which of the following describes what radvansky and zacks found in regards to fan effect?
Curr Opin Behav Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 Oct 1.
Published in concluding edited course as:
PMCID: PMC5734104
NIHMSID: NIHMS903261
Result Boundaries in Memory and Cognition
Gabriel A. Radvansky
University of Notre Dame
Jeffrey G. Zacks
Washington University in Saint Louis
Abstract
Research on issue knowledge is rapidly developing and is revealing primal aspects of human knowledge. In this paper, nosotros review recent and current work that is driving this field forward. We kickoff outline the Upshot Horizon Model, which broadly describes the bear upon of event boundaries on cognition and retention. And then, we address contempo work on event sectionalization, the role of event cognition in working memory and long-term memory, including effect model updating, and long term retentiveness. Throughout we also consider how event cognition varies across individuals and groups of people and consider the neural mechanisms involved.
Events are at the heart of human experience, and event cognition is the study of how people perceive, conceive, talk nearly, and remember them [1]. A current focus of interest is how cerebral systems grade and update representations of events, namely event models. The Event Horizon Model [ane, 2, 3] provides a framework for how such representations are created, structured, and remembered. It consists of five principles, illustrated in Effigy 1: (i) people segment an ongoing stream of action into a succession of event models; (2) only the current issue model is in working memory; (3) the ascendant dimension organizing relations between event models in long term memory is the causal connectivity among elements; (4) people better remember data stored beyond multiple events in noncompetitive attribute retrieval; and (5) people have retrieval interference for information stored across multiple events. Hither, we will highlight recent developments in event cognition in light of this framework. (For systematic reviews, encounter [one, 4].)
Illustration of the bones principles of the Issue Horizon Model. In the figure, each minor rectangle corresponds to an result model. The lettered bits inside each model are entities or other elements of an event model, such as people, objects, etc. The large dashed rectangle corresponds to long-term memory. (one) Event segmentation (crimson) involves parsing the ongoing action into separate events. At an event boundary, the electric current model is stored in long-term retention. (ii) Simply the current model (green) is active in working retentiveness at any given time. (However, considering events are represented on multiple time-scales, the "current model" can correspond to a hierarchy of models ranging from short to longer durations.) (3) Causal connections (blue), indicated past dotted lines, organize the structure of long-term event retentivity. Note that some elements, fifty-fifty those that occur in multiple models, may not exist part of a larger causal structure, merely are only present in those events. Also, notation that some events are antecedents for multiple other events, and that some events may exist caused past multiple prior antecedents. (4) Elements that are part of a recall set up (orange) are easier to manage and remember if they are segregated into multiple events. Finally, (five) retrieval interference occurs when elements are stored across multiple competing event models. Consider the instance colored in royal: Suppose one observed Henry (H) and Archie (A) throwing darts at a dartboard (D). Retrieving the fact that Henry was involved would exist relatively like shooting fish in a barrel considering there is only a single event model in long-term retentiveness with him in it. In dissimilarity, retrieving that Archie was involved would exist more difficult due to retrieval interference, considering Archie is present in 4 result models.
The first principle states that people parse action into events. An business relationship of how this is done is given by Result Division Theory [5, 6, 7] which proposes that people's event comprehension systems class predictions about upcoming happenings based on the electric current event model. When important situation features alter, such as new movements, spatial location, characters, objects, causes, and goals, and so prediction mistake spikes. Equally a result, the current event model is updated and this is experienced every bit an effect boundary [eight, nine, x, eleven, 12, thirteen, 14]. This can be revealed by explicitly request people to indicate the boundaries between events during comprehension [xv, sixteen]; this has been done for videos of everyday activities [17, 18], trip the light fantastic toe movements [xix] and visual and written narratives [20, 21]. Event boundary identification is partially determined by conceptually driven factors, such as comprehenders' current interests and attention [20], action predictability [21], and default expectations [22].
For the 2d principle, when memory is probed, data in the current outcome model is more available than information from previous events. This tin exist revealed equally faster and more accurate responses to probes for elements from either the current or a prior event [23]. Moreover, for the third principle, processing accent is given to causally connected elements, which are ameliorate processed and remembered. This tin be revealed by faster processing times and ameliorate memory for more causally connected material [24].
