Advertisement

Does semantic knowledge influence event segmentation and recall of text?

  • Kimberly M. NewberryEmail author
  • Heather R. Bailey
Article
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

Knowledge benefits episodic memory, particularly when provided before encoding (Anderson & Pichert in Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(1), 1–12, 1978; Bransford & Johnson in Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726, 1972). These benefits can occur through several encoding mechanisms, one of which may be event segmentation. Event segmentation is one’s ability to parse information into meaningful units as an activity unfolds. The current experiment evaluated whether two top-down manipulations—providing context or perspective taking—influence the segmentation and memory of text. For the ambiguous texts in Experiment 1, half the participants received context in the form of a title, whereas the other half received no context. For the text in Experiment 2, half the participants read from the perspective of a burglar and the other half read from the perspective of a home buyer. In both experiments, participants read the passages, recalled the information, and then segmented the passages into meaningful units. Consistent with previous findings, participants who received context recalled more information compared with those who received no context, and participants in one perspective were more likely to recall information relevant to their perspective. Most importantly, we found that context and perspective facilitated more normative segmentation; however, the differences were small and suggest that effects of top-down processing on the segmentation of text may be modest at best. Thus, event segmentation processes that operate during text comprehension are influenced by semantic knowledge but may be more heavily driven by other factors (e.g., perceptual cues).

Keywords

Event cognition Segmentation Knowledge Memory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the undergraduate research assistants in the Memory and Aging Lab for their help with data collection and scoring. No conflicts of interest to report.

