results demonstrated the effect of collaborative recall on inhibiting error and improving accuracy. Collaboration and interpersonal relationships may act as important moderating variables in the process. Although error pruning resulted from a feeling of knowing through recall from collaborative partners, it required a relatively low level of processing. Lastly, efficient error correction could be easily achieved through sufficient communication.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2023-07-17
Abstract： In collaborative memory, the memory performances of collaborative and equal-sized nominal groups were measured by the number of correctly recalled items. By comparing the correct recall results between the two groups, collaboration during the retrieval phase is seen to possibly result in collaborative inhibition and collaborative facilitation. However, recall error items were also essential indicators of collaboration. Several studies have considered error recall items as indicators to show that collaboration is beneficial in reducing errors. The phenomenon of collaborative groups recording significantly fewer recall errors than nominal groups is referred to as the “error pruning effect.” The mechanisms and moderators of the collaborative inhibition effect have been explored in several previous studies, but evidence on the mechanism of the “error pruning effect” is scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the robustness of error pruning in collaborative memory and to examine the potential mechanisms and moderators.
Studies were identified with several keywords, including “collaborative memory,” “collaborative recall,” “collaborative inhibition,” and “collaborative facilitation.” English language databases, including Web of Science, Science Direct, EBSCO, and ProQuest, as well as the Chinese language database CNKI, were searched. From 38 empirical studies (from a total sample N = 6225), 64 independent samples were included. We chose the random-effect model to conduct the meta-analysis using CMA3.3. The 64 independent samples showed considerable heterogeneity. Moreover, no substantial publication bias was found in the studies, which was confirmed by the funnel plot, fail-safe number, and trim and fill methods.
Standardized mean differences measured by Hedges’ g were used as the effect size index in the meta-analysis. The main effect showed a large and robust error pruning effect and collaborative inhibition effect in the results. Moreover, the results indicated that the collaborative inhibition effect commonly accompanies the error pruning effect. Further analysis revealed that collaborative approaches and interpersonal relationships moderate the error pruning effect. In particular, collaboration of free-flowing and consensus building enhanced the error pruning effect, while collaboration had no significant effect on the inhibition effect. The type of material had no significant effect on error pruning, while story material increased collaborative inhibition. Familiar relationships increased the error pruning effect, but they weakened collaborative inhibition.
Overall, the study results demonstrated the effect of collaborative recall on inhibiting error and improving accuracy. Collaboration and interpersonal relationships may act as important moderating variables in the process. Although error pruning resulted from a feeling of knowing through recall from collaborative partners, it required a relatively low level of processing. Lastly, efficient error correction could be easily achieved through sufficient communication.
Subjects: Astronomy submitted time 2024-01-31 Cooperative journals: 《天文学报》
Abstract： Connected Element Interferometry (CEI) has been used for space surveillance as an all-day, all-weather passive tracking technique. Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) satellite requires frequent maneuver planning to maintain its subsatellite position or accomplish other tasks, which makes rapid orbit recovery extremely important for surveillance and early warning whenever a maneuver ends. This paper is to investigate CEI-based GEO short-arc orbit determination. Firstly, rank-deficiency in the conventional orbit determination algorithm is demonstrated and a priori orbit constraint is given to strengthen the positive definiteness of normal matrix. Then an adaptive optimization method to solve for the initial value of semi-major axis is proposed. Finally, two short-arc orbit determination and prediction experiments are carried out using both the simulated and measured CEI data of Asia-Pacific STAR 7 (APSTAR 7) satellite. The results show that an accuracy of 4 km is achievable for 30-min short-arc orbit determination and 10-min orbit prediction by using the proposed algorithm, which can meet the demands of rapid orbit recovery for non-cooperative GEO targets after maneuvers.
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment
YES