Abstract
Retrieval that is based on common relational structure, such as an underlying principle or pattern, is useful but typically rare. Based on evidence that comparison-derived schema abstraction can improve relational retrieval, we asked whether the use of relational labels can also promote abstraction and improve relational retrieval. Using a cued-recall paradigm, we varied the presence of relational labels at encoding and test. As compared to a no-label baseline condition, relational retrieval improved when relational labels were given at encoding and at test and also when relational labels were given only at encoding. The findings demonstrate that one way to improve relational retrieval is through the use of labels that name relational structure.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Cooperative Minds |
| Subtitle of host publication | Social Interaction and Group Dynamics - Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2013 |
| Editors | Markus Knauff, Natalie Sebanz, Michael Pauen, Ipke Wachsmuth |
| Publisher | The Cognitive Science Society |
| Pages | 651-656 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 9780976831891 |
| State | Published - 2013 |
| Event | 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society - Cooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics, CogSci 2013 - Berlin, Germany Duration: Jul 31 2013 → Aug 3 2013 |
Publication series
| Name | Cooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics - Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2013 |
|---|
Conference
| Conference | 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society - Cooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics, CogSci 2013 |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | Germany |
| City | Berlin |
| Period | 7/31/13 → 8/3/13 |
Funding
retrieved in response to another example that shares the domain as ew owartincipantts,phesptictaueothaursfrele s same relational structure. Finally, we suggested hat if a terts ere oveml wo henm. Ttsttues manpulated whdhthrieiee label promotes abstraction of relational structure, that this the semantics of the relational terms matched the tutorial might improve the likelihood of retrieving prior examples scenario and whether the tutorial and transfer scenarios ere w that share this relational structure. e ound v idencfe or eWly faigeaThe ulfne.latsionalesrmsamiporovredetbil theirst andfeecondtpescioh, but notdorrtethnfrtitd nhsferisperroranc e.tafemosthdrmata lwaheinltecyh The likelihood of relational retrieval was greatest when semantics of the relational terms matched the tutorial and relational labels were present at both encoding and test, when the tutorial and transfer situations were easily consistent with our hypothesis that labels promote alignable. hese indinTgas refonsisteant cith he raweotfmwrk consistent relational construal (though, as noted earlier, it we presented earlier. f a elationalIterlready ad roamehsm could lso ave resulashplttrugh iylabehels aoinmsdiiclastgarndtme anoitg,etienini haerefpptliediwewnaan common feature). urning o he econTd redicttiont, se cpe(htwuooaxtsoethtsrlncstdle )i toiheat, a nnoda u rli found that relational labels at encoding improved relational alignment that resulted n he bstraction totahrcmo feo nim retrieval. This suggests hat he abelts potolebstractionrmadrtnasecrIpaltaelttft errrausehn.tueeent thdi acicoseiipilvy and storage of the named relational structure so that it could alignable transfer scenario and attended to its identical be retrieved more easily when a test example shared the relational structure, then they should be able to retrieve the same relational structure. past case that shared this relational structure and transfer We did not find an effect of labels at test. One reason for solution strategies from it to the transfer scenario. this asymmetry between encoding and test may be that In sum, the current esearch uggests tratoswha tony e relational labels at encoding could ave rimed eohple opiprve rtlmtnaolrtaeival i trreuoghtsehuseioofrhneaellatio adopta relationalfocus thatcarried over into the test. labels. hisaises umbrerfanTtnerestingouiestionsboqut a At the start of the paper, we raised the question of why how relational labels bring about this improvement. In this relational retrieval becomes more likely with domain research, we investigated the effects of known relational expertise. Our findings suggest that one factor ay e labels. Whmateffbectwo ulusndor partially nusokntonddoe rw learning a technical vocabulary to name relational patterns labels have? What would be the most effective way to ineomait.dnh introducevnaytiprvoeoemario orrecrwtenivealatabllul The present findings have implications for learning and transfer? Would the benefits f relational olbelon reatrievsal education. In order to promote relational retrieval and remain with greater elays? This ldinoesearch romriessfp transfer, it could be useful to provide learners with labels for to shed ight n he ayln ohicth ywmboliic wearninsg nd la important relational structures. Our findings suggest that analogical processes combine in the acquisition of expertise. relational labels may highlight elational rtructure nsd ake am it more likely that it will be ccessed gain an he utaure. itfAcknowledgments Additionally, the finding that relational retrieval is best This research was supported by ONR Grant N00014-08-1- when the same labels are used at encoding and retrieval 0040. We thank Laura Willig for her help in coding the data consistent.hisitsith Torbusftwl.’sF1995)elaaimh(atsuggests thatlabels for relationalstructures should be and cmemtbers of the Cognition and Language Lab for their
Keywords
- inert knowledge
- relational language
- relational retrieval
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Artificial Intelligence
- Computer Science Applications
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Cognitive Neuroscience