It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
In memory, our continuous experiences are broken up into discrete events. Boundaries between events are known to influence the temporal organization of memory. However, how and through which mechanism event boundaries shape temporal order memory (TOM) remains unknown. Across four experiments, we show that event boundaries exert a dual role: improving TOM for items within an event and impairing TOM for items across events. Decreasing event length in a list enhances TOM, but only for items at earlier local event positions, an effect we term the local primacy effect. A computational model, in which items are associated to a temporal context signal that drifts over time but resets at boundaries captures all behavioural results. Our findings provide a unified algorithmic mechanism for understanding how and why event boundaries affect TOM, reconciling a long-standing paradox of why both contextual similarity and dissimilarity promote TOM.
Our memory is temporally organized, but our internal clock can be distorted. The authors demonstrate how environmental changes (termed event boundaries) affect memory for event order, and provide a computational model to explain these effects.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details



1 Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Department of Neuroscience, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (GRID:grid.461782.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1795 8610)
2 Zhejiang University, Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Hangzhou, China (GRID:grid.13402.34) (ISNI:0000 0004 1759 700X)
3 University of California, UC Davis Center for Neuroscience, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684); University of California, Department of Psychology, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684)
4 Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Department of Neuroscience, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (GRID:grid.461782.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1795 8610); NYU Grossman School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, New York City, USA (GRID:grid.137628.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8753)