For long-term memory, the fourth principle captures the idea that event structure tin can be a chunking machinery to ameliorate retentivity. Some experiments bear witness that when features are distributed beyond multiple events they are remembered better than if they occur in a single event, controlling for exposure [25]. Finally, for the fifth principle, when long-term memory contains multiple overlapping event models that share features, simply a task involves the retrieval of only one of them, retrieval interference occurs [26].
1. Event Segmentation every bit a Trigger of Attention
The updating of a electric current event model at an result boundary entails a transient increase in ciphering. Neuroimaging studies have found that there is a large, distributed response at result boundaries during ongoing comprehension, contained of whether viewers attend to partition [6, 27, 28, 29]. This activity can be tied to processing of changes in action features, including movement [30], and event dimensions such every bit location, characters, and objects [6, 31]. This has behavioral consequences. Recent studies take shown that, at event boundaries, people are less probable to mind wander [32] and are more likely to detect changes in objects [33, 34]. Moreover, placing information in dissever events tin do good cerebral command [35]. This suggests that building explicit event representations into computer systems may facilitate adaptive control [36]. It should besides be noted that expectations and attention can be guided linguistically, such that language may bear upon how we call up about events [32, 33]. An important question for future research is whether such effects are transient, or persist to bear on event cognition exterior of conversational situations.
Observers tend to agree in where they place event boundaries [31]. Consistent with this, the neural dynamics in many brain areas show loftier levels of understanding across observers, rising and falling in similar places [37], and appear to be robust with brain changes in good for you aging [38]. That said, there are individual differences in the agreement with these grouping norms, both in terms of the placement of boundaries and in their hierarchical organization. These differences not only reverberate on-line processing, but too predict memory quality [39, twoscore] and the ability to do everyday activities [41]. For example, older adults' event boundaries show less agreement with each other than exercise younger adults', and older adults with early-stage Alzheimer's disease prove even lower understanding [42, 43, 44, 45]. Deviations from normative segmentation also take been reported for people with traumatic encephalon injury [46], lesions to prefrontal cortex [47], post-traumatic stress symptoms [48], schizophrenia [49], and intellectual disability [50]. When interpreting these grouping differences, it is important that in some cases group differences in observed partition could arise from differences in cognitive capacities that are not strictly related to sectionalization, such every bit the ability to interpret and retain task instructions, or to remain on task. Interestingly, Parkinson'south illness, which impairs some aspects of action performance and cognitive function, may spare event segmentation [51].
Of form, people are usually agile participants in events, not simply observers. When consequence perception is coupled to action control, updating an upshot model could arm-twist a modify in ongoing action. The Fluid Events Model [52, 53] incorporates this, accurately predicting when a person volition switch from using one action during an activity to using a different one. As an everyday case, if a football coach was using a given strategy during a game, and that strategy became less effective, what is the probability that at that place will exist a switch to a different strategy? Importantly, such activeness switches are guided more than by factors related to a person's prior experience than factors related to the effect structure of the environs. Thus, overall, it is possible to predict how people parse events though their ain beliefs.
2. The Primacy of the Current Upshot Model in Working Retentiveness
Experiences, whether real or fictional, are rarely most a single scene or event. The activeness moves from ane event to another, and comprehension requires people to update their understanding. The Event Horizon Model proposes that information in the electric current event model is highly available, whereas information that is part of a prior model is less bachelor. Every bit one example, people are less able to recognize recently-seen objects in movies following an result boundary [54] and are slower to recognize recently-read words later on a purlieus [23, 55]. Every bit some other example, people besides detect it harder to resolve anaphors if the referent is in a prior event model as compared to the current one [56]. Recent work [57] has found that anaphor resolution is guided past the structure of the described events, and is only minimally influenced past extra-narrative consequence boundaries (such as pauses in reading).
A contempo neuroimaging report revealed a neural concomitant of behavioral result updating: Many brain areas course stable patterns that transition abruptly, as would be expected for issue models, and whose transitions correspond with issue boundaries in a moving picture or story [58]. Areas showing such transitions overlapped with areas showing event boundary responses, and with areas associated with episodic retention retrieval including regions in the default way network [59] and hippocampus. These dynamics may reverberate representation of the underlying significant of an event rather than the surface structure of the stimuli; encephalon dynamics when participants recalled movies tracked the dynamics of encoding. Other piece of work has shown a transient increment in hippocampal activity at the ends of events, the magnitude of which corresponds to subsequent retention [lx]. Thus, the hippocampus may be involved in transforming experience into a course that can be remembered over long delays.
Private dimensions of a electric current model can be updated selectively. For case, suppose 1 is maintaining a current model of "checking out at the grocery shop." If the clerk is called away to answer a question on the phone and the director steps in to finish the transaction. One possibility is that this triggers an event purlieus and global updating of the current model. Alternatively, the current model would remain intact just the "clerk" attribute would be updated incrementally. Two recent reading comprehension studies [5, 61] assayed these two kinds of updating, and found evidence for both. Moreover, compared to younger adults, older adults showed show of reduced incremental updating but like global updating.
3. The Organization of Long-Term Retentivity by Causal Connections
The Event Horizon Model proposes that consequence models processing is heavily influenced past causal connectivity. One recent study [62] used a narrative reading paradigm to examination this. During comprehension, readers must access long-term memory to resolve anaphoric references in a text, and causal breaks could contribute to slowing in memory access. When readers feel a failure of their predictions they update their event models, resulting in slower reading times [e.g., 63]. It was hypothesized that foreshadowing an upcoming causal suspension would eliminate this updating-related slowing past eliminating the prediction error. Notwithstanding, it was hypothesized that information presented prior to the event break would still be less accessible because the relevant causally-related features would exist less salient. This is what was found.
iv. Events as a Means of Organizing and Chunking Data
Effects of effect structure on long-term memory are stable over long periods. While retentiveness for verbatim and propositional significant units are lost quite apace, result model memory is much better retained [64]. The Event Horizon Model proposes a coupling between the structure of ongoing experience and long-term outcome memory: Events form the episodes in episodic memory. In text memory, after reading, narrative sentences from the same event prime each other more than sentences from side by side events [65]. Moreover, memory for the order of encounters is better within events than across them, with judgments of temporal order across events frequently being quite poor [66, 67]. This suggests that within-effect relations are represented in consequence models, merely those betwixt models are less well-defined, especially if there is no causal human relationship. Finally, removing data from event boundaries impairs subsequent memory for those actions [68, 69].
According to the Upshot Horizon Model, elements that are learned across multiple events are more than accessible in long-term memory, because the event structure provides a means of organizing and chunking. If online segmentation forms the units of subsequent episodic retentivity, the improving partitioning should meliorate memory. Initial results supporting this hypothesis were correlational, showing the people and groups with better division had amend memory [16, 40, 42, 43]. More recent studies have shown that intervening to support event segmentation results in better retention, as long as one calendar month later on [39, 70]. Memory improvement likewise occurs if a set of information is learned past having it distributed across multiple events [25]. For example, if people learn lists of words either within the same location, or spread beyond multiple location, such as rooms in a lab or windows on a computer screen, they remembered more when the ready was divided between multiple events, rather than being office of a single effect, complementing prior work on context and retroactive interference [71].
One exciting new research direction involves linking the temporal dynamics of event encoding and retrieval. One report examined interactions between the hippocampus and the default way network while people watched the second half of a flick [72]. The showtime half was presented either immediately before or one day before. With the 1-day delay, longer-term memory was needed to understand the second half, and this was associated with increased interactions between the hippocampus and the default style network. Another study showed that the hippocampus represents the spatial and temporal altitude betwixt events experienced over weeks in existent life [73]. The dynamics of these representations appears to decide subjective feel: When two events have similar hippocampal representations, they are experienced as having been closer in time [74].
v. Events and Retrieval Interference
The influence of outcome structure impeding memory is clearly seen with the location updating effect. This phenomena is found when people walk through doorways. In an initial experiment, people navigated a virtual environs and were probed for the identity of objects they were carrying [75]. After picking upward an object and walking a fixed distance, memory was poorer if that walk included a doorway. This result occurs both when the probes are pictures as well every bit labels, when people demand to remember discussion pairs [76], with pocket-sized figurer screens, and real world move [77]. As shown in Figure 3, this is not simply a context consequence: If people go out a room so return to information technology, memory is not improved. Information technology is also not solely a consequence of event sectionalisation: moving from one room into a second room and then into a 3rd room leads to worse memory than returning to the original room. In both cases, there are 2 event boundaries but in the onetime instance there are three retrieval contexts, whereas in the latter case there are ii. Thus, at least part of the memory decrement reflects retrieval interference. The location updating effect is also not a matter of sensory-perceptual processing: it occurs for imagined doorways [78], for doorways separated by a transparent "glass" wall [79], and occurs when at that place is time to permit participants to process the sensory and perceptual transients [80]. Finally, information technology should be noted that recent piece of work [81] has shown that this blueprint of performance was like in younger and older adults suggesting that they manage their event models in long-term memory similarly.
In this study, people navigated from room to room, picking up objects on tables and and so setting them downwardly on the next table. (A) presents a schematic of a subset of trials illustrating four conditions, and (B) is the error rate data. The location updating event is the finding that memory is better when there is No Shift (reddish) from a location compared to when in that location is a Shift (green). In the Return status (orangish), after moving from i room to the next room, halfway through a person was told to return to the room from whence they came prior to having memory probed. Finally, in the Double Shift condition (bluish), later moving from one room to the next, halfway through a person is told to movement on to yet another room.
The furnishings of retrieval interference on long-term retention not but emerge quickly; they also are durable. This durability recently has been seen in a report using the differential fan issue [82]. The differential fan effect is the finding that when data tin be integrated and organized into a common upshot model, such knowing that the potted palm, the pay phone, and the message board are in the museum, then there are no competing consequence models, and at that place is no retrieval interference. In contrast, when information cannot exist integrated into a common event model, such as knowing that the welcome mat is in the airport, the hairdresser store, and the picture theater (because these all refer to separate events), then during memory retrieval, these event models, which share the common element of the welcome mat, interfere with ane another. The more outcome models in that location are, the greater the interference, and the slower the retrieval time. This increase in retrieval time with an increment in the number of associations is chosen a fan effect. Recent work [82] has shown that the differential fan result persists over long periods of fourth dimension, largely unchanged. This tin be seen in Figure four in which a differential fan effect is present both immediately after learning, also every bit 2 weeks later, with simply minor changes.
Results showing a differential fan effect for firsthand testing and after a two week filibuster. Level of fan is the number of associations with a concept. The differential fan effect is the finding of retrieval interference (a fan consequence) in 1 condition (common object), only not the other (common location). The pattern is largely unchanged after two weeks of retentiveness, with just minor variations, although response fourth dimension has slowed some during this time.
Conclusions
Event cognition is a rapidly emerging subject area that has implications for a wide range of cognitive phenomena. This includes the processing of actions as they are unfolding in the moment, the using of event noesis to manage information in working memory, and the retrieval of knowledge from long-term memory. Finally, this field of study has matured to the point that it has provided some revealing insights about diverse individual and group differences.
A. In ii experiments [39], participants watched movies that were edited to cue information at event boundaries, event middles, or were left unedited. In both experiments, cueing consequence boundary information led to meliorate recall retention afterward a brief filibuster. B. In 5 experiments [40], participants either watched movies with the intent to remember afterward (orange) or segmented them to mark meaningful events (light-green). Recognition retentivity for pictures from the movies was ameliorate after segmenting at all delays except for the immediate delay. Immediate memory may rely on perceptual details that are ameliorate encoded without a secondary chore, but which are quickly lost.
Footnotes
The writer declares no disharmonize of involvement
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accustomed for publication. Every bit a service to our customers we are providing this early on version of the manuscript. The manuscript volition undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before information technology is published in its final citable class. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Contributor Data
Gabriel A. Radvansky, Academy of Notre Dame.
Jeffrey Grand. Zacks, Washington University in Saint Louis.
References
**i. Radvansky GA, Zacks JM. Upshot Cognition. Oxford University Printing; 2014. This book provides a broad overview of issues in effect noesis. It is written for researchers working in whatever field of cerebral scientific discipline, or in cognate disciplines such as education or human-computer interaction. [Google Scholar]
ii. Radvansky GA. Across the upshot horizon. Current Directions in Psychological Scientific discipline. 2012;21(4):269–272. [Google Scholar]
3. Radvansky GA, Zacks JM. Event perception. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cerebral Science. 2011;2(6):608–620. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
*four. Zacks JM, Speer NK, Swallow KM, Braver TS, Reynolds JR. Outcome perception: a heed-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin. 2007;133(2):273. This article gives a theoretical overview of upshot perception and presents Event Segmentation Theory. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
five. Kurby CA, Zacks JM. Starting from scratch and building brick by brick in comprehension. Retention & Cognition. 2012;40(5):812–826. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Speer NK, Zacks JM, Reynolds JR. Homo brain activity time-locked to narrative event boundaries. Psychological Scientific discipline. 2007;18(5):449–455. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Swallow KM, Zacks JM, Abrams RA. Consequence boundaries in perception impact retentiveness encoding and updating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2009;138(2):236–257. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Zacks JM, Speer NK, Reynolds JR. Sectionalisation in reading and film comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2009;138(ii):307–327. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Zacks JM. Using motility and intentions to understand uncomplicated events. Cognitive Science. 2004;28(6):979–1008. [Google Scholar]
10. Zacks JM, Kumar S, Abrams RA, Mehta R. Using move and intentions to empathise man activity. Cognition. 2009;112:201–216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eleven. Huff One thousand, Meitz TGK, Papenmeier F. Changes in state of affairs models modulate processes of event perception in audiovisual narratives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2014;twoscore(5):1377–1388. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Buchsbaum D, Griffiths TL, Plunkett D, Gopnik A, Baldwin D. Inferring activeness structure and causal relationships in continuous sequences of homo activity. Cognitive Psychology. 2015;76:30–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Loucks J, Mutschler C, Meltzoff AN. Children'southward representation and imitation of events: How goal organization influences 3-year-one-time children's retention for action sequences. Cognitive Science. 2016:one–thirty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Tauzin T. Simple visual cues of event boundaries. Acta Psychologica. 2015;158:viii–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
*15. Newtson D. Foundations of attribution: The perception of ongoing behavior. New Directions in Attribution Research. 1976;one:223–247. This newspaper reviews the seminal early work past Newtson and his colleagues on outcome segmentation. [Google Scholar]
xvi. Bailey 60 minutes, Sargent JQ, Flores S, Nowotny P, Goate A, Zacks JM. APOE ε4 genotype predicts retentivity for everyday activities. Crumbling, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 2015;22(6):639–666. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Boggia J, Ristic J. Social event sectionalisation. The Quarterly Periodical of Experimental Psychology. 2015;68(4):731–744. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Magliano JP, Radvansky GA, Forsythe JC, Copeland DE. Event partitioning during first-person continuous events. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2014;26(6):649–661. [Google Scholar]
xix. Bläsing Exist. Segmentation of dance motility: effects of expertise, visual familiarity, motor experience and music. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;10:3389. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xx. Bailey Hour, Kurby CA, Sargent JQ, Zacks JM. Attentional focus affects how events are segmented and updated in narrative text. 2017 Manuscript nether review. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Magliano J, Kopp K, McNerney MW, Radvansky GA, Zacks JM. Aging and perceived event structure as a function of modality. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Noesis. 2012;19(1–ii):264–282. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Avrahami J, Kareev Y. The emergence of events. Cognition. 1994;53(3):239–261. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Hymel A, Levin DT, Baker LJ. Default processing of consequence sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Homo Perception and Functioning. 2016;42(2):235–246. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Zwaan RA. Processing narrative fourth dimension shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1996;22(5):1196–1207. [Google Scholar]
