Beneficial and detrimental effects of schema incongruence on memory for contextual events

Abstract

Mental schemas provide a framework into which new information can easily be integrated. In a series of experiments, we examined how incongruence that stems from a prediction error modulates memory for multicomponent events that instantiated preexisting schemas as noted in a previous study. Each event consisted of four stimulus pairs with overlapping components, presented in four blocks (A-B, B-C, C-D, D-A). A-B pairs elicited contextual expectations (A: Farm, B: Tractor) that were either met by a congruent C component (C: Farmer) or violated by an incongruent one (C: Lawyer). The baseline condition included unrelated pairs, where the C component was neither congruent nor incongruent. In experiment 2, events were presented in successive trials instead of blocks, and eye movements were recorded to analyze allocation of attention. Memory was tested through old-new item recognition followed by cued recall. Across experiments, recognition and recall performance for incongruent components was reduced compared to congruent components. Incongruent items were in some cases more accurately retrieved compared to unrelated ones, depending on task demands. Additionally, better recall was observed in the incongruent D-A pairs, compared to congruent and unrelated ones, because of reduced interference from C components. Eye-tracking revealed an increased number of fixations on C components in the incongruent and unrelated conditions. These results suggest that the integration of incongruent items into an episode is impaired, compared to congruent items, despite the contextual surprise and increased attention they elicited at encoding. However, there was a beneficial effect of prediction error on memory performance, compared to a baseline, depending on the task used.

Figure 1.

Experimental design. (A) Encoding phase. Participants encoded 120 paired associates, over four blocks, one for each pairwise association from every event. They imagined each pair interacting in a meaningful way for 3 sec. Each pair was preceded by a 1 sec fixation cross. (B) Retrieval phase. Participants were presented with a cue and asked to indicate whether they remember seeing it at encoding. If they responded “yes” they were asked to recall one of the other components from the same event, based on the spatial location of the cue. Inference association task was used in Experiment 2. Labels in parentheses are for illustration and were not presented during the experiment.

Figure 2.

Results Experiment 1. (A) Cued recall performance forward pairs (e.g., A–?). (B) Cued recall performance backward pairs (e.g., ?–B). In both orders performance tracks levels of relatedness of pairs, such that most incongruent and unrelated pairs are equivocal. (C) Item recognition, Congruent C components show better accuracy compared to incongruent ones. (D) Interference analysis, percentage of erroneously recalled C items in the cued recall task. Most interference from congruent items, followed by incongruent and then unrelated. Unless otherwise states, error bars represent standard error of mean. (*) P ≤ 0.05, (**) P ≤ 0.01, (***) P ≤ 0.001.

Figure 3.

Eye-tracking results Experiment 2. (A) Number of fixations on each item, per pair. Increased fixations on first presentation of incongruent and unrelated items. (B) Total time spent fixating on each item of the pair during the 3 sec encoding trial. More time spent fixating on unrelated C items. (**) P ≤ 0.01, (***) P ≤ 0.001.

Figure 4.

Behavioral results Experiment 2. (A) Cued recall performance forward pairs (e.g., A–?), incongruent items on par with unrelated ones. (B) Cued recall performance backward pairs (e.g., ?–B), similarly to forward order, incongruent and unrelated items associated with reduced performance. (C) Associative inference, recall of A cued by C and vice versa. Near-ceiling performance for congruent items, followed by incongruent items associated with better performance than unrelated ones. (D) Interference analysis, higher percentage of erroneously recalled congruent C items in the cued recall task. (**) P ≤ 0.01, (***) P ≤ 0.001.