Skip to main content

Chained study and the discovery of relational structure

Abstract

Prior knowledge of relational structure allows people to quickly make sense of and respond to new experiences. When awareness of such structure is not necessary to support learning, however, it is unclear when and why individuals “spontaneously discover” an underlying relational schema. The present study examines the determinants of such discovery in discrimination-based transitive inference (TI), whereby people learn about a hierarchy of interrelated premises and are tested on their ability to draw inferences that bridge studied relations. Experiencing “chained” sequences of overlapping premises during training was predicted to facilitate the discovery of relational structure. Among individuals without prior knowledge of the hierarchy, chaining improved relational learning and was most likely to result in explicit awareness of the underlying relations between items. Observation of chained training sequences was also more effective than the self-generation of training sequences. These findings add to growing evidence that the temporal dynamics of training, including successive presentation of overlapping associations, are key to understanding spontaneous relational discovery during learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Random pairing was necessary to ensure that stage 1 choices were not predictive of reinforcement in stage 2 (e.g., if the selected item was always paired with the immediately superordinate item, participants could learn a simple rule to choose the new option in stage 2 without learning the premises themselves). A consequence of this design is that some trials in the Passive-Adjacent condition did not involve chaining, since selecting an adjacent item in stage 1 sometimes led to the repetition of the same premise from the previous trial or a non-overlapping premise in stage 2. Thus, the Passive-Adjacent condition maximizes the frequency of chaining (overlapping premises in successive trials) under the constraint of random pairing in stage 2.

  2. 2.

    The proportion of selections at distances 3–5 were treated as a third category that was not included in the model. Because the proportions are constrained to sum to 1, an estimated parameter therefore indicates the effect of increasing the predictor while holding the other predictors in the model constant, and would necessarily correspond to a decrease in the proportion of more distant selections.

References

  1. Andrews, G. (2010). Belief-based and analytic processing in transitive inference depends on premise integration difficulty. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 928–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Birnbaum, M. S., Kornell, N., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R.A. (2013). Why interleaving enhances inductive learning: The, roles of discrimination and retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41(3), 392–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carvalho, P. F., & Goldstone, R. L. (2015). The benefits of interleaved and blocked study: Different, tasks benefit from different schedules of study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 281–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S.C. (2019). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550619875149.

  6. Clark, H. H. (1969). Influence of language on solving three-term series problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82(2), 205.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Soto, C. B., London, M., & Handel, S. (1965). Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(4), 513.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Delius, J. D., & Siemann, M. (1998). Transitive responding in animals and humans: Exaptation rather than adaptation? Behavioural Processes, 42(2-3), 107–137.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Don, H. J., Goldwater, M. B., Greenaway, J. K., Hutchings, R., & Livesey, E. J. (2020). Relational rule discovery in complex discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

  10. Doumas, L., Hummel, J., & Sandhofer, C. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115(1), 1–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dusek, J. A., & Eichenbaum, H (1997). The hippocampus and memory for orderly stimulus relations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(13), 7109–7114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ellenbogen, J. M., Hu, P. T., Payne, J. D., Titone, D., & Walker, M. P. (2007). Human relational memory requires time and sleep. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7723–7728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Frank, M. J., Rudy, J. W., Levy, W. B., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2005). When logic fails: Implicit transitive inference in humans. Memory & Cognition, 33(4), 742–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frank, M. J., O’Reilly, R. C., & Curran, T. (2006). When memory fails, intuition reigns: Midazolam enhances implicit inference in humans. Psychological Science, 17(8), 700–707.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gentner, D. (2010). Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 34(5), 752–775.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gilboa, A., & Marlatte, H. (2017). Neurobiology of schemas and schema-mediated memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 618–631.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goldwater, M. B., & Gentner, D. (2015). On the acquisition of abstract knowledge: Structural alignment and explication in learning causal system categories. Cognition, 137, 137–153.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldwater, M. B., Don, H. J., Krusche, M. J., & Livesey, E. J. (2018). Relational discovery in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Greene, A. J., Spellman, B. A., Levy, W. B., Dusek, J. A., & Eichenbaum, H. B. (2001). Relational learning with and without awareness: Transitive inference using nonverbal stimuli in humans. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 893–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gureckis, T. M., & Markant, D. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: A cognitive and computational perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 464–481.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Halford, G. S. (1984). Can young children integrate premises in transitivity and serial order tasks? Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (2010). Relational knowledge: The foundation of higher cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(11), 497–505.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Henriksson, M. P., & Enkvist, T. (2016). Learning from observation, feedback, and intervention in linear and nonlinear task environments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1–57.

