Skip to content →

2017/10/19: Lab meeting

During our weekly lab meeting I got the following feedback pertaining to project 1 (schema-memory-VR; see here):

  • I should drop mixed condition and only use unexpected or expected locations to reduce the number of conditions.
  • Another idea was to present objects in a sequence in order to create a temporal episode. It could be interesting in this context to look at the fragmentation hypothesis (Horner & Burgess, 2013, 2014) and see how my VR approach can be use to examine predictions of it.
  • My idea is to create a situation that shows the predicted U-shaped relationship (see van Kesteren, Ruiter, Fernández, & Henson, 2012) between schema-inconsistency and memory. Maybe it is possible to show that at the item level by plotting unexpectedness rating against how often an item is remembered/recognized.

References

Horner, A. J., & Burgess, N. (2013). The associative structure of memory for multi-element events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1370–1383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033626
Horner, A. J., & Burgess, N. (2014). Pattern completion in multielement event engrams. Current Biology, 24(9), 988–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.012
van Kesteren, M. T. R., Ruiter, D. J., Fernández, G., & Henson, R. N. (2012). How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends in Neurosciences, 35(4), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2012.02.001

Published in memory open lab diary project 1 schema

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *