4.5 Article

Optimal Foraging in Semantic Memory

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW
卷 119, 期 2, 页码 431-440

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0027373

关键词

optimal foraging; memory search; category fluency; semantic space models; marginal value theorem

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [100014 130397/1]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation [BCS-1056744]
  3. Indiana University's Faculty Research
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [100014_130397] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)
  5. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  6. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [1056744] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Do humans search in memory using dynamic local-to-global search strategies similar to those that animals use to forage between patches in space? If so, do their dynamic memory search policies correspond to optimal foraging strategies seen for spatial foraging? Results from a number of fields suggest these possibilities, including the shared structure of the search problems-searching in patchy environments-and recent evidence supporting a domain-general cognitive search process. To investigate these questions directly, we asked participants to recover from memory as many animal names as they could in 3 min. Memory search was modeled over a representation of the semantic search space generated from the BEAGLE memory model of Jones and Mewhort (2007), via a search process similar to models of associative memory search (e.g., Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981). We found evidence for local structure (i.e., patches) in memory search and patch depletion preceding dynamic local-to-global transitions between patches. Dynamic models also significantly outperformed nondynamic models. The timing of dynamic local-to-global transitions was consistent with optimal search policies in space, specifically the marginal value theorem (Charnov, 1976), and participants who were more consistent with this policy recalled more items.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据