Paired-associate learning, animacy, and imageability effects in the survival advantage

The animacy (bias) effect in recognition: testing the influence of intentionality of learning and retrieval quality

The animacy effect, a memory advantage for animate/living over inanimate/non-living items, is well-documented in free recall, but unclear in recognition memory. This might relate to the encoding tasks that have been used and/or to an unequal influence of animacy on the processes underlying recognition (recollection or familiarity). This study reports a recognition memory experiment, coupled with a remember/know procedure. An intentional and two incidental learning conditions (one animacy-related and one animacy-unrelated) were used. No animacy effect was found in discriminability (A') irrespectively of the encoding condition. Still, different mechanisms in incidental and intentional conditions conducted to said result. Overall, animates (vs. inanimates) elicited more hits and also more false alarms. Moreover, participants tended to assign more remember responses to animate (vs. inanimate) hits, denoting higher recollection for the former. These findings are suggestive of an animacy bias in recognition, which was stronger in the animacy-related encoding condition. Ultimate and proximate mechanisms underlying the animacy effect are examined.

Agency effects on the binding of event elements in episodic memory

Representing events in episodic memory in a coherent manner requires that their constituent elements are bound together. So far, only few moderators of these binding processes have been identified. Here we investigate whether the presence of an agentic element in an event facilitates binding. The results from six experiments provided no evidence for a facilitating effect of agency on the binding of event elements. In addition, binding effects were only found when event elements were presented simultaneously, but not when they were presented sequentially pairwise, contrary to previous findings. The results suggest that the presence of an agentic element in an event does not, or only to a very limited extent, contribute to the formation of coherent memory representations and that additional processes may be required when binding event elements across temporarily divided encoding episodes. These findings add to a growing body of research regarding moderators and processes relevant for the binding of event elements in episodic memory. Explanations of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

An exploration of the influence of animal and object categories on recall of item location following an incidental learning task

The current study explores the role of attention in location memory for animals and objects. Participants completed an incidental learning task where they rated animals and objects with regard to either their ease of collection to win a scavenger hunt (Experiments 1a and b) or their distance from the centre of the computer screen (Experiment 2). The images of animals and objects were pseudo-randomly positioned on the screen in both experiments. After completing the incidental learning task (and a reverse counting distractor task), participants were then given a surprise location memory recall task. In the location memory recall task, items were shown in the centre of the screen and participants used the mouse to indicate the position the item had been shown during the incidental encoding task. The results of both experiments show that location memory for objects was more accurate than for animals. While we cannot definitively identify the mechanism responsible for the difference in the location memory of objects and animals, we propose that differences in the influence of object-based attention at encoding affect location memory when tested at recall.

Paired-associate versus cross-situational: How do verbal working memory and word familiarity affect word learning?

Word learning is one of the first steps into language, and vocabulary knowledge predicts reading, speaking, and writing ability. There are several pathways to word learning and little is known about how they differ. Previous research has investigated paired-associate (PAL) and cross-situational word learning (CSWL) separately, limiting the understanding of how the learning process compares across the two. In PAL, the roles of word familiarity and working memory have been thoroughly examined, but these same factors have received very little attention in CSWL. We randomly assigned 126 monolingual adults to PAL or CSWL. In each task, names of 12 novel objects were learned (six familiar words, six unfamiliar words). Logistic mixed-effects models examined whether word-learning paradigm, word type and working memory (measured with a backward digit-span task) predicted learning. Results suggest better learning performance in PAL and on familiar words. Working memory predicted word learning across paradigms, but no interactions were found between any of the predictors. This suggests that PAL is easier than CSWL, likely because of reduced ambiguity between the word and the referent, but that learning across both paradigms is equally enhanced by word familiarity, and similarly supported by working memory.

Why are human animacy judgments continuous rather than categorical? A computational modeling approach

Introduction

The concept of animacy is often taken as a basic natural concept, in part I because most cases seem unambiguous. Most entities either are or are not animate. However, human animacy judgments do not reflect this binary classification. They suggest that there are borderline cases, such as virus, amoeba, fly, and imaginary beings (giant, dragon, god). Moreover, human roles (professor, mother, girlfriend) are consistently recognized as animate by far less than 100% of human judges.

Method

In this paper, I use computational modeling to identify features associated with human animacy judgments, modeling human animacy and living/non-living judgments using both bottom-up predictors (the principal components from a word embedding model) and top-down predictors (cosine distances from the names of animate categories).

Results

The results suggest that human animacy judgments may be relying on information obtained from imperfect estimates of category membership that are reflected in the word embedding models. Models using cosine distance from category names mirror human judgments in distinguishing strongly between humans (estimated lower animacy by the measure) and other animals (estimated higher animacy by the measure).

Discussion

These results are consistent with a family resemblance approach to the apparently categorical concept of animacy.

