Abstract
A key assumption of some leading memory theories is that information about the relative order of events is automatically encoded whenever memories are formed and automatically retrieved whenever events are remembered. This information is often used to guide memory search: Remembering one event tends to trigger the retrieval of other events previously experienced nearby in time (temporal contiguity effect). The retrieved context framework attributes this temporal contiguity effect to automatic encoding and retrieval processes, predicting temporal contiguity even in incidental encoding and implicit retrieval. There is strong evidence of temporal contiguity following incidental encoding, but does the prediction hold for implicit retrieval? In this experiment, we tested the framework’s predictions for recall and repetition priming. Across 30 trials, undergraduates (\(n = 603\)) read a series of words aloud as they appeared onscreen. In each trial, two words were repeated (cue and target), initially separated by |lag\(| =\) 1, 2, or 5. On their second presentation, the cue word was presented first, immediately followed by the target word. We found a strong temporal contiguity effect in a surprise free recall test, replicating previous work with explicit retrieval. For implicit retrieval, we compared repetition priming (how quickly subjects began reading a word on its first versus second presentation) for cue and target words. Repeating a cue word enhanced repetition priming for its associated target word, and this effect varied with the initial lag between the cue and target. These results support theories that assume temporal information is encoded and retrieved automatically.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Open practices statement
De-identified data and data analysis scripts are available at: https://osf.io/392cs/?view_only=b7610fcf7d86422b87393107c1f28927.
Notes
We considered three other approaches to exclusions. In the first approach, we excluded extreme outliers (as defined above), and then any value more than 2.5 standard deviations from the mean for each subject was replaced with a value equal to the subject’s mean response time plus 2.5 standard deviations (if the original value was above the mean) or minus 2.5 standard deviations (if the original value was below the mean). The second approach was to make exclusions based on the mean and standard deviation across subjects for each item type, rather than the mean and standard deviation for each subject. The third method was to make no exclusions at all. None of these methods changed the direction or significance of our results.
For details, see Supplementary Materials.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the potential confound between inter-presentation lag and item type and suggesting a supplementary analysis.
The by-lag analyses are based on the 602 subjects who contributed data for all 6 possible lags.
Temporal factor scores cannot be calculated for subjects who did not make at least one valid transition, so those subjects were excluded from this analysis.
References
Audacity Team. (2018). Audacity®: Free audio editor and recorder [Audacity®software is copyright 1999-2022 Audacity Team. The name Audacity® is a registered trademark.].
Bentin, S., & Moscovitch, M. (1988). The time course of repetition effects for words and unfamiliar faces. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen., 117(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.2.148
Bradley, M. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (1983). Strengthening associations: Duration, attention, or relations? J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 22(6), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(83)90385-7
Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychol. Rev., 114(3), 539–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.539
Carroll, M., & Kirsner, K. (1982). Context and repetition effects in lexical decision and recognition memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 21(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(82)90445-5
Davelaar, E. J., Goshen-Gottstein, Y., Ashkenazi, A., Haarmann, H. J., & Usher, M. (2005). The demise of short-term memory revisited: Empirical and computational investigations of recency effects. Psychol. Rev., 112(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.3
Davis, O. C., Geller, A. S., Rizzuto, D. S., & Kahana, M. J. (2008). Temporal associative processes revealed by intrusions in paired-associate recall. Psychon. Bull. & Rev., 15(1), 64–69. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.64
Dew, I. T. Z., Bayen, U. J., & Giovanello, K. S. (2007). Implicit relational memory in young and older adults. J. Psychol., 215, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.1.25
Dew, I. T. Z., & Cabeza, R. (2011). The porous boundaries between explicit and implicit memory: Behavioral and neural evidence. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 1224(1), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05946.x
Dewhurst, S. A., Holmes, S. J., Brandt, K. R., & Dean, G. M. (2006). Measuring the speed of the conscious components of recognition memory: Remembering is faster than knowing. Conscious. Cogn., 15(1), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.05.002
Diamond, N. B., & Levine, B. (2020). Linking detail to temporal structure in naturalistic-event recall. Psychol. Sci., 31(12), 1557–1572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620958651
Durgunoǧlu, A. Y., & Neely, J. H. (1987). On obtaining episodic priming in a lexical decision task following paired-associate learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn Mem Cogn., 13(2), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.206
Farrell, S. (2012). Temporal clustering and sequencing in short-term memory and episodic memory. Psychol. Rev., 119(2), 223–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027371
Geukes, S., Gaskell, M. G., & Zwitserlood, P. (2015). Stroop effects from newly learned color words: Effects of memory consolidation and episodic context. Front. Psychol., 6, 278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00278
Glanzer, M., & Cunitz, A. R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in free recall. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 5(4), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(66)80044-0
Glanzer, M. (1969). Distance between related words in free recall: Trace of the STS. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 8, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(69)80018-6
Goshen-Gottstein, Y., & Moscovitch, M. (1995). Repetition priming effects for newly formed associations are perceptually based: Evidence from shallow encoding and format specificity. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn Mem Cogn., 21(5), 1249–1262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1249
Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 11, 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.3.501
Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1989). Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations in memory for new associations. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 15(5), 930–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.930
Healey, M. K., Long, N. M., & Kahana, M. J. (2019). Contiguity in episodic memory. Psychon. Bull. Rev., 26(3), 699–720. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1537-3
Healey, M. K. (2018). Temporal contiguity in incidentally encoded memories. J. Mem. Lang., 102, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.04.003
Healey, M. K., & Kahana, M. J. (2014). Is memory search governed by universal principles or idiosyncratic strategies? J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen., 143(2), 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033715
Healey, M. K., Ngo, K. W. J., & Hasher, L. (2014). Below-baseline suppression of competitors during interference resolution by younger but not older adults. Psychol. Sci., 25(1), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613501169
Healey, M. K., & Uitvlugt, M. G. (2019). The role of control processes in temporal and semantic contiguity. Mem. Cogn., 47(4), 719–737. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00895-8
Hintzman, D. L. (2016). Is memory organized by temporal contiguity? Mem. Cogn., 44(3), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0573-8
Hong, M. K., Fazio, L. K., & Polyn, S. M. (2019). Examining factors that eliminate contiguity in free recall. Montréal, Québec, Canada: Poster presented at Psychonomic Society.
Howard, M. W., & Kahana, M. J. (2002). A distributed representation of temporal context. J. Math. Psychol., 46(3), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.2001.1388
Howard, M. W., Shankar, K. H., Aue, W. R., & Criss, A. H. (2015). A distributed representation of internal time. Psychol. Rev., 122(1), 24–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037840
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. J. Mem. Lang., 30(5), 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(91)90025-f
Kahana, M. J. (1996). Associative retrieval processes in free recall. Mem. Cogn., 24(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197276
Lehman, M., & Malmberg, K. J. (2013). A buffer model of memory encoding and temporal correlations in retrieval. Psychol. Rev., 120(1), 155–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030851
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1979). Priming in episodic and semantic memory. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav., 18(4), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(79)90255-x
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1986). Automatic activation of episodic information in a semantic memory task. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 12(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.1.108
Mensink, G.-J.M., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1989). A model for contextual fluctuation. J. Math. Psychol., 33(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(89)90029-1
Miller, J. F., Kahana, M. J., & Weidemann, C. T. (2012). Recall termination in free recall. Mem. Cogn., 40(4), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0178-9
Mundorf, A. M. D., Lazarus, L. T. T., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Healey, M. K. (2021). A test of retrieved context theory: Dynamics of recall after incidental encoding. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 47(8), 1264–1287. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001001
Mundorf, A. M. D., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Healey, M. K. (2022). Does depth of processing affect temporal contiguity? Psychon. Bull. Rev., 29, 2229–2239. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02112-1
Poldrack, R. A., & Cohen, N. J. (1997). Priming of new associations in reading time: What is learned? Psychon. Bull. Rev., 4(3), 398–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03210800
Polyn, S. M., Erlikhman, G., & Kahana, M. J. (2011). Semantic cuing and the scale-insensitivity of recency and contiguity. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 37(3), 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022475
Polyn, S. M., Norman, K. A., & Kahana, M. J. (2009). A context maintenance and retrieval model of organizational processes in free recall. Psychol. Rev., 116(1), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014420
Raaijmakers, J. G. (2005). Modeling implicit and explicit memory. Human learning and memory: Advances in theory and application: The 4th Tsukuba International Conference on Memory, 85–105
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychol. Rev., 95(3), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.95.3.385
Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychol. Bull., 86(3), 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.446
Roux, F., Armstrong, B. C., & Carreiras, M. (2017). Chronset: An automated tool for detecting speech onset. Behav. Res. Methods, 49(5), 1864–1881. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0830-1
Sederberg, P. B., Gershman, S. J., Polyn, S. M., & Norman, K. A. (2011). Human memory reconsolidation can be explained using the temporal context model. Psychon. Bull. Rev., 18(3), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0086-9
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol. Bull., 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
Siegel, L. L., & Kahana, M. J. (2014). A retrieved context account of spacing and repetition effects in free recall. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 40(3), 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035585
Smith, M. C., Macleod, C. M., Bain, J. D., & Hoppe, R. B. (1989). Lexical decision as an indirect test of memory: Repetition priming and list-wide priming as a function of type of encoding. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 15, 1109–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1109
Smith, T. A., Hasinski, A. E., & Sederberg, P. B. (2013). The context repetition effect: Predicted events are remembered better, even when they don’t happen. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen., 142(4), 1298–1308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034067
Spieler, D. H., & Balota, D. A. (1996). Characteristics of associative learning in younger and older adults: Evidence from an episodic priming paradigm. Psychol. Aging, 11(4), 607–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.11.4.607
The MathWorks Inc. (2018). Matlab version: 9.4 (r2018a). Natick, Massachusetts, United States, The MathWorks Inc. https://www.mathworks.com
Healey, M. K., & Uitvlugt, M. G. (2019). Temporal proximity links unrelated news events in memory. Psychol. Sci., 30(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618808474
Ward, G., Tan, L., & Grenfell-Essam, R. (2010). Examining the relationship between free recall and immediate serial recall: The effects of list length and output order. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn., 36(5), 1207–1241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020122
Zeelenberg, R., Pecher, D., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2003). Associative repetition priming: A selective review and theoretical implications. In J. S. Bowers & C. S. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 261–283). Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgements
We thank Linh Lazarus for helpful discussions.
Funding
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1848972.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The study procedures and materials were approved by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board. All elements of this study were performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual subjects included in the study.
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mundorf, A.M.D., Uitvlugt, M.G. & Healey, M.K. Incidentally encoded temporal associations produce priming in implicit memory. Psychon Bull Rev 31, 761–771 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02351-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02351-w