Skip to content →

Category: project 1

2017/10/31: Counterbalancing

Trying to find pairs of objects to counterbalance expected versus unexpected locations. The first option, is to build pairs of relevant objects (e.g. knife – toaster) and think of three expected location for the first one that are unexpected for the second one. The problem here is that these are not the super expected locations and I would probably need to show in the normative studies that the expectancy is as hoped. The other option would be to find the most expected locations and try to counterbalancing some of them. I decided to ignore counterbalancing for the pilot study.

Leave a Comment

2017/10/26: Lew & Howe (2016)

In Lew & Howe (2016), schema-relevancy was measured on a scale of 1 to 10 (very usual to very unusual). Low rating (below 3) were regarded as relevant and rating above 5 were regarded as irrelevant. Irrelevant objects therefore include neutral and unexpected objects. Reference Lew, A. R., & Howe, M. L. (2016). Out of Place, Out of Mind: Schema-Driven False Memory Effects for Object-Location Bindings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000317

Leave a Comment

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,…

Leave a Comment