A direct replication and extension of Popp and Serra (2016, experiment 1): better free recall and worse cued recall of animal names than object names, accounting for semantic similarity

Introduction

Free recall tends to be better for names of animate concepts such as animals than for names of inanimate objects. In Popp and Serra's 2016 article, the authors replicated this "animacy effect" in free recall but when participants studied words in pairs (animate-animate pairs intermixed with inanimate-inanimate pairs) and were tested with cued recall, performance was better for inanimate-inanimate pairs than for animate-animate pairs ("reverse animacy"). We tested the replicability of this surprising effect and one possible explanation for the effect (semantic similarity).

Methods

Our Experiment 1 was a preregistered direct replication (N = 101) of Popp and Serra's Experiment 1 (mixed-lists condition). In a second preregistered experiment conducted in four different samples (undergraduate N = 153, undergraduate N = 143, online Prolific N = 101, online Prolific/English-as-a-first-language N = 150), we manipulated the within-category semantic similarity of animal and object wordlists.

Results

AIn Experiment 1, just as in Popp and Serra, we observed an animacy effect for free recall and a reverse animacy effect for cued recall. Unlike Popp and Serra, we found that controlling for interference effects rendered the reverse animacy effect non-significant. We took this as evidence that characteristics of the stimulus sets (e.g., category structure, within-category similarity) may play a role in animacy and reverse animacy effects. In Experiment 2, in three out of our four samples, we observed reverse animacy effects when within-category similarity was higher for animals and when within-category similarity was equated for animals and objects.

Discussion

Our results suggest that the reverse animacy effect observed in Popp and Serra's 2016 article is a robust and replicable effect, but that semantic similarity alone cannot explain the effect.

The animacy advantage in memory occurs under self-paced study conditions, but participants' metacognitive beliefs can deter it

Introduction

Animacy distinguishes living (animate) things from non-living (inanimate) things. People tend to devote attention and processing to living over nonliving things, resulting in a privileged status for animate concepts in human cognition. For example, people tend to remember more animate than inanimate items, a phenomenon known as the "animacy effect" or "animacy advantage." To date, however, the exact cause(s) of this effect is unknown.

Methods

We examined the animacy advantage in free-recall performance under computer-paced versus self-paced study conditions and using three different sets of animate and inanimate stimuli (Experiments 1 and 2). We also measured participants' metacognitive beliefs (expectations) about the task before it began (Experiment 2).

Results

We consistently obtained an animacy advantage in free-recall, regardless of whether participants studied the materials under computer-paced or self-paced conditions. Those in self-paced conditions spent less time studying items than did those in computer-paced conditions, but overall levels of recall and the occurrence of the animacy advantage were equivalent by study method. Importantly, participants devoted equivalent study time to animate and inanimate items in self-paced conditions, so the animacy advantage in those conditions cannot be attributed to study time differences. In Experiment 2, participants who believed that inanimate items were more memorable instead showed equivalent recall and study time for animate and inanimate items, suggesting that they engaged in equivalent processing of animate and inanimate items. All three sets of materials reliably produced an animacy advantage, but the effect was consistently larger for one set than the other two, indicating some contribution of item-level properties to the effect.

Discussion

Overall, the results suggest that participants do not purposely allocate greater processing to animate over inanimate items, even when study is self-paced. Rather, animate items seem to naturally trigger greater richness of encoding than do inanimate items and are then better remembered, although under some conditions participants might engage in deeper processing of inanimate items which can reduce or eliminate the animacy advantage. We suggest that researchers might conceptualize mechanisms for the effect as either centering on intrinsic, item-level properties of the items or centering on extrinsic, processing-based differences between animate and inanimate items.

The binding structure of event elements in episodic memory and the role of animacy

Experienced events consist of several elements which need to be bound together in memory to represent the event in a coherent manner. Given such bindings, the retrieval of one event element should be related to the successful retrieval of another element of the same event, thus leading to a stochastic dependency of the retrieval of event elements. The way in which bindings are structured is not yet clearly established and only few moderators of the binding of event elements have been identified. We present results from three experiments aiming to distinguish between an integrated binding structure, in which event elements are bound into a unitary representation, and a hierarchical binding structure, in which event elements are preferentially bound to specific types of elements. Experiments 2 and 3 were additionally designed to identify animacy, an entity's property of being alive, as a potential moderator of the binding of event elements. We also offer a new approach for modelling dependencies of the retrieval of event elements which mitigates some limitations of previous approaches. Consistent with previous literature, we found dependencies of the retrieval of event elements if all of an event's constituent associations were shown. We found mixed evidence for integrated or hierarchical binding structures but found dependency of the retrieval of event elements to be sensitive to the presence of animacy in an event. The results suggest that binding structures may vary depending on moderators such as animacy or event structure awareness. Theoretical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Surviving with story characters: What do we remember?

