THE EFFECT OF FACIAL EMOTIONS

IN A DIVIDED ATTENTION TASK ON

ASSOCIATIVE EPISODIC MEMORY
INTRODUCTION: According to evolutionary
propositions, humans have evolved a medium
for automatically assessing stimulants to
concentrate attention on effects that can
negatively affect the perceiver’s well-being.
Due to the natural diversion of attentional
coffers from an attended task to uninvited
stimulants, ongoing cognitive work may be
intruded, which can affect how unborn
perception, attention, judgment, and indeed
memory are tuned to respond to pitfalls.

According to experimenters, inaccurate,

emotionally harmonious judgments may
be incontinently fluorescence when a scary
fluorescence is presented. This impact is
explained by the fact that humans typically
concentrate more attentional coffers on
dangerous stimulants, making analogous
information more accessible in memory and
turning latterly comprehensions and
judgments in favor of a hanging assessment.
An automatic alert occurs when
encouragement is distributed briskly and/ or
more directly when it's anteceded or shown
with a negative or threatening
encouragement.

An episodic memory is a representation of

one event, bounded in a specific time and
place (Jones, 1976; Tulving, 1983;
Underwood, 1969). Associations among
factors of an event taradiddle at the core of
episodic memory (Tulving, 1983; Zimmer
2006). Therefore, successful remembering of
one event requires garbling and reacquiring
associations among event factors. Failure to
do so may have profound
counteraccusations, for illustration, in viewer
situations taking a substantiation to
flashback who committed a specific action.
An occasion may be flashed back at a largely
specific position of representation (e.g.,
flashing back specifically to the position in
which a person was preliminarily
encountered) or at lower specific situations
of representation (e.g., flashing back in
general that a person had encountered
outdoors, but not flashing back specifically
where this hassle passed Greene & Naveh-
Benjamin, 2020). This view of episodic
recollections as being accessible from
different situations of particularity is in line
with propositions suggesting episodic and
semantic recollections live on a continuum
and that access to more specific bumps on
the continuum may be affected by factors
that disrupt memory, similar to growing
(Craik, 2002, 2006; Greene & Naveh-
Benjamin, 2020).

