The role of attentional fluctuation during study in recollecting episodic changes at test

16Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Changes in stimulus features across episodes can lead to proactive interference. One potential way to avoid such interference is to detect and later recollect changes. The Memory-for-Change framework assumes that attention during encoding is necessary for detecting and later recollecting change. We tested this assumption in the current experiment by assessing the covariation of attention and change recollection in a large undergraduate sample (N=132). Participants studied a list of word pairs comprised of four seamless blocks. Some word pairs repeated across all four blocks (A-B4), some were unique to each block (C-D), and some pairs repeated across the first three blocks with a changed response in the fourth block (A-B3, A-D). To measure attention during study, participants periodically responded to probes asking whether they were on- or off-task. Participants then completed a cued recall test of responses from the fourth study block. To measure change recollection, participants were asked to identify which pairs changed during study and to report the earlier responses for pairs they identified as changed. Replicating prior findings, recollecting change was associated with proactive facilitation in recall of the most recent responses. Extending these findings, the frequency of on-task reports was positively associated with cued recall accuracy and change recollection in both within- and between-subjects comparisons. Together, these findings implicate a critical role for self-reported attention during study in change recollection, which is associated with proactive facilitation in recall of changed responses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Garlitch, S. M., & Wahlheim, C. N. (2020). The role of attentional fluctuation during study in recollecting episodic changes at test. Memory and Cognition, 48(5), 800–814. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01018-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free