24. Radvansky GA, Copeland DE. Functionality and spatial relations in memory and language. Memory & Knowledge. 2000;28(6):987–992. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Pettijohn KA, Thompson AN, Tamplin AK, Krawietz SA, Radvansky GA. Event boundaries and memory improvement. Cognition. 2016;148:136–144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Radvansky GA, Zacks RT. Mental models and the fan effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Noesis. 1991;17(5):940–953. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Zacks JM, Braver TS, Sheridan MA, Donaldson DI, Snyder AZ, Ollinger JM, Buckner RL, Raichle ME. Human encephalon activeness time-locked to perceptual result boundaries. Nature Neuroscience. 2001;4(6):651–655. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Zacks JM, Speer NK, Swallow KM, Maley CJ. The brain'south cutting-room flooring: Segmentation of narrative picture palace. Frontiers in Human being Neuroscience. 2010;4(168):1–15. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Whitney C, Huber W, Klann J, Weis S, Krach S, Kircher T. Neural correlates of narrative shifts during auditory story comprehension. NeuroImage. 2009;47(one):360–366. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Zacks JM, Swallow KM, Vettel JM, McAvoy MP. Visual motility and the neural correlates of event perception. Brain Research. 2006;1076(1):150–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Zacks JM, Speer NK, Swallow KM, Maley CJ. The brain'south cut-room floor: Segmentation of narrative movie theatre. Frontiers in Man Neuroscience. 2010;4(168):1–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Faber M, Radvansky GA, D'Mello SK. Driven to lark: A lack of change gives rise to heed wandering. 2016 Manuscript submitted for publication. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Bakery LJ, Levin DT. Event perception as a control process for visual sensation. Visual Cognition. 2015;23(seven):814–816. [Google Scholar]
34. Baker LJ, Levin DT. The role of relational triggers in event perception. Cognition. 2015;136:14–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Reimer JF, Radvansky GA, Lorsbach TC, Armendarez JJ. Event structure and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2015;41(5):1374. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Khemlani SS, Harrison AM, Trafton JG. Episodes, events, and models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2015;9:590. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Hasson U, Nir Y, Levy I, Fuhrmann 1000, Malach R. Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision. Scientific discipline. 2004;303(5664):1634–1640. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Flores S, Bailey Hr, Eisenberg ML, Zacks JM. Effect segmentation improves event retention upward to ane calendar month subsequently. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017;43(eight):1183–1202. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Sargent JQ, Zacks JM, Hambrick DZ, Zacks RT, Kurby CA, Bailey Hour, Eisenberg ML, Brook TM. Event segmentation ability uniquely predicts event retentivity. Noesis. 2013;129(2):241–255. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Bailey HR, Kurby CA, Giovannetti T, Zacks JM. Action perception predicts activity performance. Neuropsychologia. 2013;51(eleven):2294–2304. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Zacks JM, Speer NK, Vettel JM, Jacoby LL. Result understanding and memory in salubrious aging and dementia of the Alzheimer type. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21(three):466–482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Kurby CA, Zacks JM. Historic period differences in the perception of hierarchical structure in events. Retentiveness & knowledge. 2011;39(1):75–91. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Bailey HR, Zacks JM, Hambrick DZ, Zacks RT, Head D, Kurby CA, Sargent JQ. Medial temporal lobe volume predicts elders' everyday memory. Psychological Science. 2013;24(7):1113–1122. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Kurby CA, Asiala LK, Mills SR. Crumbling and the segmentation of narrative film. Crumbling, Neuropsychology, and Noesis. 2014;21(4):444–463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Zacks JM, Kurby CA, Landazabal CS, Krueger F, Grafman J. Effects of penetrating traumatic brain injury on result division and retentiveness. Cortex. 2016;74:233–246. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Zalla T, Pradat-Diehl P, Sirigu A. Perception of action boundaries in patients with frontal lobe damage. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41(12):1619–1627. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Eisenberg M, Sargent J, Zacks J. Posttraumatic Stress and the Comprehension of Everyday Activity. Collabra: Psychology. 2016;2(1) [Google Scholar]
49. Zalla T, Verlut I, Franck N, Puzenat D, Sirigu A. Perception of dynamic action in patients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry research. 2004;128(i):39–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Sebastian K, Ghose T, Zacks JM, Huff M. Understanding the cognitive potential of persons with intellectual disability in workshops for adjusted work. Applied Cerebral Psychology in press. [Google Scholar]
51. Schiffer AM, Nevado-Holgado AJ, Johnen A, Schönberger AR, Fink GR, Schubotz RI. Intact action segmentation in Parkinson's disease: Hypothesis testing using a novel computational approach. Neuropsychologia. 2015;78:29–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
*52. Radvansky GA, D'Mello S, Abbott RG, Morgan B, Fike K, Tamplin AK. The fluid events model: predicting continuous task activeness alter. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2015;68(10):2051–2072. This paper describes the Fluid Events model and reports supporting data for the idea that changes in people's action can result in subjectively produced effect boundaries. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Radvansky GA, D'Mello SK, Abbott RG, Bixler RE. Predicting Individual Activeness Switching in Covert and Continuous Interactive Tasks Using the Fluid Events Model. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7:23. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Swallow KM, Barch DM, Head D, Maley CJ, Holder D, Zacks JM. Changes in events alter how people remember recent information. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2011;23(five):1052–1064. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Rinck M, Bower GH. Temporal and spatial altitude in situation models. Memory & Cognition. 2000;28(8):1310–1320. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Kelter South, Kaup B, Claus B. Representing a described sequence of events: a dynamic view of narrative comprehension. Periodical of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Knowledge. 2004;30(2):451–464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Thompson AN, Radvansky GA. Event boundaries and anaphoric reference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2016;23(three):849–856. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
