Advertisement

Selective attention effects on recognition: the roles of list context and perceptual difficulty

  • Hanae DavisEmail author
  • Tamara M. Rosner
  • Maria C. D’Angelo
  • Ellen MacLellan
  • Bruce Milliken
Original Article
  • 89 Downloads

Abstract

Two recent studies reported superior recognition memory for items that were incongruent targets than for items that were congruent targets in a prior incidental study phase (Krebs et al. in Cereb Cortex (New York, NY) 25(3):833–843, 2015; Rosner et al. in Psychol Res 79(3):411–424, 2015). The present study examined this effect further by addressing two issues. First, we examined whether this effect is sensitive to the list context in which congruent and incongruent items are presented. In Experiment 1, this issue was addressed by manipulating the relative proportions of congruent and incongruent trials in the study phase. In Experiments 2A and 2B, the same issue was examined by contrasting randomly intermixed and blocked manipulations of congruency. The results of these experiments, as well as a trial-to-trial sequence analysis, demonstrate that the recognition advantage for incongruent over congruent items is robust and remarkably insensitive to list context. Second, we examined recognition of incongruent and congruent items relative to a single word baseline condition. Incongruent (Experiment 3A) and congruent (Experiment 3B) items were both better recognized than single word items, though this effect was substantially stronger for incongruent items. These results suggest that perceptual processing difficulty, rather than interference caused by different target and distractor identities on its own, contributes to the enhanced recognition of incongruent items. Together, the results demonstrate that processes that are sensitive to perceptual processing difficulty of items but largely insensitive to list context produce heightened recognition sensitivity for incongruent targets.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this study was provided in part by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant awarded to Bruce Milliken and an NSERC Doctoral Postgraduate Scholarship awarded to Hanae Davis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2013). Easily perceived, easily remembered? Perceptual interference produces a double dissociation between metamemory and memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 41(6), 897–903.Google Scholar
  2. Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2014). Perceptual fluency, auditory generation, and metamemory: Analyzing the perceptual fluency hypothesis in the auditory modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 429–440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366.Google Scholar
  4. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 367.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (1998). Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science, 280(5364), 747–749.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, C. S., & Van Veen, V. (2007). Anterior cingulate cortex and conflict detection: An update of theory and data. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 367–379.Google Scholar
  9. Craik, F. I. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present… and future? Memory, 10(5–6), 305–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Craik, F. I., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(2), 159–180.Google Scholar
  11. Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, H., Hashemi, A., Milliken, B., & Bennett, P. (2018). Perceptual blurring and recognition memory: A differential memory effect in pupil responses. Journal of Vision, 18(10), 834–834.Google Scholar
  13. Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 114–118.Google Scholar
  14. Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784–1790.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Egner, T. T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380–390.Google Scholar
  16. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.Google Scholar
  17. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 121(4), 480–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirshman, E., & Mulligan, N. (1991). Perceptual interference improves explicit memory but does not enhance data-driven processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(3), 507–513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirshman, E., Trembath, D., & Mulligan, N. (1994). Theoretical implications of the mnemonic benefits of perceptual interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 608–620.Google Scholar
  20. Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2000). Semantic informativeness mediates the detection of changes in natural scenes. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 213–235.Google Scholar
  21. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 68(1), 1–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 497–514.Google Scholar
  23. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513–541.Google Scholar
  24. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual-learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 110(3), 306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(2), 126–135.Google Scholar
  26. Joordens, S., & Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1534–1555.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kerns, J. G. (2006). Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an FMRI study of trial-to-trial adjustments on the Simon task. Neuroimage, 33(1), 399–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, I. I. I., Cho, A. W., Stenger, R. Y., Andrew, V., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303(5660), 1023–1026.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kintsch, W. (1970). Models for free recall and recognition. In D. A. Normal (Ed.), Models of humanmemory (pp. 331–373). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., De Belder, M., & Egner, T. (2015). Neural conflict-control mechanisms improve memory for target stimuli. Cerebral Cortex (New York, NY), 25(3), 833–843.Google Scholar
  31. LaPointe, M. R., Lupianez, J., & Milliken, B. (2013). Context congruency effects in change detection: Opposing effects on detection and identification. Visual Cognition, 21(1), 99–122.Google Scholar
  32. Loftus, G. R., & Mackworth, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(4), 565–572.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & cognition, 7(3), 166–174.Google Scholar
  34. Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 36(4), 684–700.Google Scholar
  35. Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McCabe, D. P., & Geraci, L. D. (2009). The influence of instructions and terminology on the accuracy of remember-know judgments. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 401–413.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.02.010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McDaniel, M. A., & Bugg, J. M. (2008). Instability in memory phenomena: A common puzzle and a unifying explanation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 237–255.Google Scholar
  39. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.Google Scholar
  40. Mulligan, N. W. (1996). The effects of perceptual interference at encoding on implicit memory, explicit memory, and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1067–1087.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Mulligan, N. W. (1999). The effects of perceptual interference at encoding on organization and order: Investigating the roles of item-specific and relational information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 54–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nairne, J. S. (1988). The mnemonic value of perceptual identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 248–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ortiz-Tudela, J., Milliken, B., Botta, F., LaPointe, M., & Lupiañez, J. (2017). A cow on the prairie vs. a cow on the street: Long-term consequences of semantic conflict on episodic encoding. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 81(6), 1264–1275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ortiz-Tudela, J., Milliken, B., Jiménez, L., & Lupiáñez, J. (2018). Attentional influences on memory formation: A tale of a not-so-simple story. Memory and Cognition, 46, 1–14.Google Scholar
  45. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy: Psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10.  https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means of access to the personal past. Memory & Cognition, 21(1), 89–102.Google Scholar
  48. Richter, F. R., & Yeung, N. (2012). Memory and cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1256–1263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosner, T. M., D’Angelo, M. C., MacLellan, E., & Milliken, B. (2015). Selective attention and recognition: Effects of congruency on episodic learning. Psychological Research, 79(3), 411–424.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosner, T. M., Davis, H., & Milliken, B. (2015). Perceptual blurring and recognition memory: A desirable difficulty effect revealed. Acta Psychologica, 160, 11–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosner, T. M., López-Benitez, R., D’Angelo, M. C., Thomson, D., & Milliken, B. (2018). Remembering “primed” words: A counter-intuitive effect of repetition on recognition memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 24–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Schlaghecken, F., & Martini, P. (2012). Context, not conflict, drives cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 272–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.Google Scholar
  55. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(6), 1345–1363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher’s handbook of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  57. Tversky, B. (1973). Encoding processes in recognition and recall. Cognitive psychology, 5(3), 275–287.Google Scholar
  58. Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467–472.Google Scholar
  59. Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(3), 631–650.Google Scholar
  60. Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and response conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 328–333.Google Scholar
  61. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517.Google Scholar
  63. Yonelinas, A. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (1995). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 622–643.Google Scholar
  64. Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 229–241.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and BehaviourMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Teaching Support and InnovationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.DelphiaTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations