Content uploaded by Gabriel A Radvansky
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gabriel A Radvansky
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2010 The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 900
Previous work has shown that the architecture of the
environment interacts with the architecture of cognition
(Radvansky & Copeland, 2006). Not only do people in-
tegrate contextual information into their memories, but
how that context is structured and how it changes can
also influence memory effectiveness. Specifically, when
people move through doorways, memory for objects
that have been interacted with is reduced. This has been
interpreted from a situation model perspective (Zwaan
& Radvansky, 1998). However, because the term situa-
tion model is strongly associated with work in language
comprehension, we use the term event model and extend
these ideas to event cognition more broadly (Copeland,
Magliano, & Radvansky, 2006). The present study aimed
to further test the generality of the principle that when
there is an event boundary, thereby changing the event
context, there is a disruption in the availability of infor-
mation encountered as part of the prior event (Glenberg,
Meyer, & Lindem, 1987; Radvansky & Copeland, 2010;
Zwaan, 1996).
A direct assessment of the influence of changing events
on memory was illustrated in a study by Radvansky and
Copeland (2006), which is the basis for the present work.
In this study, people moved through a multiroom virtual
environment. Each room had one or two tables. A per-
son first picked up an object (colored solids; e.g., a red
cube or blue wedge) from a table and then moved to the
next table. The person set the object down and picked up
the next one. The person then moved to the table after
that, and so on. At critical points, people were probed
with the name of an object (e.g., red cube). These probes
occurred either halfway across a large room (no-shift
condition) or immediately after the person had entered
a new room (shift condition). Following Glenberg et al.
(1987), positive responses were to be made if the object
was either the one currently being carried or the one just
set down. Negative responses were for any other object.
Negative probes were recombinations of object and color
names from the two positive objects. So, if the object set
down was a green pole and the carried object was a red
cube, the negative probes could be either green cube or
red pole.
When an object was picked up, it disappeared, so there
was no visual reminder of what was being carried. Also,
when moving, people turned their backs on the object that
was just set down, so there was no visual reminder of it.
Finally, memory probes did not occur at every possible
location. This decreased the degree to which people an-
ticipated being probed.
The results showed that people made more errors if they
had moved to a new room. This is the location updating
effect. This forgetting effect was supported by a response
time difference, with people responding slower in the shift
than in the no-shift condition. When people updated their
event models, this compromised memory for the objects
in the environment.
The event cognition explanation is that the location up-
dating effect is a consequence of parsing a stream of events,
thereby reducing the availability of information prior to an
event shift (Kurby & Zacks, 2008; Speer, Reynolds, Swal-
low, & Zacks, 2009; Swallow, Zacks, & Abrams, 2009;
Zacks, Speer, & Reynolds, 2009). This is not an effect of
environmental context-dependent memory. Other work
that we have done has found that reinstating the context
does not improve performance. With location updating,
a person modifies his or her event model to adjust to the
Walking through doorways causes forgetting:
Environmental integration
Ga b r i e l a . ra d va n s k y , a n d r e a k. Ta m p l i n , a n d sa b i n e a . k r aw i e T z
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana
Memory for objects declines when people move from one location to another (the location updating effect).
However, it is unclear whether this is attributable to event model updating or to task demands. The focus here was
on the degree of integration for probed-for information with the experienced environment. In prior research, the
probes were verbal labels of visual objects. Experiment 1 assessed whether this was a consequence of an item–
probe mismatch, as with transfer-appropriate processing. Visual probes were used to better coordinate what was
seen with the nature of the memory probe. In Experiment 2, people received additional word pairs to remember,
which were less well integrated with the environment, to assess whether the probed-for information needed to
be well integrated. The results showed location updating effects in both cases. These data are consistent with an
event cognition view that mental updating of a dynamic event disrupts memory.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
2010, 17 (6), 900-904
doi:10.3758/PBR.17.6.900
G. A. Radvansky, gabriel.a.radvansky.1@nd.edu
En v i r o n m E n ta l in t E g r at i o n 901
red cube). The rest received standard verbal probes. In ad-
dition, we altered how people navigated the environment.