Readers simulate story characters' emotions, memories, and perceptual experiences. The current study consists of three experiments that investigated whether survival threat would amplify the mnemonic experience of a narrative. First, a replication study of Nairne et al. (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (2), 263-273, 2007) was conducted with minor methodological alternations and yielded improved recall for participants imagining themselves in a survival scenario over a moving scenario (Experiment 1). In Experiments 2 and 3, participants read stories about a character either stranded in the grasslands or moving to a foreign land. Improved recall for objects included in the story (Experiments 2 and 3) and recognition of story details (Experiment 3) was found when the character was in a survival situation. The largest effects were observed when the reader was asked to imagine themselves as the story character (Experiment 3). Overall, readers remembered survival-relevant details as if they were experiencing the story character's plight. These results extend research showing that survival processing enhances memory for word lists (e.g., Nairne et al., Psychological Science, 19 (2), 176-180, 2008).

Survival processing advantage demonstrated with virtual reality-based survival environment: A promising tool for survival processing research

Many studies have been conducted to demonstrate the survival processing advantage (SPA) as an evolutionary-oriented memory effect. But few studies were conducted to demonstrate this effect in real-life or simulated survival environments. This study tested whether the SPA could be replicated in a survival virtual reality environment (VRE). In Experiment 1, the SPAs were measured in VREs (survival grasslands, survival battlefield, nonsurvival moving) in which Experiment 1A used the standard long instructions and Experiment 1B used the modified short instructions. In Experiment 2, the SPAs were measured again with the scenarios corresponding to the VREs used in Experiment 1A. All experiments demonstrated typical SPAs, suggesting that the survival VRE is a reliable tool in designing and delivering a survival situation. The potential problems of applying survival VRE to survival processing research are discussed at the end.

Animacy enhances recollection but not familiarity: Convergent evidence from the remember-know-guess paradigm and the process-dissociation procedure

Words representing living beings are better remembered than words representing nonliving objects, a robust finding called the animacy effect. Considering the postulated evolutionary-adaptive significance of this effect, the animate words' memory advantage should not only affect the quantity but also the quality of remembering. To test this assumption, we compared the quality of recognition memory between animate and inanimate words. The remember-know-guess paradigm (Experiment 1) and the process-dissociation procedure (Experiment 2) were used to assess both subjective and objective aspects of remembering. Based on proximate accounts of the animacy effect that focus on elaborative encoding and attention, animacy is expected to selectively enhance detailed recollection but not the acontextual feeling of familiarity. Multinomial processing-tree models were applied to disentangle recollection, familiarity, and different types of guessing processes. Results obtained from the remember-know-guess paradigm and the process-dissociation procedure convergently show that animacy selectively enhances recollection but does not affect familiarity. In both experiments, guessing processes were unaffected by the words' animacy status. Animacy thus not only enhances the quantity but also affects the quality of remembering: The effect is primarily driven by recollection. The results support the richness-of-encoding account and the attentional account of the animacy effect on memory.

Within-pair factors might explain the inconsistent effects of animacy on paired-associates recall

The tendency for people to have better memory for animate (living) concepts than inanimate (nonliving) concepts in memory tasks involving free recall and recognition suggests that animacy status can be an important predictor of memory. To date, however, the effect of animacy on paired-associates recall has been mixed: Some studies have found an animacy advantage, some have found an animacy disadvantage, and some have found no difference by animacy. We tested the hypothesis that the within-pair relationship of the two words in a pair matters more for cued recall than animacy itself. In two experiments, college students studied animate and inanimate English word pairs for a cued-recall test. We varied whether the pairs involved two typical exemplars from the same category (e.g., SALMON-TROUT; FORK-SPOON), one typical and one atypical exemplar from the same category (e.g., DOCTOR-SCIENTIST; HOUSE-IGLOO), or two unrelated words from different categories (e.g., SERGEANT-COBRA; MAGAZINE-PLIERS). Respectively, these pair types produced an animacy disadvantage, an animacy advantage, and no difference by animacy in both experiments. We then examined several measures of within-pair similarity for the items. All were positively associated with paired-associates recall, but animacy had no effect on cued recall above and beyond the relationship of these measures to recall. These results suggest that the within-pair relationship matters more for cued recall than does animacy. Uneven variation in within-pair relationships for animate versus inanimate pairs-rather than animacy itself-might therefore produce the apparently inconsistent effects of animacy on paired-associates recall.

Analyzing the structure of animacy: Exploring relationships among six new animacy and 15 existing normative dimensions for 1,200 concrete nouns

Animacy is an important word variable (especially for episodic memory), yet no norms exist in the literature. We present a complete, usable normative data set of 1,200 relatively concrete nouns normed on 15 existing dimensions (concreteness, familiarity, imagery, availability, valence, arousal, dominance, age of acquisition, length, orthographic neighborhood, phonographic neighborhood, number of syllables, and subtitle frequency/contextual diversity) and six new animacy dimensions (a general living/non-living scale, ability to think, ability to reproduce, similarity to a person, goal-directedness, and movement likelihood). Principal component analysis of these 21 dimensions revealed that animacy scales were conceptually different from extant word variables. Further, factor analysis of the six new scales revealed these animacy norms may be separable into two dimensions: a "Mental" component related to animates' ability to think and have goals, and a "Physical" component related to animates' general resemblance to living things. These data provide useful theoretical insight into the structure of the animacy dimension, an important factor in many cognitive processes. The norms are accessible at https://osf.io/4t3cu .