Abstract
We report two experiments in which people read descriptions of integrated spatial configurations, together with comparable descriptions that did not describe integrated spatial configurations. The integrated spatial descriptions, but not the comparable descriptions, thus supported the construction of a coherent mental model. In Experiment 1, each sentence of the comparable descriptions described the spatial relation between two objects that were not mentioned elsewhere in the description. In Experiment 2, the comparable descriptions were nonspatial, having been constructed by replacing the spatial relations with nonspatial relations. In both experiments, participants were given a surprise recognition test in which they had to identify each of the original descriptions—of both integrated spatial configurations and nonspatial configurations—among a set of distractors. When the sentences in the original description were reordered (and participants were instructed to ignore sentence order), recognition memory was reliably depressed, but only for the integrated spatial descriptions. Reordering descriptions does not change their propositional content, nor does it change the described situation; however, it does change the process of constructing a mental model of that situation. These findings thus suggest that memory for the descriptions retains a trace of the process of constructing an integrated mental model and that reordering the sentences disrupts this memory because the reordering reduces the similarity of the processing of the descriptions at recognition.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1990).The adaptive character of thought. Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R. (1993).Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baguley, T. S. (1994).The representation of spatial mental models in long-term memory. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Open University, Milton Keynes, U.K.
Baguley, T. S., &Payne, S. J. (1999). Recognition memory for sentences from spatial descriptions: A test of the episodic construction trace hypothesis.Memory & Cognition,27, 962–973.
Baguley, T. S., &Payne, S. J. (2000). Long-term memory for spatial and temporal mental models includes construction processes and model structure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,53A, 479–512.
Bower, G. H., &Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension.Science,247, 44–48.
Byrne, R. M. J., &Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Spatial reasoning.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 564–575.
Craik, F. I. M., &Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 671–684.
Crowder, R. G. (1993). Systems and principles in memory theory: Another critique of pure memory. In A. F. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, M. A. Conway, & P. E. Morris (Eds.),Theories of memory (pp. 139–161). Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
Ehrlich, K., &Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). Spatial descriptions and referential continuity.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 296–306.
Favrel, J., &Barrouillet, P. (2000). On the relation between representations constructed from text comprehension and transitive inference production.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 187–203.
Fletcher, C. R. (1992). Assessing recognition memory for surface forms in discourse: A methodological note.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 199–203.
Fletcher, C. R. (1994). Levels of representation in memory for discourse. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 589–607). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990).Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., &Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,26, 69–83.
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,93, 411–428.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kolers, P. A. (1973). Remembering operations.Memory & Cognition,1, 347–355.
Lansdale, M. W. (2005). When nothing is “off the record”: Exploring the theoretical implications of the continuous recording of cognitive process in memory.Memory,13, 31–50.
Mani, K., &Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). The mental representation of spatial descriptions.Memory & Cognition,10, 181–187.
Miles, G. E., Payne, S. J., &Baguley, T. S. (1998). A production system model of memory for spatial descriptions. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.),Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of Cognitive Science Society (pp. 699–705). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., &Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,16, 519–533.
Payne, S. J. (1993). Memory for mental models of spatial descriptions: An episodic-construction-trace hypothesis.Memory & Cognition,21, 591–603.
Radvansky, G. A., &Zacks, R. T. (1991). Mental models and the fan effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 940–953.
Roediger, H. L., III,Gallo, D. A., &Geraci, L. (2002). Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework.Memory,10, 319–332.
van Dijk, T. A., &Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1196–1207.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was partially funded by the Economic and Social Sciences Research Council, U.K., under Grant R000235641.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Payne, S.J., Baguley, T. Memory for the process of constructing an integrated mental model. Memory & Cognition 34, 817–825 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193429
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193429