In prior work, people used arrow keys on a keyboard with
their left hand, and they responded by pressing buttons on
a mouse held in their right. In Experiment 1, people used
a joystick to navigate and responded using two buttons on
the joystick.
Method
Participants
. Forty-nine people (28 female) from the University
of Notre Dame were given partial course credit for their participa-
tion. Twenty-four were in the text-probe condition, and 25 were in
the picture-probe condition.
Materials and Apparatus
. The virtual spaces were created
using the Valve Hammer program. This is the program used to cre-
ate environments for the Half-Life video game. The displays were
presented on a 66-in.-diagonal rear projection SmartBoard using
a PC-compatible computer, with people seated about 1 m from
the display, the room was darkened, and people wore headphones
(so they could hear their “own footsteps”). The virtual space was
a 53-room environment in which the rooms were of one of two
sizes, with the large rooms being twice as long as the small rooms.
This difference in room size allowed for the distance traveled to
be equated in the shift and no-shift conditions, the only difference
being whether a change in location occurred. In each room were one
or two tables. Each table was placed along a wall in the room. In
the small rooms there was only a single table, whereas in the large
rooms there was a table on each half of the room. At one end of the
table was the object the participant was to pick up. The other half
of the table was empty. This is where the object being carried was
to be put down. Finally, the two doorways in the room were never
on the same wall.
The objects were made by combining colors and shapes. The col-
ors used were red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, white, gray,
brown, and black. The objects were all regular geometric shapes:
cube, wedge, pole, disc, cross (X), and cone.
Procedure
. After giving informed consent, people were seated
in front of the display. Their task was to pick up an object from one
room, go to the next room, place the object on the empty part of the
table, pick up the next object, proceed to the next room, and so forth.
When an object was picked up, it disappeared. Thus, a person could
not see what he/she was currently carrying. When it was dropped
off, it appeared on the table. Picking up and putting down objects
was done by touching the appropriate end of the table.
To have people progress through the rooms in the required order,
after they entered a room the door of entry closed. The door to
the next room did not open until the person put down the carried
object and picked up the new object. The doorway to the next room
always required the person to turn away from the table in the cur-
rent room.
There were 48 probe trials. Thus, not every possible test point
had a probe. On probe trials, immediately upon entering a room or
crossing halfway through a larger room, people were presented with
a probe that appeared in the middle of the screen. This probe was
either an image of an object or a color and shape name. People were
to respond “yes” if the probe was either the object that was currently
being carried or the one that had just been set down, and to respond
“no” to all other probes. The negative probes were generated by re-
combining the object and color for these two objects. For example,
if the carried object was a white cube, and the object set down was
a red wedge, a negative probe might be red cube. Half of the probes
occurred after a spatial shift, and half did not.
A joystick was held in the dominant hand for movement. For re-
sponding, a button pressed by the index f inger (the trigger) was used
for a positive response and a button on the top of the joystick was
pressed with the thumb for a negative response. There were 24 posi-
tive probes and 24 negative probes.
new setting (Radvansky & Copeland, 2010). Information
that continues to be relevant across the two events is main-
tained, and information that was relevant to the prior event
is removed. This event model updating should extend to a
range of circumstances.
The present work explored the dependency of this ef-
fect on how well integrated the information in the mem-
ory probe is with the environmental context. It may vary
with the degree of integration, where degree of integra-
tion refers to how much the probed-for information is part
and parcel of the event in which a person is embedded.
From a broader theoretical perspective, it is well known
that context information is stored in memory traces (e.g.,
Smith & Vela, 2001). However, instead of assessing the
influence of context as a retrieval cue, we assessed the
degree to which changes in context influence memory.
One could argue that the degree to which information is
tied to a particular context would modulate the influence
of a change in context on later memory retrieval. Thus,
the focus here is on the degree to which the probed-for
information is embedded in the context of the structure
of the on going event. In the present work, we explored
this by using memory probes that were more (Experi-
ment 1) or less (Experiment 2) tied to the experienced
environment.
EXPERIMENT 1
In the Radvansky and Copeland (2006) study, although
people saw images of objects, verbal probes were used.
These probes were not well integrated with the experi-
enced visual–spatial context. There was a mismatch of
probe and target, such as that observed with transfer-
appropriate processing (Kolers & Roediger, 1984). In-
consistencies between how information is encoded and
retrieved can hinder memory, opening a window to further
disruptions, such as those produced by location updat-
ing. Similarly, in a study by Swallow et al. (2009), people
were probed for objects seen in films: For objects that
were relevant across event boundaries (as our probed-for
objects were) and that were actually fixated during film
viewing, Swallow et al. found poorer memory following
an event shift when the task emphasized conceptual qual-
ities (e.g., did you see a spatula or a pot?), but not when
the task emphasized perceptual qualities (e.g., which of
two pots did you see?). Thus, location updating may be
disruptive when the probe task emphasizes conceptual
qualities (e.g., using verbal labels of seen objects), but
not when it emphasizes perceptual qualities (e.g., using
pictures of objects).
Another view is that updating an event model follow-
ing a location shift disrupts memory for information as-
sociated with a prior location (the objects in the previous
room), even if it continues to be task relevant. How the
information is probed for, whether verbal or visual, would
be of minor consequence.
To test between these two accounts, in Experiment 1
half of the people received probes that were pictures of the
objects (e.g., an image of a red cube rather than the words
902 ra d va n s k y , ta m p l i n , a n d kr aw i E t z
EXPERIMENT 2
Experiment 2 assessed the availability of information
that is less well integrated with the environment. Specif i-
cally, in addition to memory for the objects, we assessed
memory for word pairs that did not refer to features of
the context in which they were encountered. They were
random word pairs that were presented simply to be re-
membered. When a probe was presented, it could be either
an object name or a word pair.
Object probes were the same as in Experiment 1. For
the word pairs, we used adjective–noun pairs (e.g., ethnic–
cake) to parallel the structure of the object names (e.g.,
white wedge). These word pairs were nonsensical, further
separating them from the environment. Moreover, adjec-
tives and nouns were repeated, in different combinations,
over the course of the trials, just like the object color and
shape names. This also allowed for some proactive interfer-
ence, making the task more demanding.
One possibility was that, because the word pairs were
not contextually well integrated, they would be loosely as-
sociated with the event model and would be isolated from
the effects of location updating. As such, there would be a
location updating effect for the objects, but not word pairs.
In contrast, an alternative view would be that the wide
range of information processed as part of the ongoing situ-
ation would be integrated into the event model (e.g., Swal-
low et al., 2009), even if it was not well integrated with the
external event. Thus, location updating would compromise
memory for the word pairs as well as the objects.
Method
Participants
. Forty people (20 female) from the University of
Notre Dame were given partial course credit for participation. The
data from two additional people were dropped because their error
rates were close to chance.
Materials and Procedure
. The same apparatus and a similar
set of materials and procedures were used as in Experiment 1, with
some important differences. First, the virtual space was a 74-room
environment. Second, to parallel the color–shape names, the word
pairs were adjective–noun combinations. These words were matched
to the color and object names for number of letters, syllables, and
word frequency, although the combinations were less meaningful.
The adjectives used were marine, ethnic, third, chief, meet, north,
dank, large, select, six, and fast. The nouns were cake, cuff, feat,
lamp, wharf, Q, and V (two letters were used because the shapes
were referred to by letters; i.e., T and X). The adjectives and nouns
were repeated across trials just as the object color and shape names.
Negative word probes were recombinations of adjectives and nouns
from the two most recently seen word pairs. Prior to picking up each
object, a word pair was displayed for 2 sec. The task was to hold it
in memory in case it was probed for at one of the probe locations.
