Spreading activation or spooky action at a distance

How do preexisting connections among a word's associates facilitate its cued recall and recognition? A spreading-activation model assumes activation spreads to, among, and from a studied word's associates, and that its return is what strengthens its representation. An activation-at-a-distance model assumes strengthening is produced by the synchronous activation of the word's associates. The spread model predicts that connections among the studied word's associates will have a greater effect on memory when more of its associates return activation. The distance model predicts that total connections are important, not their direction. The results of cued recall experiments supported the distance model in showing that that connections among the associates facilitated recall regardless of the number of returning connections.

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Familiarity breeds differentiation: a subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. , 1998, Psychological review.

[2]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. , 1988, Psychological review.

[3]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  M. Humphreys,et al.  Creating proactive interference in immediate recall: Building a DOG from a DART, a mop, and a FIG , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[5]  D. Balota,et al.  Depth of Automatic Spreading Activation: Mediated Priming Effects in Pronunciation but Not in Lexical Decision , 1986 .

[6]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A retrieval theory of priming in memory. , 1988, Psychological review.

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

[8]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Priming in a free association task as a function of association directionality , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[9]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  Processing implicit and explicit representations. , 1992, Psychological review.

[10]  D L Nelson,et al.  The ties that bind what is known to the recall of what is new , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  D. J. Bennett,et al.  Mediated priming in younger and older adults. , 1999, Experimental aging research.

[12]  Michael S. Humphreys,et al.  Target similarity effects: Support for the parallel distributed processing assumptions , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[13]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[14]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[15]  Timothy P. McNamara,et al.  Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag. , 1992 .

[16]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  The Large-Scale Structure of Semantic Networks: Statistical Analyses and a Model of Semantic Growth , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Albert Einstein,et al.  Born-Einstein letters , 1971 .

[18]  S. Dennis,et al.  What is free association and what does it measure? , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[19]  D L Nelson,et al.  One step is not enough: Making better use of association norms to predict cued recall , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[20]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  Word concreteness and word structure as independent determinants of recall , 1992 .

[21]  H. P. Bahrick.  Two-phase model for prompted recall. , 1970 .

[22]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[23]  Douglas L. Nelson,et al.  Interpreting the influence of implicitly activated memories on recall and recognition. , 1998 .