Author contribution

Both authors contributed to the study concept, study design, and programming of the experiment. K. Newberry took the lead on data collection and data scoring. K. Newberry performed the data analyses under the supervision of H. Bailey. K. Newberry also drafted the manuscript, and H. Bailey provided revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. Auble, P. M., & Franks, J. J. (1978). The effects of effort toward comprehension on recall. Memory & Cognition, 6, 20–25.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, H. R., Kurby, C. A., Sargent, J. Q., & Zacks, J. M. (2017). Attentional focus affects how events are segmented and updated in narrative text. Memory & Cognition, 45(6), 940–955.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0707-2 Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, H. R., & Zacks, J. M. (2015). Situation model updating in young and older adults: Global versus incremental mechanisms. Psychology and Aging, 30(2), 232.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey, H. R., Zacks, J. M., Hambrick, D. Z., Zacks, R. T., Head, D., Kurby, C. A., & Sargent, J. Q. (2013). Medial temporal lobe volume predicts elders’ everyday memory. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1113–1122.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, D. A., Baird, J. A., Saylor, M. M., & Clark, M. A. (2001). Infants parse dynamic action. Child Development, 72(3), 708–717.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 79–120.Google Scholar
  9. Bläsing, B. E. (2015). Segmentation of dance movement: Effects of expertise, visual familiarity, motor experience and music. Frontiers in Psychology  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01500
  10. Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Boltz, M. (1992). Temporal accent structure and the remembering of filmed narratives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 177–220.Google Scholar
  13. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.Google Scholar
  14. Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 207–230.Google Scholar
  15. Chafe, W. (1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5(4), 395–426.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of reading experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 733.Google Scholar
  18. Cutting, J. E., Brunick, K. L., & Candan, A. (2012). Perceiving event dynamics and parsing Hollywood films. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dooling, D. J., & Lachman, R. (1971). Effects of comprehension on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(2), 216.Google Scholar
  20. Ericsson, K. A., Delaney, P. F., Weaver, G. A., & Mahadevan, S. (2004). Uncovering the structure of a memorist’s superior “basic” memory capacity. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 191–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Flores, S., Bailey, H. R., Eisenberg, M. L., & Zacks, J. M. (2017). Event segmentation improves event memory up to one month later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(8), 1183–1202.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, E. T., & Schumacher, G. M. (1977). Effects of contextual organization on prose retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 146.Google Scholar
  23. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hajime, M., Takeo, H., & Manabu, O. (1998, August). Text segmentation with multiple surface linguistic cues. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 881–885). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  25. Hard, B. M., Recchia, G., & Tversky, B. (2011). The shape of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 140, 586–604.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024310 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hard, B. M., Tversky, B., & Lang, D. S. (2006). Making sense of abstract events: Building event schemas. Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1221–1235.Google Scholar
  27. Hasher, L., & Griffin, M. (1978). Reconstructive and reproductive processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(4), 318.Google Scholar
  28. Hearst, M. A. (1994, June). Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository text. Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 9–16). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  29. Hearst, M. A. (1997). TextTiling: Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages. Computational Linguistics, 23(1), 33–64.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). A computational analysis of consciousness. Cognition & Brain Theory, 6, 499–508.Google Scholar
  31. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyona, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: Evidence from think-aloud protocols, eye-tracking, and recall. Discourse Processes, 40(3), 239–257.Google Scholar
  32. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2008). Perspective-driven text comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 319–334.Google Scholar
  33. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2002). Perspective effects on online text processing. Discourse Processes, 33(2), 159–173.Google Scholar
  34. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyönä, J., & Keenan, J. M. (2003). How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance of information affect eye fixations in expository text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 447.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2011). Age differences in the perception of hierarchical structure in events. Memory & Cognition, 39(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
  37. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2012). Starting from scratch and building brick by brick in comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 812–826.Google Scholar
  38. Lahnakoski, J. M., Glerean, E., Jääskeläinen, I. P., Hyönä, J., Hari, R., Sams, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2014). Synchronous brain activity across individuals underlies shared psychological perspectives. NeuroImage, 100, 316–324.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2/3), 259–284.Google Scholar
  40. Lehman, S., & Schraw, G. (2002). Effects of coherence and relevance on shallow and deep text processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 738.Google Scholar
  41. Levine, D., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Pace, A., & Michnick Golinkoff, R. (2017). A goal bias in action: The boundaries adults perceive in events align with sites of actor intent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(6), 916.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 778.Google Scholar
  43. Lorch, R. F., Jr, Lorch, E. P., & Mogan, A. M. (1987). Task effects and individual differences in on-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes, 10(1), 63–80.Google Scholar
  44. Lorch, R. F., Jr. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209–234.Google Scholar
  45. Magliano, J. P., Miller, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). Indexing space and time in film understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(5), 533–545.Google Scholar
  46. Manabu, O., & Takeo, H. (1994, August). Word sense disambiguation and text segmentation based on lexical cohesion. Proceedings of the 15th conference on Computational Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 755–761). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  47. Massad, C. M., Hubbard, M., & Newtson, D. (1979). Selective perception of events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(6), 513–532.Google Scholar
  48. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139.Google Scholar
  49. McGatlin, K. C., Newberry, K. M., & Bailey, H. R. (2019). Temporal chunking makes life’s events more memorable. Open Psychology, 1, 94–105.Google Scholar
  50. Miller, L. M. S. (2003). The effects of age and domain knowledge on text processing. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(4), 217–223.Google Scholar
  51. Miller, L. M. S., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (1998). Aging and the effects of knowledge on on-line reading strategies. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53(4), 223–233.Google Scholar
  52. Mura, K., Petersen, N., Huff, M., & Ghose, T. (2013). IBES: A tool for creating instructions based on event segmentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 994.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Narvaez, D., Van Den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 488.Google Scholar
  54. Newberry, K., Smith, M., & Bailey, H. (May, 2018). The role of knowledge in age-related changes in segmentation and memory. Poster presented at the International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  55. Newtson, D., Engquist, D., & Bois, J. (1977). The objective basis of behavior unit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(12), 847-862.Google Scholar
  56. Pettijohn, K. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (2016). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Event structure or updating disruption? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2119–2129.Google Scholar
  57. Pettijohn, K. A., Thompson, A. N., Tamplin, A. K., Krawietz, S. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (2016). Event boundaries and memory improvement. Cognition, 148, 136–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Pichert, J. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(4), 309.Google Scholar
  59. Radvansky, G. A. (2012). Across the event horizon. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 269–272.Google Scholar
  60. Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2006). Walking through doorways causes forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1150–1156.Google Scholar
  61. Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2014). Event cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2017). Event boundaries in memory and cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 17, 133–140.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sargent, J. Q., Zacks, J. M., Hambrick, D. Z., Zacks, R. T., Kurby, C. A., Bailey, H. R., . . . Beck, T. M. (2013). Event segmentation ability uniquely predicts event memory. Cognition, 129(2), 241–255.Google Scholar
  64. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (2013). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  66. Schwan, S., & Garsoffky, B. (2004). The cognitive representation of filmic event summaries. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 37–55.Google Scholar
  67. Soederberg-Miller, L. M., Cohen, J. A., & Wingfield, A. (2006). Contextual knowledge reduces demands on working memory during reading. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1355.Google Scholar
  68. Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of perceptual and motor experiences. Psychological Science, 20, 989–999.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2003). Activation of human motion processing areas during event perception. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(4), 335–345.Google Scholar
  70. Speer, N. K., & Zacks, J. M. (2005). Temporal changes as event boundaries: Processing and memory consequences of narrative time shifts. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 125–140.Google Scholar
  71. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433.Google Scholar
  72. Stine, E. A. L., Cheung, H., & Henderson, D. (1995). Adult age differences in the online processing of new concepts in discourse. Aging and Cognition, 2, 1–18.Google Scholar
  73. Swets, B., & Kurby, C. A. (2016). Eye movements reveal the influence of event structure on reading behavior. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 466–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Thompson, C. P., Cowan, T. M., & Frieman, J. (1993). Memory search by a memorist. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  75. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wilder, D. A. (1978). Predictability of behaviors, goals, and unit of perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(4), 604–607.Google Scholar
  77. Zacks, J. M. (2004). Using movement and intentions to understand simple events. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 979–1008.Google Scholar
  78. Zacks, J. M., Braver, T. S., Sheridan, M. A., Donaldson, D. I., Snyder, A. Z., Ollinger, J. M., . . . Raichle, M. E. (2001). Human brain activity time-locked to perceptual event boundaries. Nature Neuroscience, 4(6), 651–655.Google Scholar
  79. Zacks, J. M., Kumar, S., Abrams, R. A., & Mehta, R. (2009). Using movement and intentions to understand human activity. Cognition, 112, 201–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Zacks, J. M., Kurby, C. A., Eisenberg, M. L., & Haroutunian, N. (2011). Prediction error associated with the perceptual segmentation of naturalistic events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 4057–4066.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., & Reynolds, J. R. (2009). Segmentation in reading and film comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 307.Google Scholar
  82. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S., & Reynolds, J. R. (2007). Event perception: A mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 273.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Vettel, J. M., & Jacoby, L. L. (2006). Event understanding and memory in healthy aging and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 29.Google Scholar
  85. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations