Associative Symmetry and Memory Theory

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2002 Nov 27

PMID 12450087

Citations 25

Authors

Michael J Kahana

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This article reexamines the theory and data concerning two opposing views of episodic association. The independent association hypothesis (IAH) sees associations as unidirectional and separately modifiable links between individual item representations. The associative symmetry hypothesis (ASH) sees an association as a holistic conjunction of the constituent items, blending the elements of their representations into a new one. In early tests of these hypotheses, experimenters compared forward and backward recall of paired associates, looking for asymmetries. Although some studies showed significant differences between forward and backward recall, the vast majority did not. The author of this study used a mathematical analysis of distributed memory models to reexamine this classic question. These analyses revealed that symmetric and asymmetric models can mimic each other, offering identical predictions regarding forward and backward recall. To distinguish these models, the author examined the correlation between forward and backward recall at the level of individual pairs of items. Both this correlation and the correlation between recall of pairs tested in the same direction were near unity. These results provide new evidence favoring the ASH over the IAH.

Citing Articles

Asymmetric Weights and Retrieval Practice in an Autoassociative Neural Network Model of Paired-Associate Learning.

Aenugu S, Huber D Neural Comput. 2021; 33(12):3351-3360.

PMID: 34710897 PMC: 8662717. DOI: 10.1162/neco_a_01444.

Semantic knowledge influences whether novel episodic associations are represented symmetrically or asymmetrically.

Popov V, Zhang Q, Koch G, Calloway R, Coutanche M Mem Cognit. 2019; 47(8):1567-1581.

PMID: 31215011 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-00950-4.

Associative interference in older and younger adults.

Burton R, Lek I, Dixon R, Caplan J Psychol Aging. 2019; 34(4):558-571.

PMID: 31094536 PMC: 6548190. DOI: 10.1037/pag0000361.

From the structure of experience to concepts of structure: How the concept "cause" is attributed to objects and events.

Leshinskaya A, Thompson-Schill S J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019; 148(4):619-643.

PMID: 30973260 PMC: 6461371. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000594.

Contiguity in episodic memory.

Healey M, Long N, Kahana M Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 26(3):699-720.

PMID: 30465268 PMC: 6529295. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1537-3.

References

Metcalfe J . Novelty monitoring, metacognition, and control in a composite holographic associative recall model: implications for Korsakoff amnesia. Psychol Rev. 1993; 100(1):3-22. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.100.1.3. View

Estes W . Learning theory and the new "mental chemistry". Psychol Rev. 1960; 67:207-23. DOI: 10.1037/h0041624. View

Slamecka N . An analysis of double-function lists. Mem Cognit. 2011; 4(5):581-5. DOI: 10.3758/BF03213221. View

HOROWITZ L, BROWN Z, WEISSBLUTH S . AVAILBILITY AND THE DIRECTION OF ASSOCIATIONS. J Exp Psychol. 1964; 68:541-9. DOI: 10.1037/h0043309. View

Bartling C, Thompson C . Encoding specificity: retrieval asymmetry in the recognition failure paradigm. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1977; 3(6):690-700. View

Rizzuto D, Kahana M . An autoassociative neural network model of paired-associate learning. Neural Comput. 2001; 13(9):2075-92. DOI: 10.1162/089976601750399317. View

Tulving E . INTRATRIAL AND INTERTRIAL RETENTION: NOTES TOWARDS A THEORY OF FREE RECALL VERBAL LEARNING. Psychol Rev. 1964; 71:219-37. DOI: 10.1037/h0043186. View

HOROWITZ L, Norman S, Day R . Availability and associative symmetry. Psychol Rev. 1966; 73(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1037/h0022661. View

Hopfield J . Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982; 79(8):2554-8. PMC: 346238. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.79.8.2554. View

10.

Nilsson L, Gardiner J . Identifying exceptions in a database of recognition failure studies from 1973 to 1992. Mem Cognit. 1993; 21(3):397-410. DOI: 10.3758/bf03208273. View

11.

Eich J . Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration, and CHARM. Psychol Rev. 1985; 92(1):1-38. View

12.

Metcalfe J . Recognition failure and the composite memory trace in CHARM. Psychol Rev. 1991; 98(4):529-53. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.98.4.529. View

13.

Kahana M . Associative retrieval processes in free recall. Mem Cognit. 1996; 24(1):103-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197276. View

14.

Buhmann , Divko , SCHULTEN . Associative memory with high information content. Phys Rev A Gen Phys. 1989; 39(5):2689-2692. DOI: 10.1103/physreva.39.2689. View

15.

Gillund G, Shiffrin R . A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychol Rev. 1984; 91(1):1-67. View

16.

MURDOCK Jr B . Backward learning in paired associates. J Exp Psychol. 1956; 51(3):213-5. DOI: 10.1037/h0044314. View

17.

Kahana M, Caplan J . Associative asymmetry in probed recall of serial lists. Mem Cognit. 2002; 30(6):841-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195770. View

18.

Howard M, Kahana M . Contextual variability and serial position effects in free recall. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999; 25(4):923-41. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.25.4.923. View

19.

Kahana M, Howard M, Zaromb F, Wingfield A . Age dissociates recency and lag recency effects in free recall. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(3):530-40. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.530. View

20.

MURDOCK Jr B . Forward and backward associations in paired associates. J Exp Psychol. 1966; 71(5):732-7. DOI: 10.1037/h0023113. View