Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb 7;11(2):231208.
doi: 10.1098/rsos.231208. eCollection 2024 Feb.

Measuring semantic memory using associative and dissociative retrieval tasks

Martin Marko  1   2 , Drahomír Michalko  1 , Adam Kubinec  1 , Igor Riečanský  1   3
Affiliations

Measuring semantic memory using associative and dissociative retrieval tasks

Martin Marko et al. R Soc Open Sci. .

Abstract

Recent theoretical advances highlighted the need for novel means of assessing semantic cognition. Here, we introduce the associative-dissociative retrieval task (ADT), positing a novel way to test inhibitory control over semantic memory retrieval by contrasting the efficacy of associative (automatic) and dissociative (controlled) retrieval on a standard set of verbal stimuli. All ADT measures achieved excellent reliability, homogeneity, and short-term temporal stability. Moreover, in-depth stimulus level analyses showed that the associative retrieval is easier for words evoking few but strong associates, yet such propensity hampers the inhibition. Finally, we provided critical support for the construct validity of the ADT measures, demonstrating reliable correlations with domain-specific measures of semantic memory functioning (semantic fluency and associative combination) but negligible correlations with domain-general capacities (processing speed and working memory). Together, we show that ADT provides simple yet potent and psychometrically sound measures of semantic memory retrieval and offers noteworthy advantages over the currently available assessment methods.

Keywords: inhibition; psychological assessment; semantic memory; verbal fluency; working memory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Performance and test-retest reliability in ADT across the parallel forms. Note: (a) indicates the differences between free-associative (FA; green colour) and dissociative (DA; red colour) retrieval latency, separately for each ADT form (A, B, C). Coloured point estimates in the plots represent individuals' mean retrieval latency in FA and DA, which are further summarized using box plots and density distributions of the corresponding colour (all differences were statistically significant at p < 0.001, whereas Cohen's d > 1.46); (b) shows individual data points of inhibition cost (IC, orange colour) and their distributions across the parallel forms (i.e. ICA, ICB, and ICC); and (c) visualizes pairwise (test-retest) correlations between the parallel forms for FA (green), DA (red), and IC (orange) using scatterplots. Data points for the pairwise correlations between the distinct forms are indicated in the scatterplots by specific marks (circle, square, diamond) and shades of the corresponding colour (all correlation pairs were significant at p < 0.001).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Predicted internal consistency and test-retest reliability of ADT measures. Note: the plots illustrate internal consistency and test-retest reliability estimates (y-axes) for free-associative retrieval (FA; top green plots), dissociative retrieval (DA; middle red plots), and inhibition cost (IC; bottom orange plots) as a function of the number of trials retained in the test (x-axis). The leftmost plots show internal consistency (McDonald's ω) across the ADT forms (A, B, C), whereas the other plots indicate test-retest correlations (Pearson r) between the form pairs (i.e. A–B, A–C, and B–C). In all plots, data points in colour represent reliability estimates (ω or r) of randomly sampled subsets of trials of a particular size (the maximum set size was 40 trials, which is the total number of trials included in the parallel forms): for every given set size (i.e. x-axis value), the corresponding number of trials was selected at random from each ADT form. Then, the average response latency of the selected subset of trials was calculated for each participant and form to indicate the retrieval performance, which was subsequently assessed for internal consistency and test-retest correlation. This trial-sampling procedure was repeated 200 times to obtain a distribution of reliability estimates (note that in each repetition a different subset of random trials could be selected). Finally, the average reliability of those 200 individual reliability estimates was calculated (indicated by black data points) for every set size. As demonstrated in all plots, the average reliability increases with the number of trials retained in ADT forms. More importantly, these plots provide valuable information regarding how many trials are necessary to achieve a desired level of reliability (the grey dashed line indicates the threshold for acceptable reliability, i.e. ω and r of 0.7 or above).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Stimulus-level effects on semantic memory retrieval. Note: (a) estimated effects of stimulus properties on the retrieval performance in ADT. The bars depict changes in retrieval latency (in seconds) when the corresponding stimulus parameter (z-scores) changes by one unit (negative values indicate better retrieval performance). These estimates were obtained by including the respective stimulus-level factors in LMEMs to predict the retrieval performance (*p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001); (b) correlations among retrieval latencies and stimulus-level measures aggregated across all participants. To conduct this analysis, the individual response times from all participants were averaged to estimate the mean free-associative latency (FA), dissociative retrieval latency (DA), and inhibition cost (IC) for each word stimulus in ADT. These stimulus-level latency estimates were then correlated with the psycholinguistic and associative parameters (i.e. associative typicality, associative topology, affective tone, and vividness) across all 120 stimuli. Dashed black squares mark statistically significant correlations.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Tulving E. 1972. Episodic and semantic memory. In Organization of memory (eds Tulving E, Donaldson W), pp. 381-403. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press Inc.
    1. Kumar AA. 2021. Semantic memory: a review of methods, models, and current challenges. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 28, 40-80. (10.3758/s13423-020-01792-x) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baronchelli A, Ferrer-i-Cancho R, Pastor-Satorras R, Chater N, Christiansen MH. 2013. Networks in cognitive science. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 348-360. (10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.010) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siew CSQ, Wulff DU, Beckage NM, Kenett YN, Meštrović A. 2019. Cognitive network science: a review of research on cognition through the lens of network representations, processes, and dynamics. Complexity 2019, 1-24. (10.1155/2019/2108423) - DOI
    1. Ketchabaw WT, DeMarco AT, Paul S, Dvorak E, van der Stelt C, Turkeltaub PE. 2022. The organization of individually mapped structural and functional semantic networks in aging adults. Brain Struct. Funct. 227, 2513-2527. (10.1007/s00429-022-02544-4) - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources