scholarly journals Multisensory integration of contextual boundaries affects temporal order memory, but not encoding or recognition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent van de Ven ◽  
Guyon Kleuters ◽  
Joey Stuiver
Keyword(s):  
Associative Memory ◽  
Multisensory Integration ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Life Experiences ◽  
Visual Context ◽  
Visual Objects ◽  
Distinct Event ◽  
Event Models ◽  
Temporal Order Memory

We memorize our daily life experiences, which are often multisensory in nature, by segmenting them into distinct event models, in accordance with perceived contextual or situational changes. However, very little is known about how multisensory integration affects segmentation, as most studies have focused on unisensory (visual or audio) segmentation. In three experiments, we investigated the effect of multisensory integration on segmentation in memory and perception. In Experiment 1, participants encoded lists of visual objects while audio and visual contexts changed synchronously or asynchronously. After each list, we tested recognition and temporal associative memory for pictures that were encoded in the same audio-visual context or that crossed a synchronous or an asynchronous multisensory change. We found no effect of multisensory integration for recognition memory: Synchronous and asynchronous changes similarly impaired recognition for pictures encoded at those changes, compared to pictures encoded further away from those changes. Multisensory integration did affect temporal associative memory, which was worse for pictures encoded at synchronous than at asynchronous changes. Follow up experiments showed that this effect was not due to the higher complexity of multisensory over unisensory contexts (Experiment 2), nor that it was due to the temporal unpredictability of contextual changes inherent to Experiment 1 (Experiment 3). We argue that participants formed situational expectations through multisensory integration, such that synchronous multisensory changes deviated more strongly from those expectations than asynchronous changes. We discuss our findings in light of supportive and conflicting findings of uni- and multisensory segmentation.

Uni- and multisensory contextual boundaries in encoding, recognition and memory for temporal order

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent van de Ven
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Order ◽  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Visual Context ◽  
Event Segmentation ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
Visual Objects ◽  
Spatial Environment ◽  
Perceptual Recognition ◽  
Event Models

We experience our daily lives as an ongoing series of impressions, but we cognitively process those impressions as segmented events. Segmentation is based on contextual changes, such as spatial environment, moment in time or social surrounding, which are used as event boundaries that associate experiences from different contexts to different event models. However, event segmentation affects perceptual and mnemonic processing depending on the temporal proximity of experiences to event boundaries. Most event segmentation studies have used unisensory visual or auditory contexts, of which the visual modality is overrepresented. In this study, we directly compared the effect of unisensory vs. multisensory boundaries on event segmentation. Participants encoded lists of visual objects while changes in unisensory (audio or visual) or multisensory (audiovisual) context changes occurred at a regular interval. We assessed the effect of contextual changes on an encoding task and two memory tasks for perceptual recognition and temporal order of encoded objects. We found that audio and audiovisual contexts resulted in longer encoding times than the visual context. Contextual changes impaired recognition memory for boundary items and impaired temporal order memory for item pairs crossing a boundary, but these effects did not differ between unisensory and multisensory contexts. Our findings suggest that the sensory modality of event boundaries modulated perceptual but not mnemonic event processing, and provide further understanding in how we segment our experiences in perception and memory.

Time changes: Temporal contexts support event segmentation in associative memory

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent van de Ven ◽  
Moritz Jaeckels ◽  
Peter De Weerd
Keyword(s):  
Associative Memory ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Temporal Order Judgment ◽  
Temporal Context ◽  
Temporal Acuity ◽  
Event Segmentation ◽  
Standard Interval ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Time Changes ◽  
Temporal Order Judgments

We tend to mentally segment a series of events according to perceptual contextual changes, such that items from a shared context are more strongly associated in memory than items from different contexts. It is also known that temporal context provides a scaffold to structure experiences in memory, but its role in event segmentation has not been investigated. We adapted a previous paradigm, which was used to investigate event segmentation using visual contexts, to study the effects of changes in temporal contexts on event segmentation in associative memory. We presented lists of items in which the inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) ranged across lists between 0.5 and 4 s in 0.5 s steps. After each set of six lists, participants judged which one of two test items were shown first (temporal order judgment) for items that were either drawn from the same list or from consecutive lists. Further, participants judged from memory whether the ISI associated to an item lasted longer than a standard interval (2.25s) that was not previously shown. Results showed faster responses for temporal order judgments when items were drawn from the same context, as opposed to items drawn from different contexts. Further, we found that participants were well able to provide temporal duration judgments based on recalled durations. Finally, we found temporal acuity, as estimated by psychometric curve fitting parameters of the recalled durations, correlated inversely with within-list temporal order judgments. These findings show that changes in temporal context support event segmentation in associative memory.

The dopamine D1 receptor agonist SKF 38393 improves temporal order memory performance in maternally deprived rats

2013 ◽  
Vol 106 ◽  
pp. 268-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphanie Lejeune ◽  
Nathalie Dourmap ◽  
Marie-Pascale Martres ◽  
Bruno Giros ◽  
Valérie Daugé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Receptor Agonist ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Dopamine D1 Receptor ◽  
D1 Receptor ◽  
Skf 38393 ◽  
Temporal Order Memory

Time decay of object, place and temporal order memory in a paradigm assessing simultaneously episodic-like memory components in mice

2015 ◽  
Vol 286 ◽  
pp. 80-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassina Belblidia ◽  
Abdelmalek Abdelouadoud ◽  
Christelle Jozet-Alves ◽  
Hélène Dumas ◽  
Thomas Freret ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Order ◽  
Time Decay ◽  
Temporal Order Memory

Temporal order memory deficits prior to clinical diagnosis in Huntington’s disease

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 662-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVA PIROGOVSKY ◽  
JODY GOLDSTEIN ◽  
GUERRY PEAVY ◽  
MARK W. JACOBSON ◽  
JODY COREY-BLOOM ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Huntington's Disease ◽  
Huntington’S Disease ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Random Sequence ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Study Phase ◽  
Phase Sequence ◽  
Choice Phase ◽  
Temporal Order Memory

AbstractThe current study examined temporal order memory in preclinical Huntington’s disease (pre-HD). Participants were separated into less than 5 years (pre-HD near) and more than 5 years (pre-HD far) from estimated age of clinical diagnosis. Participants completed a temporal order memory task on a computerized radial eight-arm maze. On the study phase of each trial, participants viewed a random sequence of circles appearing one at a time at the end of each arm. On the choice phase, participants viewed two circles at the end of the study phase arms and chose the circle occurring earliest in the sequence. The task involved manipulations of the temporal lag, defined as the number of arms occurring in the sample phase sequence between the two choice phase arms. Research suggests that there is more interference for temporally proximal stimuli relative to temporally distal stimuli. There were no significant differences between the pre-HD far group and controls on the temporal order memory task. The pre-HD near group demonstrated significant impairments relative to the other groups on closer temporal lags, but were normal on the furthest temporal lag. Therefore, temporal order memory declines with increased temporal interference in pre-HD close to estimated diagnosis of HD. (JINS, 2009, 15, 662–670.)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document