  26. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346–363.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2001). A process model of human transitive inference. In Spatial schemas in abstract thought (pp. 279–305).

  28. Kumaran, D., & McClelland, J. L. (2012). Generalization through the recurrent interaction of episodic memories: A model of the hippocampal system. Psychological Review, 119(3), 573.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kumaran, D., & Ludwig, H. (2013). Transitivity performance, relational hierarchy knowledge and awareness: Results of an instructional framing manipulation. Hippocampus, 23(12), 1259–1268.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lazareva, O. F., & Wasserman, E. A. (2010). Nonverbal transitive inference: Effects of task and awareness on human performance. Behavioural Processes, 83(1), 99–112.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Lazareva, O. F. (2012). Transitive inference in nonhuman animals. In E. A. Wasserman, & T. R. Zentall (Eds.) The oxford handbook of comparative cognition: Oxford University Press.

  32. Lazareva, O. F., Gazes, R. P., Elkins, Z., & Hampton, R (2020). Associative models fail to characterize transitive inference performance in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Learning & Behavior.

  33. Leo, P. D., & Greene, A. J. (2008). Is awareness necessary for true inference?. Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1079–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Libben, M., & Titone, D. (2008). The role of awareness and working memory in human transitive inference. Behavioural Processes, 77(1), 43–54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Markant, D., DuBrow, S., Davachi, L., & Gureckis, T.M. (2014a). Deconstructing the effect of self-directed study on episodic memory. Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1211–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Markant, D., & Gureckis, T.M. (2014b). Is it better to select or to receive? Learning via active and passive hypothesis testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (1), 94–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Markant, D., Ruggeri, A., Gureckis, T. M., & Xu, F. (2016). Enhanced memory as a common effect of active learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(3), 142–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Markant, D. (2020). Active transitive inference: When learner control facilitates integrative encoding. Cognition, 200.

  39. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McGonigle, B. O., & Chalmers, M. (1977). Are monkeys logical?. Nature, 267(5613), 694.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Moses, S. N., Villate, C., Binns, M. A., Davidson, P. S., & Ryan, J.D. (2008). Cognitive integrity predicts transitive inference performance bias and success. Neuropsychologia, 46(5), 1314–1325.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moses, S. N., Ostreicher, M. L., & Ryan, J.D. (2010). Relational framework improves transitive inference across age groups. Psychological Research PRPF, 74(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Murty, V. P., DuBrow, S., & Davachi, L. (2015). The simple act of choosing influences declarative memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(16), 6255–6264.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. R Core Team. (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ruggeri, A., Markant, D., Gureckis, T., & Xu, F (2019). Memory enhancements from active control of learning emerge across development. Cognition, 186, 82–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sana, F., Yan, V. X., & Kim, J. A. (2017). Study sequence matters for the inductive learning of cognitive concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 84–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Siemann, M., & Delius, J. D. (1996). Influences of task concreteness upon transitive responding in humans. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 59(2), 81–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Smith, C., & Squire, L. R. (2005). Declarative memory, awareness, and transitive inference. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(44), 10138–10146.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sobel, D., & Kushnir, T. (2006). The importance of decision making in causal learning from interventions. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vandierendonck, A., & De vooght, G. (1997). Working memory constraints on linear reasoning with spatial and temporal contents. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(4), 803–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vasconcelos, M. (2008). Transitive inference in non-human animals: An empirical and theoretical analysis. Behavioural Processes, 78(3), 313–334.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Voss, J., Gonsalves, B., Federmeier, K., Tranel, D., & Cohen, N. (2011). Hippocampal brain-network coordination during volitional exploratory behavior enhances learning. Nature Neuroscience, 14(1), 115–120.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Waltz, J. A., Knowlton, B. J., Holyoak, K. J., Boone, K. B., Back-Madruga, C., McPherson, S., & Miller, B. L. (2004). Relational integration and executive function in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 18(2), 296.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wynne, C. D. L. (1995). Reinforcement accounts for transitive inference performance. Animal Learning & Behavior, 23(2), 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Shaina Glass and Mitra Mostafavi for their assistance with response coding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas B. Markant.

Additional information

Open Practices Statement

The data for this study are available at the OSF repository: https://osf.io/hnp2j/.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A preliminary report of these findings was presented at the 2020 Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (see http://psyarxiv.com/cp8bm/).

Electronic supplementary material

Appendices

Appendix:

Post-task awareness questionnaire

Questions were adapted from a questionnaire used in past studies of awareness in transitive inference (Kumaran & Ludwig, 2013; Moses, Villate, Binns, Davidson, & Ryan, 2008). Responses consistent with awareness of the hierarchy or a logical ordering of the items were coded as aware (1); all other responses were coded as unaware (0). In the questions, “Phase 1” refers to the initial training phase whereas “Phase 2” refers to the final test phase which included both recall trials (premises experienced during study) and inference trials (novel pairings of non-adjacent items).

Q1: “Do you think there was a correct answer for all of the pairs that you experienced during Phase 2?”

  • No (0)

  • Not sure (0)

  • Yes (1)

Q2: “In Phase 2 when you were presented with different pairs of cards, what reason did you have for choosing one as opposed to the other?”

  • There is a logically correct choice. (1)

  • One just seemed right but I can’t explain why. (0)

  • I guessed. There may be a correct answer but I don’t know what it is. (0)

  • I made a random choice because there is no correct choice. (0)

Q3: “What strategy (if any) did you use in Phase 1 to learn which card was correct in each pairing?”

  • I tried to figure out the correct ordering of all the cards. (1)

  • I memorized the right choice for each pair. (0)

  • I just chose randomly and eventually got it. (0)

  • No strategy. (0)

  • Other. (0)

The following question also appeared on the awareness questionnaire but was not included in the analysis because it did not assess understanding of the relationship between items:

Q4: “In Phase 2 you were asked to make choices between pairs of cards. Were all of the pairs in Phase 2 the same as the pairs you had already experienced during Phase 1?”

  • No.

  • Yes.

  • Not sure.

Screening questionnaire

A questionnaire was used to identify participants who were not engaged in the task, who were not fluent in English, and other invalid respondents such as bots which may affect data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk (Chmielewski & Kucker, 2019). Following the training phase, participants were instructed to respond to a set of naturalistic decision making prompts (see examples below). For each situation, participants generated a possible course of action. Two research assistants coded responses based on whether they were meaningfully related to the prompt. Participants were excluded when both raters agreed that the generated course of action was not responsive to the prompt (proportion of agreement was 99%). Participants were not excluded based on the validity/feasibility of responses or writing quality (e.g., spelling or grammar errors).

Prompt text:

Imagine you find yourself in the following situation. What is a potential course of action that you could take in this situation?

  • On the morning of an important job interview, you wake up with fever and chills.

  • You have procrastinated on starting a term paper and the due date is tomorrow.

  • You stop by a store to grab an item you need. You are in a hurry but the cashier is nowhere to be seen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Markant, D.B. Chained study and the discovery of relational structure. Mem Cogn (2021). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01201-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Transitive inference
  • Relational learning
  • Relational discovery