Browsing by Author "Lu, Xinyi"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7

Offloading information to an external store increases false recall.
(Elsevier, 2020) Lu, Xinyi; Kelly, Megan O.; Risko, Evan F.
Offloading to-be-remembered information is a ubiquitous memory strategy, yet in relying on external memory stores, our ability to recall from internal memory is often diminished. In the present investigation, we examine how offloading impacts true and false recall. Across three experiments, participants studied and wrote down word lists that were each strongly associated with an unstudied critical word. Recall in the Offloading condition (i.e., when they were told that they would have access to their written lists during recall) was contrasted with a No-Offloading condition (i.e., when they were told that they would not have access to their written lists during recall). We found that offloading decreased true recall of presented words while increasing false recall for unpresented critical words. Results are discussed in terms of offloading’s differential effects on the formation of gist and verbatim traces during encoding.
On our susceptibility to external memory store manipulation: examining the influence of perceived reliability and expected access to an external store.
(Taylor & Francis, 2022) Pereira, April E.; Kelly, Megan O.; Lu, Xinyi; Risko, Evan F.
Offloading memory to external stores (e.g., a saved file) allows us to evade the limitations of our internal memory. One cost of this strategy is that the external memory store used may be accessible to others, and thus, manipulated. Here we examine how reducing the perceived reliability of an external memory store may impact participants’ susceptibility to its manipulation (i.e., endorsing manipulated information as authentic). Across two pre-registered experiments, participants were able to store to-be-remembered information in an external store and on two critical trials, we surreptitiously manipulated the information in that store. Results demonstrate that an explicit notification of a previous manipulation, a reduction in perceived reliability, can decrease susceptibility to manipulation of the external memory store.
Productions need not match study items to confer a production advantage, but it helps.
(Hogrefe, 2024) Kelly, Megan O.; Lu, Xinyi; Ensor, Tyler M.; MacLeod, Colin M.; Risko, Evan F.
The production effect is the finding that, relative to silent reading, producing information at study (e.g., reading aloud) leads to a benefit in memory. In most studies of this effect, individuals are presented with a set of unique items, and they produce a subset of these items (e.g., they are presented with the to-be-remembered target item TABLE and produce “table”) such that the production is both unique and representative of the target. Across two preregistered experiments, we examined the influence of a production that is unique but that does not match the target (e.g., producing “fence” to the target TABLE, producing “car” to the target TREE, and so on). This kind of production also yielded a significant effect—the mismatching production effect—although it was smaller than the standard production effect (i.e., when productions are both unique and representative of their targets) and was detectable only when targets with "standard" productions were included in the same study phase (i.e., when the type of production was manipulated within participant). We suggest that target-production matching is an important precursor to the production effect, and that the kind of production that brings about a benefit depends on the other productions that are present.
Reducing retrieval time modulates the production effect: Empirical evidence and computational accounts.
(Elsevier, 2022) Kelly, Megan O.; Ensor, Tyler M.; Lu, Xinyi; MacLeod, Colin M.; Risko, Evan F.
Memory is reliably better for information read aloud relative to information read silently—the production effect. Three preregistered experiments examined whether the production effect arises from a more time-consuming retrieval process operating at test that benefits items that were produced at study. Participants studied items either aloud or silently and then completed a recognition test which required responding within a short deadline, under the assumption that a time-consuming retrieval process would be less able to operate when less time was available. Results generally supported this prediction. Even under speeded responding instructions, however, there was a robust production effect, suggesting that other, more rapid, processes also contribute to the production effect. Based on two extant verbal accounts, a computational model of the production effect using REM is introduced.
Semantic partitioning facilitates memory for object location through category-partition cueing.
(Taylor & Francis, 2024) Lu, Xinyi; Zhu, Mona J.H.; Risko, Evan F.
In our lived environments, objects are often semantically organized (e.g., cookware and cutlery are placed close together in the kitchen). Across four experiments, we examined how semantic partitions (that group same-category objects in space) influenced memory for object locations. Participants learned the locations of items in a semantically partitioned display (where each partition contained objects from a single category) as well as a purely visually partitioned display (where each partition contained a scrambled assortment of objects from different categories). Semantic partitions significantly improved location memory accuracy compared to the scrambled display. However, when the correct partition was cued (highlighted) to participants during recall, performance on the semantically partitioned display was similar to the scrambled display. These results suggest that semantic partitions largely benefit memory for location by enhancing the ability to use the given category as a cue for a visually partitioned area (e.g., toys—top left). Our results demonstrate that semantically structured spaces help location memory across partitions, but not items within a partition, providing new insights into the interaction between meaning and memory.
Semantic relatedness can impair memory for item locations
(Springer, 2024) Lu, Xinyi; Zhu, Mona J.; Risko, Evan F.
While memory for semantically related items is improved over unrelated items in many cases, relatedness can also lead to memory costs. Here we examined how the semantic relatedness of words within a display influenced memory for their locations. Participants learned the locations of words inside grid displays; the words in a given display were either from a single category or were from different assorted categories. When a display containing words from a single category was compared to a scrambled display containing words from multiple categories, location memory performance was rendered worse, while word recall performance was significantly improved. Our results suggest that semantically structured spaces can both help and harm memory within the context of a location memory task. We hypothesize that relatedness can improve memory performance by increasing the likelihood that matching candidates will be retrieved, yet might worsen performance that requires distinguishing between similar target representations.
The gist of it: offloading memory does not reduce the benefit of list categorisation.
(Taylor & Francis, 2022) Lu, Xinyi; Kelly, Megan O.; Risko, Evan F.
When we can offload to-be-remembered information to an external store, our ability to recall that information from internal memory can be diminished. However, previous research has suggested that associative memory processes may remain intact in the face of offloading behavior. In the present investigation, we examine how the opportunity to offload memory demands affects the learning of categorized word lists. Across six experiments, participants studied and wrote down word lists that were either strongly associated with a semantic theme (categorized) or word lists that consisted of the same set of words but shuffled across the categorized lists (shuffled). When participants expected to have access to their written lists during the recall test (i.e., a condition that would encourage offloading) but were not given access to it, we found the typical recall advantage for categorized lists. This effect was found to be the same size or larger compared to a condition where participants did not expect to have access to their written lists during the recall test (i.e., a condition that would not allow offloading). We propose that gist memory supported by semantic associations is not substantially reduced in offloading.