Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University.
Department of Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York.
Psychol Rev. 2023 Nov;130(6):1672-1687. doi: 10.1037/rev0000422. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
We address four issues in response to Osth and Hurlstone's (2022) commentary on the context retrieval and updating (CRU) theory of serial order (Logan, 2021). First, we clarify the relations between CRU, chains, and associations. We show that CRU is not equivalent to a chaining theory and uses similarity rather than association to retrieve contexts. Second, we fix an error Logan (2021) made in accounting for the tendency to recall ACB instead of ACD in recalling ABCDEF (fill-in vs. in-fill errors, respectively). When implemented correctly, the idea that subjects mix the current context with an initial list cue after the first order error correctly predicts that fill-in errors are more frequent than in-fill errors. Third, we address position-specific prior-list intrusions, suggesting modifications to CRU and introducing a position-coding model based on CRU representations to account for them. We suggest that position-specific prior-list intrusions are evidence for position coding on some proportion of the trials but are not evidence against item coding on other trials. Finally, we address position-specific between-group intrusions in structured lists, agreeing with Osth and Hurlstone that reasonable modifications to CRU cannot account for them. We suggest that such intrusions support position coding on some proportion of the trials but do not rule out CRU-like item-based codes. We conclude by suggesting that item-independent and item-dependent coding are alternative strategies for serial recall and we stress the importance of accounting for immediate performance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
我们针对 Osth 和 Hurlstone（2022）对序列顺序的上下文检索和更新（CRU）理论的评论，回应了四个问题。首先，我们澄清了 CRU、链和联想之间的关系。我们表明，CRU 不等同于连锁理论，它使用相似性而不是联想来检索上下文。其次，我们修正了 Logan（2021）在解释为什么在回忆 ABCDEF 时倾向于回忆 ACB 而不是 ACD（分别为填充分数和内插错误）时所犯的一个错误。当正确实施时，认为主体在第一次错误后将当前上下文与初始列表线索混合的想法正确地预测了填充分数错误比内插错误更频繁。第三，我们解决了特定位置的先验列表内插问题，建议对 CRU 进行修改，并引入基于 CRU 表示的位置编码模型来解释它们。我们建议，特定位置的先验列表内插是在某些比例的试验中存在位置编码的证据，但并不是在其他试验中不存在项目编码的证据。最后，我们解决了结构化列表中的特定位置的组间内插问题，我们同意 Osth 和 Hurlstone 的观点，即对 CRU 的合理修改不能解释它们。我们建议，这些内插在某些比例的试验中支持位置编码，但并不排除类似 CRU 的基于项目的编码。我们最后建议，项目独立和项目依赖编码是序列回忆的替代策略，我们强调了考虑即时表现的重要性。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2024 APA，保留所有权利）。
