Previous work from our lab has shown that event structure can influence memory performance. Our work in prospective memory has shown that, consistent with an event model view, performance is better when multiple encoding events refer to a common retrieval event. The aim of this study was to assess the generality of this influence of event model structure on memory by using two retrospective memory tasks. This was done using lists of sentences (Experiment 1) and narrative texts (Experiment 2). The results of these retrospective memory tasks replicated that of the prospective memory task and are most consistent with an event cognition account. These results also suggest that encoding and referent event structures may affect some levels of representation (e.g., the surface form) more than others (e.g., the textbase and event model). Overall, we demonstrate that event structure has principled influences on memory apart from the nature of the materials or the task. Moreover, we discuss how these findings are inconsistent with more traditional theories of memory processing, such as associative interference and spreading activation accounts.
GerardL.ZacksR. T.HasherL.RadvanskyG. A. (1991). Age deficits in retrieval: The fan effect. Journal of Gerontology, 46(4), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/46.4.P131
5.
GlenbergA. M.MeyerM.LindemK. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90063-5
6.
KintschW.WelschD.SchmalhoferF.ZimnyS. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90069-C
7.
KurbyC. A.ZacksJ. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004
MeyerD. E.SchvaneveldtR. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031564
12.
MorrowD. G.BowerG. H.GreenspanS. L. (1989). Updating situation models during narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90035-1
13.
MorrowD. G.GreenspanS. L.BowerG. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90122-7
O’RearA. E.RadvanskyG. A. (2019). Location-based prospective memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818758608
16.
ÖztekinI.McElreeB. (2007). Retrieval dynamics of proactive interference: PI slows retrieval by eliminating fast assessments of familiarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 126–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.011
17.
PettijohnK. A.RadvanskyG. A. (2015). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Environmental effects. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1123712
18.
PettijohnK. A.RadvanskyG. A. (2016). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Event structure or updating disruption?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2119–2129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1101478
19.
PettijohnK. A.ThompsonA. N.TamplinA. K.KrawietzS. A.RadvanskyG. A. (2016). Event boundaries and memory improvement. Cognition, 148, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.013
20.
RadvanskyG. A. (1998). The organization of information retrieved from situation models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212952
21.
RadvanskyG. A. (1999a). Memory retrieval and suppression: The inhibition of situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(4), 563–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.128.4.563
RadvanskyG. A. (2005). Situation models, propositions, and the fan effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 478–483. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193791
24.
RadvanskyG. A. (2009). Spatial directions and situation model organization. Memory & Cognition, 37(6), 796–806. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.796
RadvanskyG. A.CopelandD. E. (2006a). Memory retrieval and interference: Working memory issues. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.02.001
28.
RadvanskyG. A.CopelandD. E. (2006b). Situation models and retrieval interference: Pictures and words. Memory, 14(5), 614–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210600647714
29.
RadvanskyG. A.CopelandD. E. (2006c). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Situation models and experienced space. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193261
30.
RadvanskyG. A.KrawietzS. A.TamplinA. K. (2011). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Further explorations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1632–1645. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.571267
31.
RadvanskyG. A.PettijohnK. A.KimJ. (2015). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 30(2), 259–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039259
32.
RadvanskyG. A.SpielerD. H.ZacksR. T. (1993). Mental model organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(1), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.95
33.
RadvanskyG. A.TamplinA. K.KrawietzS. A. (2010). Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Environmental integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 900–904. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.900
34.
RadvanskyG. A.WyerR. S.Jr.CurielJ. M.LutzM. F. (1997). Situation models and abstract ownership relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1233–1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1233
35.
RadvanskyG. A.ZacksJ. M. (2014). Event cognition. Oxford University Press.
36.
RadvanskyG. A.ZacksR. T. (1991). Mental models and the fan effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(5), 940–953.
37.
RadvanskyG. A.ZacksR. T.HasherL. (1996). Fact retrieval in younger and older adults: The role of mental models. Psychology and Aging, 11(2), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.11.2.258
38.
RadvanskyG. A.ZacksR. T.HasherL. (2005). Age and inhibition: The retrieval of situation models. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60(5), P276–P278. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/60.5.P276
39.
RadvanskyG. A.ZwaanR. A.FedericoT.FranklinN. (1998). Retrieval from temporally organized situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1224
40.
RederL. M.AndersonJ. R. (1980). A partial resolution of the paradox of interference: The role of integrating knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 12(4), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90016-X
41.
RoedigerH. L. I. I. I.GuynnM. J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In BjorkE. L.BjorkR. A. (Eds.), Memory (pp. 197–236). Academic Press.
42.
SchmalhoferF.GlavanovD. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90002-1
43.
ThompsonA. N.RadvanskyG. A. (2016). Event boundaries and anaphoric reference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(3), 849–856. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0961-x
WatkinsM. J.WatkinsO. C. (1976). Cue-overload theory and the method of interpolated attributes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7(3), 289–291. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337192
46.
WatkinsO. C.WatkinsM. J. (1975). Buildup of proactive inhibition as a cue-overload effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1(4), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.1.4.442
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
