Patterns of interaction-dominant dynamics in individual versus collaborative memory foraging
The extent to which a cognitive system’s behavioral dynamics fit a power law distribution is considered indicative of the extent to which that system’s behavior is driven by multiplicative, interdependent interactions between its components. Here, we investigate the dynamics of memory processes in individual and collaborating participants. Collaborative dyads showed the characteristic collaborative inhibition effect when compared to nominal groups in terms of the number of items retrieved in a categorical recall task, but they also generate qualitatively different patterns of search behavior. To categorize search behavior, we used multi-model inference to compare the degree to which five candidate models (normal, exponential, gamma, lognormal, and Pareto) described the temporal distribution of each individual and dyad’s recall processes. All individual and dyad recall processes were best fit by interaction-dominant distributions (lognormal and Pareto), but a clear difference emerged in that individual behavior is more power law, and collaborative behavior was more lognormal. We discuss these results in terms of the cocktail model (Holden et al. in Psychol Rev 116(2):318–342, 2009), which suggests that as a task becomes more constrained (such as through the necessity of collaborating), behavior can shift from power law to lognormal. This shift may reflect a decrease in the dyad’s ability to flexibly shift between perseverative and explorative search patterns. Finally, our results suggest that a fruitful avenue for future research would be to investigate the constraints modulating the shift from power law to lognormal behavior in collaborative memory search.
KeywordsInteraction dominance Power laws Multi-model inference Collaborative recall Collaborative memory Memory foraging Lévy processes
We would like to thank Jacqueline Pagobo and Maxine Varela for their assistance with data collection and coding, Nick Duran for his help with Praat annotations, and Drew Abney for helpful discussion.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Harris C, Keil P, Sutton J, Barnier A (2010) Collaborative remembering: When can remembering with others be beneficial? In: ASCS09: Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science, pp 131–134Google Scholar
- Kelso JAS (1995) Dynamic patterns: the self-organization of brain and behavior. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt RC, O’Brien B (1998) Modeling interpersonal coordination dynamics: implications for a dynamical theory of developing systems. In: Molenaar PC, Newell K (eds) Dynamics systems and development: beyond the metaphor. Erlbaum, Hillsday, pp 221–240Google Scholar
- Szary J, Dale R (2013) Dyadic cooperation enhances retrieval and recall of crossword solutions. In: Knauff M, Sebanz N, Pauen M, Wachsmuth I (eds) Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, AustinGoogle Scholar
- Szary J, Dale R (2014) Familiarity modulates the dynamics of collaborative inhibition in a trivia game. In: Bello P, Guarini M, McShane M, Scassellati B (eds) Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, AustinGoogle Scholar
- Szary J, Kello C, Dale R (2015) Memory foraging in a spatial domain. In: Noelle DC, Dale R, Warlaumont AS, Matlock T, Jennings CD, Yoshimi J, Maglio P (eds) Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, AustinGoogle Scholar
- Thompson G, Kello CT (2013) Searching semantic memory as a scale-free network: evidence from category recall and a wikipedia model of semantics. In: Knauff M, Sebanz N, Pauen M, Wachsmuth I (eds) Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, AustinGoogle Scholar