Spatial part-set cuing facilitation

Abstract

Cole, Reysen, and Kelley [2013. Part-set cuing facilitation for spatial information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 39, 1615–1620] reported robust part-set cuing facilitation for spatial information using snap circuits (a colour-coded electronics kit designed for children to create rudimentary circuit boards). In contrast, Drinkwater, Dagnall, and Parker [2006. Effects of part-set cuing on experienced and novice chess players’ reconstruction of a typical chess midgame position. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102(3), 645–653] and Watkins, Schwartz, and Lane [1984. Does part-set cuing test for memory organization? Evidence from reconstructions of chess positions. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 38(3), 498–503] showed no influence of part-set cuing for spatial information when using chess boards. One key difference between the two procedures was that the snap circuit stimuli were explicitly connected to one another, whereas chess pieces were not. Two experiments examined the effects of connection type (connected vs. unconnected) and cue type (cued vs. uncued) on memory for spatial information. Using chess boards (Experiment 1) and snap circuits (Experiment 2), part-set cuing facilitation only occurred when the stimuli were explicitly connected; there was no influence of cuing with unconnected stimuli. These results are potentially consistent with the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis, as well as the two- and three-mechanism accounts of part-set cuing.

Keywords:

• Part-set cuing
• Spatial memory
• Strategy disruption