Semantic Search in the Remote Associates Test

Searching through semantic memory may involve the use of several retrieval cues. In a verbal fluency task, the set of available cues is limited and every candidate word is a target. Individuals exhibit clustering behavior as predicted by optimal foraging theory. In another semantic search task, the remote associates task (RAT), three cues are presented and a single target word has to be found. Whereas the task has been widely studied as a task of creativity or insight problem solving, in this article, the RAT is treated as a semantic retrieval task and assessed from the perspective of information foraging theory. Experiments are presented that address the superadditive combination of cues and the anti-clustering behavior in the recall sequence. A new type of search behavior in the RAT is put forward that involves maximizing the difference in activation between target and distractors. This type of search is advantageous when the target is weak and cue patches are contaminated with strong competitors.

[1]  R. Okada,et al.  Interresponse times in single-trial free recall. , 1970 .

[2]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Dynamic search and working memory in social recall. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Winston D. Goh,et al.  Testing the myth of the encoding–retrieval match , 2012, Memory & cognition.

[4]  Michael R Dougherty,et al.  Motivated to retrieve: how often are you willing to go back to the well when the well is dry? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  W. A. Bousfield,et al.  An Analysis of Sequences of Restricted Associative Responses , 1944 .

[6]  Eddy J. Davelaar,et al.  A rational approach to memory search termination , 2013, Cognitive Systems Research.

[7]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[8]  David C. Rubin,et al.  Rhyme and reason: Analyses of dual retrieval cues. , 1989 .

[9]  J. S. Nairne,et al.  Memory as discrimination 1 Memory as Discrimination : A Challenge to the Encoding-Retrieval Match Principle , 2015 .

[10]  Thomas T. Hills.  Animal Foraging and the Evolution of Goal-Directed Cognition , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  E. Charnov.  Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. , 1976, Theoretical population biology.

[12]  Eddy J. Davelaar,et al.  On the lawfulness of the decision to terminate memory search , 2009, Cognition.

[13]  Michael S. Humphreys,et al.  An auto-associative neural network for sparse representations : analysis and application to models of recognition and cued recall , 1994 .

[14]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Optimal foraging in semantic memory. , 2012, Psychological review.

[15]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search , 2005, Nature.

[16]  J. S. Nairne.  The myth of the encoding-retrieval match , 2002, Memory.

[17]  Wai-Tat Fu,et al.  SNIF-ACT: A Cognitive Model of User Navigation on the World Wide Web , 2007, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[18]  H. Pashler,et al.  Incubation benefits only after people have been misdirected , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[19]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  An ARC-REM model for accuracy and response time in recognition and recall. , 2001, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition.

[20]  Mark Jung-Beeman,et al.  Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[21]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Search of associative memory. , 1981 .

[22]  Andreas Wilke,et al.  Fishing for the Right Words: Decision Rules for Human Foraging Behavior in Internal Search Tasks , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Giving up problem solving , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[24]  S. Mednick.  The associative basis of the creative process. , 1962, Psychological review.

[25]  T. Goschke,et al.  On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[26]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  The nature of restructuring in insight: An individual-differences approach , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Sam C. Brown,et al.  Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. , 1971 .

[28]  Gene A. Brewer,et al.  Factors that influence search termination decisions in free recall: an examination of response type and confidence. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[29]  Hansjörg Neth,et al.  Discretionary task interleaving: heuristics for time allocation in cognitive foraging. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.