Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 900–904 | Cite as

Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Environmental integration

  • Gabriel A. Radvansky
  • Andrea K. Tamplin
  • Sabine A. Krawietz
Brief Report

Abstract

Memory for objects declines when people move from one location to another (the location updating effect). However, it is unclear whether this is attributable to event model updating or to task demands. The focus here was on the degree of integration for probed-for information with the experienced environment. In prior research, the probes were verbal labels of visual objects. Experiment 1 assessed whether this was a consequence of an item-probe mismatch, as with transfer-appropriate processing. Visual probes were used to better coordinate what was seen with the nature of the memory probe. In Experiment 2, people received additional word pairs to remember, which were less well integrated with the environment, to assess whether the probed-for information needed to be well integrated. The results showed location updating effects in both cases. These data are consistent with an event cognition view that mental updating of a dynamic event disrupts memory.

Keywords

Word Pair Probe Trial Situation Model Verbal Label Response Time Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bower, G. H., & Rinck, M. (2001). Selecting one among many referents in spatial situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 81–98. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Copeland, D. E., Magliano, J. P., & Radvansky, G. A. (2006). Situation models in comprehension, memory, and augmented cognition. In C. Forsythe, M. L. Bernard, & T. E. Goldsmith (Eds.), Cognitive systems: Human cognitive models in systems design (pp. 37–66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Curiel, J. M., & Radvansky, G. A. (2002). Mental maps in memory retrieval and comprehension. Memory, 10, 113–126. doi: 10.1080/09658210143000245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 69–83. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90063-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L., III (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 425–449. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90282-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 72–79. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Magliano, J. P., Miller, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). Indexing space and time in film understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 533–545. doi:10.1002/acp.724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McNamara, T. P. (1986). Mental representations of spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 87–121. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90016-2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 165–187. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90122-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The fan effect: A tale of two theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 198–206. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.128.2.198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Radvansky, G. A. (2005). Situation models, propositions, and the fan effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 478–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2006). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Situation models and experienced space. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1150–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2010). Reading times and the detection of event shift processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 210–216. doi:10.1037/a0017258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Radvansky, G. A., Spieler, D. H., & Zacks, R. T. (1993). Mental model organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 95–114. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, R. T. (1991). Mental models and the fan effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 940–953. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.5.940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rinck, M., & Bower, G. H. (1995). Anaphora resolution and the focus of attention in situation models. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 110–131. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science, 20, 989–999. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02397.xPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Swallow, K. M., Zacks, J. M., & Abrams, R. A. (2009). Event boundaries in perception affect memory encoding and updating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 236–257. doi: 10.1037/a0015631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thorndyke, P. W. (1981). Distance estimation from cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 526–550. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90019-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631–650.Google Scholar
  22. Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., & Reynolds, J. R. (2009). Segmentation in reading and film comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 307–327. doi:10.1037/a0015305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1196–1207. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An eventindexing model. Psychological Science, 6, 292–297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 386–397. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A., Hilliard, A. E., & Curiel, J. M. (1998). Constructing multidimensional situation models during reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 199–220. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0203_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel A. Radvansky
    • 1
  • Andrea K. Tamplin
    • 1
  • Sabine A. Krawietz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre Dame

Personalised recommendations