Remindings influence the interpretation of ambiguous stimuli

Abstract

Remindings-stimulus-guided retrievals of prior events-may help us interpret ambiguous events by linking the current situation to relevant prior experiences. Evidence suggests that remindings play an important role in interpreting complex ambiguous stimuli (Ross & Bradshaw Memory & Cognition, 22, 591-605, 1994); here, we evaluate whether remindings will influence word interpretation and memory in a new paradigm. Learners studied words on distinct visual backgrounds and generated a sentence for each word. Homographs were preceded by a biasing cue on the same background three items earlier, preceded by a biasing cue on a different background three items earlier, or followed by a biasing cue on the same background three items later. When biasing cues preceded the homographs on the same backgrounds as the homographs, the meanings of the homographs in learner-generated sentences were consistent with the biasing cues more often than in the other two conditions. These results show that remindings can influence word interpretation. In addition, later memory for the homographs and cues was greater when the meaning of the homograph in the sentence was consistent with the earlier biasing cue, suggesting that remindings enhanced mnemonic performance. Remindings play an important role in how we interpret ambiguous stimuli and enhance memory for the involved material.

Figure 1

Examples of possible stimuli.

Figure 2

The proportion of homographs interpreted using their nondominant meaning based upon condition. Error bars show the within subject 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (see Benjamin, 2003; Loftus & Masson, 1994).

Figure 3

The proportion of sentences for homographs including the biasing cue based upon condition. Error bars show the within subject 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across conditions (see Benjamin, 2003; Loftus & Masson, 1994).

Figure 4

The proportion of homographs (left side) and cues (right side) recalled on the final free recall test per each condition. Error bars show the within subject 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across the homograph analysis and the cue analysis (see Benjamin, 2003; Loftus & Masson, 1994).

Figure 5

The proportion of homographs recalled on the free recall test conditionalized upon their condition and their interpretation during study. Error bars and values show the width of within subject 95% confidence intervals of the difference between dominant and nondominant interpretations. Error bars are not placed on the means themselves because they show the within-subject variability of the differences between interpretations.