*58. Baldassano C, Chen J, Zadbood A, Pillow JW, Hasson U, Norman KA. Discovering effect construction in continuous narrative perception and retentiveness. 2016:81018. bioRxiv. This paper is an excellent instance of how advanced pattern-based machine learning methods are beingness practical to agreement the neural dynamics of result cognition. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA, Shulman GL. A default mode of encephalon role. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United states of america. 2001;98(2):676–692. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Ben-Yakov A, Rubinson Thou, Dudai Y. Shifting gears in hippocampus: Temporal dissociation between familiarity and novelty signatures in a unmarried upshot. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2014;34(39):12973–12981. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Bailey Hr, Zacks JM. Situation model updating in immature and older adults: Global versus incremental mechanisms. Psychology and Aging. 2015;xxx(2):232–244. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Pettijohn KA, Radvansky GA. Narrative result boundaries, reading times, and expectation. Memory & Cognition. 2016;44(7):1064–1075. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Zwaan RA, Magliano JP, Graesser AC. Narrative Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1995;21(two):386–397. [Google Scholar]
64. Radvansky GA, Fisher JS. Long-term retentivity of surface grade, textbase, and outcome model memory. 2017 Manuscript submitted for publication. [Google Scholar]
65. Ezzyat Y, Davachi 50. What constitutes an episode in episodic memory? Psychological Scientific discipline. 2011;22(two):243–252. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Horner AJ, Bisby JA, Wang A, Bogus Thousand, Burgess N. The function of spatial boundaries in shaping long-term effect representations. Cognition. 2016;154:151–164. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. DuBrow S, Davachi 50. The influence of context boundaries on retentivity for the sequential society of events. Periodical of Experimental Psychology: General. 2013;142(4):1277–1286. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Sonne T, Kingo Bone, Krøjgaard P. Occlusions at consequence boundaries during encoding have a negative effect on infant retentiveness. Consciousness and noesis. 2016;41:72–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Schwan Southward, Garsoffky B. The cerebral representation of filmic effect summaries. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2004;18(1):37–55. [Google Scholar]
70. Gilt DA, Zacks JM, Flores S. Effects of cues to effect sectionalisation on subsequent memory. Cognitive Research, Principles, & Implications in press. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Smith SM, Glenberg A, Bjork RA. Ecology context and human being memory. Retentiveness & Cognition. 1978;half dozen(4):342–353. [Google Scholar]
72. Chen J, Honey CJ, Simony Due east, Arcaro MJ, Norman KA, Hasson U. Accessing existent-life episodic information from minutes versus hours earlier modulates hippocampal and high-order cortical dynamics. Cerebral Cortex. 2015:bhv155. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Nielson DM, Smith TA, Sreekumar V, Dennis S, Sederberg PB. Human hippocampus represents space and fourth dimension during retrieval of real-world memories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(35):11078–11083. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Ezzyat Y, Davachi L. Similarity breeds proximity: Pattern similarity within and across contexts is related to afterward mnemonic judgments of temporal proximity. Neuron. 2014;81(five):1179–1189. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Radvansky GA, Copeland DE. Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Situation models and experienced space. Memory & Cognition. 2006;34(v):1150–1156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Radvansky GA, Tamplin AK, Krawietz SA. Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Ecology integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2010;17(6):900–904. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Radvansky GA, Krawietz SA, Tamplin AK. Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Further explorations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2011;64(8):1632–1645. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Lawrence Z, Peterson D. Mentally walking through doorways causes forgetting: The location updating event and imagination. Memory. 2016;24(ane):12–twenty. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Pettijohn KA, Radvansky GA. Walking through doorways causes forgetting: environmental furnishings. Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2016;28(3):329–340. [Google Scholar]
80. Pettijohn KA, Radvansky GA. Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Event construction or updating disruption? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2016;69(11):2119–2129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Radvansky GA, Pettijohn KA, Kim J. Walking through doorways causes forgetting: Younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2015;30(2):259–265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Radvansky GA, O'Rear AE, Fisher JS. The persistence of effect models: The differential fan upshot over time. Memory & Cognition. 2017;45(6):1028–1044. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5734104/
0 Response to "which of the following describes what radvansky and zacks found in regards to fan effect?"
Post a Comment