↓ Skip to main content

The missing link? Testing a schema account of unitization

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The missing link? Testing a schema account of unitization
Published in
Memory & Cognition, May 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13421-018-0819-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roni Tibon, Andrea Greve, Richard Henson

Abstract

Unitization refers to the creation of a new unit from previously distinct items. The concept of unitization has been used to explain how novel pairings between items can be remembered without requiring recollection, by virtue of new, item-like representations that enable familiarity-based retrieval. We tested an alternative account of unitization - a schema account - which suggests that associations between items can be rapidly assimilated into a schema. We used a common operationalization of "unitization" as the difference between two unrelated words being linked by a definition, relative to two words being linked by a sentence, during an initial study phase. During the following relearning phase, a studied word was re-paired with a new word, either related or unrelated to the original associate from study. In a final test phase, memory for the relearned associations was tested. We hypothesized that, if unitized representations act like schemas, then we would observe some generalization to related words, such that memory would be better in the definition than sentence condition for related words, but not for unrelated words. Contrary to the schema hypothesis, evidence favored the null hypothesis of no difference between definition and sentence conditions for related words (Experiment 1), even when each cue was associated with multiple associates, indicating that the associations can be generalized (Experiment 2), or when the schematic information was explicitly re-activated during Relearning (Experiment 3). These results suggest that unitized associations do not generalize to accommodate new information, and therefore provide evidence against the schema account.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 25%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 46%
Unspecified 7 29%
Neuroscience 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,112,296
of 12,923,750 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#204
of 1,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,454
of 269,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,923,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.