Animacy and animate imagery improve retention in the method of loci among novice users

An exploration of the influence of animal and object categories on recall of item location following an incidental learning task

The current study explores the role of attention in location memory for animals and objects. Participants completed an incidental learning task where they rated animals and objects with regard to either their ease of collection to win a scavenger hunt (Experiments 1a and b) or their distance from the centre of the computer screen (Experiment 2). The images of animals and objects were pseudo-randomly positioned on the screen in both experiments. After completing the incidental learning task (and a reverse counting distractor task), participants were then given a surprise location memory recall task. In the location memory recall task, items were shown in the centre of the screen and participants used the mouse to indicate the position the item had been shown during the incidental encoding task. The results of both experiments show that location memory for objects was more accurate than for animals. While we cannot definitively identify the mechanism responsible for the difference in the location memory of objects and animals, we propose that differences in the influence of object-based attention at encoding affect location memory when tested at recall.

Memory rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Loss of cognitive and executive functions is a problem that affects people of all ages. That is why it is important to perform exercises for memory training and prevent early cognitive deterioration. The aim of this work was to compare the cognitive performance of the participants after an intervention by using two mnemonic techniques to exercise memory functions (paired-associate learning and method of loci).

METHODS

A longitudinal study was conducted with 21 healthy participants aged 18 to 55 years over a 2-month period. To assess the impact of this proposal, the NEUROPSI brief battery cognitive assessment test was applied before and after the intervention. In each session, a previous cognitive training was carried out using the paired-associate learning technique, to later perform a task based on the loci method, all from a smart device-based application. The accuracy response and reaction times were automatically collected in the app.

RESULTS

After the intervention, a statistically significant improvement was obtained in the neuropsychological assessment (NEUROPSI neuropsychological battery) reflected by the Wilcoxon paired signed-rank test (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The task based on the method of loci also reflected the well-known age-related effects common to memory assessment tasks. Episodic memory training using the method of loci can be successfully implemented using a smart device app. A stage-based methodological design allows to acquire mnemic skills gradually, obtaining a significant cognitive improvement in a short period of time.

The animacy effect on free recall is equally large in mixed and pure word lists or pairs

The cognitive mechanisms underlying the animacy effect on free recall have as yet to be identified. According to the attentional-prioritization account, animate words are better recalled because they recruit more attention at encoding than inanimate words. The account implies that the animacy effect should be larger when animate words are presented together with inanimate words in mixed lists or pairs than when animate and inanimate words are presented separately in pure lists or pairs. The present series of experiments served to systematically test whether list composition or pair composition modulate the animacy effect. In Experiment 1, the animacy effect was compared between mixed and pure lists. In Experiments 2 and 3, the words were presented in mixed or pure pairs to manipulate the direct competition for attention between animate and inanimate words at encoding. While encoding was intentional in Experiments 1 and 2, it was incidental in Experiment 3. In each experiment, a significant animacy effect was obtained, but the effect was equally large in mixed and pure lists or pairs of animate and inanimate words despite considerable sensitivity of the statistical test of the critical interaction. These findings provide evidence against the attentional-prioritization account of the animacy effect.

The animacy advantage in memory occurs under self-paced study conditions, but participants' metacognitive beliefs can deter it

Introduction

Animacy distinguishes living (animate) things from non-living (inanimate) things. People tend to devote attention and processing to living over nonliving things, resulting in a privileged status for animate concepts in human cognition. For example, people tend to remember more animate than inanimate items, a phenomenon known as the "animacy effect" or "animacy advantage." To date, however, the exact cause(s) of this effect is unknown.

Methods

We examined the animacy advantage in free-recall performance under computer-paced versus self-paced study conditions and using three different sets of animate and inanimate stimuli (Experiments 1 and 2). We also measured participants' metacognitive beliefs (expectations) about the task before it began (Experiment 2).

Results

We consistently obtained an animacy advantage in free-recall, regardless of whether participants studied the materials under computer-paced or self-paced conditions. Those in self-paced conditions spent less time studying items than did those in computer-paced conditions, but overall levels of recall and the occurrence of the animacy advantage were equivalent by study method. Importantly, participants devoted equivalent study time to animate and inanimate items in self-paced conditions, so the animacy advantage in those conditions cannot be attributed to study time differences. In Experiment 2, participants who believed that inanimate items were more memorable instead showed equivalent recall and study time for animate and inanimate items, suggesting that they engaged in equivalent processing of animate and inanimate items. All three sets of materials reliably produced an animacy advantage, but the effect was consistently larger for one set than the other two, indicating some contribution of item-level properties to the effect.

Discussion

Overall, the results suggest that participants do not purposely allocate greater processing to animate over inanimate items, even when study is self-paced. Rather, animate items seem to naturally trigger greater richness of encoding than do inanimate items and are then better remembered, although under some conditions participants might engage in deeper processing of inanimate items which can reduce or eliminate the animacy advantage. We suggest that researchers might conceptualize mechanisms for the effect as either centering on intrinsic, item-level properties of the items or centering on extrinsic, processing-based differences between animate and inanimate items.

Do young children, like young adults, remember animates better than inanimates?

It has repeatedly been shown in adults that animates are remembered better than inanimates. According to the adaptive view of human memory this is due to the fact that animates are generally more important for survival than inanimates. Animacy enhances not only the quantity but also the quality of remembering. The effect is primarily driven by recollection. Virtually all studies have been conducted in adults, and we believe that the investigation of animacy effects in children is also highly relevant. The present study therefore tested the animacy effect on recollection in young (6-7 years, M = 6.6 years) and older children (10-12 years, M = 10.83 years) using the Remember/Know paradigm. As found in adults, an animacy effect on memory was found, but only in older children, and specifically in the "remember" responses, suggesting, once again, its episodic nature.

Animate monitoring is not uniform: implications for the animate monitoring hypothesis

The animate monitoring hypothesis (AMH) purports that humans evolved specialized mechanisms that prioritize attention to animates over inanimates. Importantly, the hypothesis emphasizes that any animate-an entity that can move on its own-should take priority in attention. While many experiments have found general support for this hypothesis, there have yet been no systematic investigations into whether the type of animate matters for animate monitoring. In the present research we addressed this issue across three experiments. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 53) searched for an animate or inanimate entity in a search task, and the animate was either a mammal or a non-mammal (e.g., bird, reptile, insect). Mammals were found significantly faster than inanimates, replicating the basic AMH finding. However, they were also found significantly faster than non-mammals, who were not found faster than inanimates. Two additional experiments were conducted to probe for differences among types of non-mammals using an inattentional blindness task. Experiment 2 (N = 171) compared detection of mammals, insects, and inanimates, and Experiment 3 (N = 174) compared birds and herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians). In Experiment 2, mammals were spontaneously detected at significantly higher rates than insects, who were detected at only slightly higher rates than the inanimates. Furthermore, when participants did not consciously identify the target, they nonetheless could correctly guess the higher level category of the target (living vs. nonliving thing) for the mammals and the inanimates, but could not do so for the insects. We also found in Experiment 3 that reptiles and birds were spontaneously detected at rates similar to the mammals, but like insects they were not identified as living things at rates greater than chance when they were not consciously detected. These results do not support a strong claim that all animates are prioritized in attention, but they do call for a more nuanced view. As such, they open a new window into the nature of animate monitoring, which have implications for theories of its origin.

Animacy enhances recollection but not familiarity: Convergent evidence from the remember-know-guess paradigm and the process-dissociation procedure

Words representing living beings are better remembered than words representing nonliving objects, a robust finding called the animacy effect. Considering the postulated evolutionary-adaptive significance of this effect, the animate words' memory advantage should not only affect the quantity but also the quality of remembering. To test this assumption, we compared the quality of recognition memory between animate and inanimate words. The remember-know-guess paradigm (Experiment 1) and the process-dissociation procedure (Experiment 2) were used to assess both subjective and objective aspects of remembering. Based on proximate accounts of the animacy effect that focus on elaborative encoding and attention, animacy is expected to selectively enhance detailed recollection but not the acontextual feeling of familiarity. Multinomial processing-tree models were applied to disentangle recollection, familiarity, and different types of guessing processes. Results obtained from the remember-know-guess paradigm and the process-dissociation procedure convergently show that animacy selectively enhances recollection but does not affect familiarity. In both experiments, guessing processes were unaffected by the words' animacy status. Animacy thus not only enhances the quantity but also affects the quality of remembering: The effect is primarily driven by recollection. The results support the richness-of-encoding account and the attentional account of the animacy effect on memory.

Analyzing the structure of animacy: Exploring relationships among six new animacy and 15 existing normative dimensions for 1,200 concrete nouns

Animacy is an important word variable (especially for episodic memory), yet no norms exist in the literature. We present a complete, usable normative data set of 1,200 relatively concrete nouns normed on 15 existing dimensions (concreteness, familiarity, imagery, availability, valence, arousal, dominance, age of acquisition, length, orthographic neighborhood, phonographic neighborhood, number of syllables, and subtitle frequency/contextual diversity) and six new animacy dimensions (a general living/non-living scale, ability to think, ability to reproduce, similarity to a person, goal-directedness, and movement likelihood). Principal component analysis of these 21 dimensions revealed that animacy scales were conceptually different from extant word variables. Further, factor analysis of the six new scales revealed these animacy norms may be separable into two dimensions: a "Mental" component related to animates' ability to think and have goals, and a "Physical" component related to animates' general resemblance to living things. These data provide useful theoretical insight into the structure of the animacy dimension, an important factor in many cognitive processes. The norms are accessible at https://osf.io/4t3cu .

Adaptive Education: Learning and Remembering with a Stone-Age Brain

Educators generally accept that basic learning and memory processes are a product of evolution, guided by natural selection. Less well accepted is the idea that ancestral selection pressures continue to shape modern memory functioning. In this article, I review evidence suggesting that attention to nature's criterion-the enhancement of fitness-is needed to explain fully how and why people remember. Thinking functionally about memory, and adopting an evolutionary perspective in the laboratory, has led to recent discoveries with clear implications for learning in the classroom. For example, our memory systems appear to be tuned to animacy (the distinction between living and nonliving things) which, in turn, can play a role in enhancing foreign language acquisition. Effective learning management systems need to align with students' prior knowledge, skill, and interest levels, but also with the inherent content biases or "tunings" that are representative of all people.

Animate and Inanimate Words Demonstrate Equivalent Retrieval Dynamics Despite the Occurrence of the Animacy Advantage

People demonstrate a memory advantage for animate (living) concepts over inanimate (nonliving) concepts in a variety of memory tasks, including free recall, but we do not know the mechanism(s) that produces this effect. We compared the retrieval dynamics (serial-position effects, probability of first recall, output order, categorical clustering, and recall contiguity) of animate and inanimate words in a typical free recall task to help elucidate this effect. Participants were more likely to recall animate than inanimate words, but we found few, if any, differences in retrieval dynamics by word type. The animacy advantage was obtained across serial position, including occurring in both the primacy and recency regions of the lists. Participants were equally likely to recall an animate or inanimate word first on the tests and did not prioritize recalling words of one type earlier in retrieval or demonstrate strong clustering by animacy at recall. Participants showed some greater contiguity of recall for inanimate words, but this outcome ran counter to the animacy effect. Together, the results suggest that the animacy advantage stems from increased item-specific memory strength for animate over inanimate words and is unlikely to stem from intentional or strategic differences in encoding or retrieval by word type, categorical strategies, or differences in temporal organization. Although the present results do not directly support or refute any current explanations for the animacy advantage, we suggest that measures of retrieval dynamics can help to inspire or constrain future accounts for this effect and can be incorporated into relevant hypothesis testing.