Semantic relatedness proactively benefits learning, memory, and interdependence across episodes

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Bennion and colleagues present a careful examination of how an earlier set of memories can either interfere with or facilitate memories formed later. This impressive work is a companion piece to an earlier paper by Antony and colleagues (2022) in which a similar experimental design was used to examine how a later set of memories can either interfere with or facilitate memories formed earlier. This study makes contact with an experimental literature spanning 100 years, which is concerned with the nature of forgetting, and the ways in which memories for particular experiences can interact with other memories. These ideas are fundamental to modern theories of human memory, for example, paired-associate studies like this one are central to the theoretical idea that interference between memories is a much bigger contributor to forgetting than any sort of passive decay.

Strengths:

At the heart of the current investigation is a proposal made by Osgood in the 1940s regarding how paired associates are learned and remembered. In these experiments, one learns a pair of items, A-B (cue-target), and then later learns another pair that is related in some way, either A'-B (changing the cue, delta-cue), or A-B' (changing the target, delta-target), or A'-B' (changing both, delta-both), where the prime indicates that item has been modified, and may be semantically related to the original item. The authors refer to the critical to-be-remembered pairs as base pairs. Osgood proposed that when the changed item is very different from the original item there will be interference, and when the changed item is similar to the original item there will be facilitation. Osgood proposed a graphical depiction of his theory in which performance was summarized as a surface, with one axis indicating changes to the cue item of a pair and the other indicating changes to the target item, and the surface itself necessary to visualize the consequences of changing both.

In the decades since Osgood's proposal, there have been many studies examining slivers of the proposal, e.g., just changing targets in one experiment, just changing cues in another experiment. Because any pair of experiments uses different methods, this has made it difficult to draw clear conclusions about the effects of particular manipulations.

The current paper is a potential landmark, in that the authors manipulate multiple fundamental experimental characteristics using the same general experimental design. Importantly, they manipulate the semantic relatedness of the changed item to the original item, the delay between the study experience and the test, and which aspect of the pair is changed. Furthermore, they include both a positive control condition (where the exact same pair is studied twice), and a negative control condition (where a pair is only studied once, in the same phase as the critical base pairs). This allows them to determine when the prior learning exhibits an interfering effect relative to the negative control condition and also allows them to determine how close any facilitative effects come to matching the positive control.

The results are interpreted in terms of a set of existing theories, most prominently the memory-for-change framework, which proposes a mechanism (recursive reminding) potentially responsible for the facilitative effects examined here. One of the central results is the finding that a stronger semantic relationship between a base pair and an earlier pair has a facilitative effect on both the rate of learning of the base pair and the durability of the memory for the base pair. This is consistent with the memory-for-change framework, which proposes that this semantic relationship prompts retrieval of the earlier pair, and the two pairs are integrated into a common memory structure that contains information about which pair was studied in which phase of the experiment. When semantic relatedness is lower, they more often show interference effects, with the idea being that competition between the stored memories makes it more difficult to remember the base pair.

This work represents a major methodological and empirical advance for our understanding of paired-associates learning, and it sets a laudably high bar for future work seeking to extend this knowledge further. By manipulating so many factors within one set of experiments, it fills a gap in the prior literature regarding the cognitive validity of an 80-year-old proposal by Osgood. The reader can see where the observed results match Osgood's theory and where they are inconclusive. This gives us insight, for example, into the necessity of including a long delay in one's experiment, to observe potential facilitative effects. This point is theoretically interesting, but it is also a boon for future methodological development, in that it establishes the experimental conditions necessary for examining one or another of these facilitation or interference effects more closely.

Weaknesses:

One minor weakness of the work is that the overarching theoretical framing does not necessarily specify the expected result for each and every one of the many effects examined. For example, with a narrower set of semantic associations being considered (all of which are relatively high associations) and a long delay, varying the semantic relatedness of the target item did not reliably affect the memorability of that pair. However, the same analysis showed a significant effect when the wider set of semantic associations was used. The positive result is consistent with the memory-for-change framework, but the null result isn't clearly informative to the theory. I call this a minor weakness because I think the value of this work will grow with time, as memory researchers and theorists use it as a benchmark for new theory development. For example, the data from these experiments will undoubtedly be used to develop and constrain a new generation of computational models of paired-associates learning.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study focuses on how relatedness with existing memories affects the formation and retention of new memories. Of core interest were the conditions that determine when prior memories facilitate new learning or interfere with it. Across a set of experiments that varied the degree of relatedness across memories as well as retention interval, the study compellingly shows that relatedness typically leads to proactive facilitation of new learning, with interference only observed under specific conditions and immediate test and being thus an exception rather than a rule.

Strengths:

The study uses a well-established word-pair learning paradigm to study interference and facilitation of overlapping memories. However it goes more in-depth than a typical interference study in the systematic variation of several factors: (1) which elements of an association are overlapping and which are altered (change target, change cue, change both, change neither); (2) how much the changed element differs from the original (word relatedness, with two ranges of relatedness considered); (3) retention period (immediate test, 2-day delay). Furthermore, each experiment has a large N sample size, so both significant effects as well as null effects are robust and informative.

The results show the benefits of relatedness, but also replicate interference effects in the "change target" condition when the new target is not related to the old target and when the test is immediate. This provides a reconciliation of some existing seemingly contradictory results on the effect of overlap on memory. Here, the whole range of conditions is mapped to convincingly show how the direction of the effect can flip across the surface of relatedness values.

Additional strength comes from supporting analyses, such as analyses of learning data, demonstrating that relatedness leads to both better final memory and also faster initial learning.
More broadly, the study informs our understanding of memory integration, demonstrating how the interdependence of memory for related information increases with relatedness. Together with a prior study or retroactive interference and facilitation, the results provide new insights into the role of reminding in memory formation.

In summary, this is a highly rigorous body of work that sets a great model for future studies and improves our understanding of memory organization.

Weaknesses:

The evidence for the proactive facilitation driven by relatedness is very convincing. However, in the finer scale results, the continuous relationship between the degree of relatedness and the degree of proactive facilitation/interference is less clear. This could be improved with some additional analyses and/or context and discussion. In the narrower range, the measure used was AS, with values ranging from 0.03-0.98, where even 0.03 still denotes clearly related words (pious - holy). Within this range from "related" to "related a lot", no relationship to the degree of facilitation was found. The wider range results are reported using a different scale, GloVe, with values from -0.14 to 0.95, where the lower end includes unrelated words (sap - laugh). It is possible that any results of facilitation/interference observed in the wider range may be better understood as a somewhat binary effect of relatedness (yes or no) rather than the degree of relatedness, given the results from the narrower condition. These two options could be more explicitly discussed. The report would benefit from providing clearer information about these measures and their range and how they relate to each other (e.g., not a linear transformation). It would be also helpful to know how the values reported on the AS scale would end up if expressed in the GloVe scale (and potentially vice-versa) and how that affects the results. Currently, it is difficult to assess whether the relationship between relatedness and memory is qualitative or quantitative. This is less of a problem with interdependence analyses where the results converge across a narrow and wider range.

A smaller weakness is generalizability beyond the word set used here. Using a carefully crafted stimulus set and repeating the same word pairings across participants and conditions was important for memorability calculations and some of the other analyses. However, highlighting the inherently noisy item-by-item results, especially in the Osgood-style surface figures, makes it challenging to imagine how the results would generalize to new stimuli, even within the same relatedness ranges as the current stimulus sets.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Bennion et al. investigate how semantic relatedness proactively benefits the learning of new word pairs. The authors draw predictions from Osgood (1949), which posits that the degree of proactive interference (PI) and proactive facilitation (PF) of previously learned items on to-be-learned items depends on the semantic relationships between the old and new information. In the current study, participants learn a set of word pairs ("supplemental pairs"), followed by a second set of pairs ("base pairs"), in which the cue, target, or both words are changed, or the pair is identical. Pairs were drawn from either a narrower or wider stimulus set and were tested after either a 5-minute or 48-hour delay. The results show that semantic relatedness overwhelmingly produces PF and greater memory interdependence between base and supplemental pairs, except in the case of unrelated pairs in a wider stimulus set after a short delay, which produced PI. In their final analyses, the authors compare their current results to previous work from their group studying the analogous retroactive effects of semantic relatedness on memory. These comparisons show generally similar, if slightly weaker, patterns of results. The authors interpret their results in the framework of recursive reminders (Hintzman, 2011), which posits that the semantic relationships between new and old word pairs promote reminders of the old information during the learning of the new to-be-learned information. These reminders help to integrate the old and new information and result in additional retrieval practice opportunities that in turn improve later recall.

Strengths:

Overall, I thought that the analyses were thorough and well-thought-out and the results were incredibly well-situated in the literature. In particular, I found that the large sample size, inclusion of a wide range of semantic relatedness across the two stimulus sets, variable delays, and the ability to directly compare the current results to their prior results on the retroactive effects of semantic relatedness were particular strengths of the authors' approach and make this an impressive contribution to the existing literature. I thought that their interpretations and conclusions were mostly reasonable and included appropriate caveats (where applicable).

Weaknesses:

Although I found that the paper was very strong overall, I have three main questions and concerns about the analyses.

My first concern lies in the use of the narrow versus wider stimulus sets. I understand why the initial narrow stimulus set was defined using associative similarity (especially in the context of their previous paper on the retroactive effects of semantic similarity), and I also understand their rationale for including an additional wider stimulus set. What I am less clear on, however, is the theoretical justification for separating the datasets. The authors include a section combining them and show in a control analysis that there were no directional effects in the narrow stimulus set. The authors seem to imply in the Discussion that they believe there are global effects of the lower average relatedness on differing patterns of PI vs PF across stimulus sets (lines 549-553), but I wonder if an alternative explanation for some of their conflicting results could be that PI only occurs with pairs of low semantic relatedness between the supplemental and base pair and that because the narrower stimulus set does not include the truly semantically unrelated pairs, there was no evidence of PI.

My next concern comes from the additive change in both measures (change in Cue + change in Target). This measure is simply a measure of overall change, in which a pair where the cue changes a great deal but the target doesn't change is treated equivalently to a pair where the target changes a lot, but the cue does not change at all, which in turn are treated equivalently to a pair where the cue and target both change moderate amounts. Given that the authors speculate that there are different processes occurring with the changes in cue and target and the lack of relationship between cue+target relatedness and memorability, it might be important to tease apart the relative impact of the changes to the different aspects of the pair.

Finally, it is unclear to me whether there was any online spell-checking that occurred during the free recall in the learning phase. If there wasn't, I could imagine a case where words might have accidentally received additional retrieval opportunities during learning - take for example, a case where a participant misspelled "razor" as "razer." In this example, they likely still successfully learned the word pair but if there was no spell-checking that occurred during the learning phase, this would not be considered correct, and the participant would have had an additional learning opportunity for that pair.