The model that episodic recollections can be

flashed back on a continuum of particularity
is unique from other popular
conceptualizations of memory, similar to the
fuzzy-trace theory, which posits that
information in memory is contemporaneously
Reused in two similar traces—a verbatim
trace, which encodes the event's face-
position contextual details, and a gist trace,
which encodes the event's semantic details—
and that, with time or hindrance, verbatim
traces decay, whereas gist traces remain
stable (Brainerd & Reyna; Reyna & Brainerd,
1995).
There are parallels between a continuum-of-
particularity view and a fuzzy-trace
proposition, including that both
prognosticate that access to the most
specific information in memory is most
susceptible to forgetting. Still, whereas the
fuzzy-trace proposition conceptualizes the
gist of memory as a semantic representation
of one event, we are primarily concerned
with assessing the representation of episodic
content in memory, and whether similar
episodic representations are largely specific
or less detailed. nonetheless, we will use the
terms specific and verbatim interchangeably,
to relate to a representation of an
association in memory that retains precise
information about specifically which
components had been paired together during
garbling, and we will describe less detailed
representations of associations (i.e...,
remembering the association at a more
general position) as a gist.
Divided attention goods in various situations
of particularity to date, many studies have
assessed whether Divided Attention affects
the capability to form flashback associations,
which lie at the core of episodic
recollections across different situations of
particularity. Dodson et al. (1998), using a
source monitoring task, suggested that
Divided Attention, manipulated at
reclamation, impairs specific but not gist
reclamation of source information associated
with spoken rulings. Still, the benefits of
Divided Attention at reclamation are far less
notable than the benefits of Divided Attention
at garbling (Craik et al., 2018; Craik et al.,
1996), where Divided Attention has been
shown to produce pronounced deficiencies in
associative memory (Craik et al., 2010; Kilb
& Naveh- Benjamin, 2007; Naveh- Benjamin
et al., 2003), but these studies didn't examine
whether Divided Attention at garbling Some
studies have delved into the effect of Divided
Attention on false memory products, using
the Deese (DRM) paradigm (Deese, 1959;
Roediger & McDermott, 1995), in which
actors study a list of particulars (e.g., “bed,”
“dream,” “pillow”) that is closely related to
an unprecedented lure (“sleep”). False
recognition or recall of the lure is expected
to occur when people fail to recoup verbatim
memory traces of list particulars and rely
solely on gist memory traces (Brainerd et al.,
1999; Brainerd et al., 2003; Odegard &
Lampinen, 2005; for a different interpretation
based on an activation-monitoring account,
see Roediger & McDermott, 1995). DA at
encoding has been shown to increase false
recall but reduce false recognition of lures in
the DRM paradigm (Dewhurst et al., 2005;
Dewhurst et al., 2007; Knott & Dewhurst,
2007; Knott et al., 2018; Pérez-Mata et al.,
2002). Dewhurst et al. (2007) interpreted
these findings in the context of activation-
monitoring theory (Roediger & McDermott,
1995), arguing that DA at encoding decreases
During the study, participants are prevented
from generating semantic associations with
target words, resulting in subsequent false
recognitions. In contrast, they argued that
higher rates of false recall in the DRM,
paradigm could be attributable to changes in
response biases.
The present study- The primary end of the
present study was to assess whether DA at
garbling in youthful grown-ups disrupts
associative episodic memory at specific and/
or gist situations of representation, using a
lately developed paradigm from Greene and
Naveh- Benjamin (2020). The present study
will thus give important sapience into how
disruptive the goods of DA are on episodic
memory. That is, are these goods observable
only for largely specific associative
information in memory, or do the mischievous
goods of DA extend to less detailed
situations of representation (i.e., the gist of
an occasion)? According to the fuzzy-trace
proposition (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), gist
memory traces are less susceptible to
hindrance, so we may anticipate that DA
would not affect gist memory. still, fuzzy- the
trace proposition conceives of gist memory
as representing the semantic aspects of an
occasion (Brainerd & Reyna, 2015). Then,
we're fastening on episodic gist — that is,
memory for an association at a less detailed
position of representation.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
1. Would there be a difference in the
mean recognition scores if the faces
presented in the pair associations were
of positive or negative stimuli as opposed
to neutral stimuli?
2. Would scene associations paired with
negative stimulus faces be remembered
better than positive or neutral stimulus
faces?

 Hypothesis: - The total number of face-

scene pairs recognized correctly will be
better for negative stimulus faces than
those paired with positive or neutral
stimulus faces.
 IV: - Type of facial emotion.
3 levels – Happy, Neutral, and Angry.
 DV: - Associative episodic memory
(measured using recognition)
Intact and not intact.
 Design: - Repeated measures design or
within-subjects design.
 Method:
Design: - Repeated measures design or
within-subjects design.

Participant:

 Procedure:
1. The experiment was divided into 3
stages. Each stage had 2 tasks. In the
first task, the participants were
shown a series of images that had
face and scene paired together. Each
"face scene pair" was presented on
the screen for a period of 4 seconds
each, which the participants will try
to memorize. To divide their attention,
a tune was played every 2 seconds
along with the face-scene pairs. The
participant’s task was to indicate
whether that tune is a high-frequency
tune, medium-frequency tune, or low-
frequency tune using the v, b, and n
 keys while simultaneously
memorizing the face scene pairs.

2. In the second task, the

participants were shown face-scene
pairs and they were instructed to
recognize whether the shown pairs
are: INTACT; that is the same as
before, which means the face was
paired with the same scene as shown
in the first task or NOT INTACT; that
is the face scene pair shown are
different, which means the face was
paired with a different scene than
shown in the first task using the z and
x keys.