Arrow keys on the keyboard and the mouse buttons were used to
move and respond to probes, respectively.
For the critical trials, upon entering a room or crossing the half-
way point of a large room, people were presented with a probe that
could be either an object or a word pair. When the probe was an
object, the task was the same as in Experiment 1. In comparison,
when it was a word pair, the person indicated whether it was the to-
be-remembered word pair. There were 48 probe trials.
There were 24 positive and 24 negative object probes. For the
word pair probes, there were 12 positive and 12 negative probes.
Half of the probes in each condition occurred after a location shift,
and half did not.
Results
The error rate and response time data are reported in
Table 1 and were submitted to 2 (probe type: text vs. pic-
ture probes) 3 2 (shift condition: no-shift vs. shift) mixed
ANOVAs, with the first factor between subjects and the
other factor within subjects. For the error rates, the main
effect of probe type was not signif icant [F(1,46) 5 2.12,
MSe 5 .022, p 5 .15], but the effect of shift was [F(1,46) 5
4.26, MSe 5 .035, p 5 .05], with people making more er-
rors when there was a shift than when there was not. The
interaction was not significant (Fs , 1). Thus, there was
forgetting after moving from one location to another, but
the nature of the probe (picture or verbal) had no mean-
ingful effect.
For the response time analysis, errors were excluded,
and we trimmed the data by removing response times
faster than 200 msec and slower than 10,000 msec. Then
the data were submitted to the van Selst and Jolicœur
(1994) trimming procedure, which is based on the num-
ber of observations per cell, with 6% of the data being
dropped. Again, while the main effect of probe type was
not significant (F , 1), the effect of shift was [F(1,46) 5
21.15, MSe 5 133,469, p 5 .001], with people respond-
ing slower following the shift as opposed to the no-shift
conditions. The interaction was not signif icant [F(1,46) 5
1.67, MSe 5 133,469, p 5 .20].
Discussion
Experiment 1 assessed whether the location updat-
ing effect was due to poorer integration of the memory
probes with event context because of their verbal nature.
However, this effect was present for both visual and verbal
probes. This is consistent with the view that when partici-
pants move from one location to another, information that
was relevant in the prior location becomes generally less
available. People are creating event models of the ongoing
circumstances, and updating these models can make some
information less available. The apparent discrepancy be-
tween our findings and those of Swallow et al. (2009) re-
garding conceptual versus perceptual processing is likely
due to methodological differences. For example, they
manipulated the nature of the memory task, whereas we
always used recognition. Moreover, objects were the focus
of our task but were often incidental in the film scenes
in the Swallow et al. work. Finally, having people use a
joystick to navigate the environment had no discernible
influence on performance.
Table 1
Error Rates (Proportions) and Response Times (RTs,
in Milliseconds), With Standard Errors, for Experiment 1
Error Rate RT
M SE M SE
Text Probes
No shift .10 .01 1,317 79
Shift .16 .03 1,564 119
Picture Probes
No shift .15 .03 1,322 59
Shift .20 .04 1,761 138
En v i r o n m E n ta l in t E g r at i o n 903
and needed to be maintained. Thus, the event shift had
a broad-based impact on memory. These data are in line
with other event cognition findings in which informa-
tion was affected by the process of updating the changing
event model.
The present research is also consistent with a range of
findings in spatial cognition that show the importance of
spatial regions. For example, spatial regions can be used
to integrate and segregate information in long-term mem-
ory, thereby influencing the pattern of retrieval interfer-
ence (e.g., Radvansky, 1999, 2005; Radvansky, Spieler, &
Zacks, 1993; Radvansky & Zacks, 1991) and the retrieval
of information from a mental map (e.g., Bower & Rinck,
2001; McNamara, 1986; Thorndyke, 1981). In research
on narrative comprehension, memory for objects declines
when there has been a shift in location (e.g., Curiel & Rad-
vansky, 2002; Glenberg et al., 1987; Morrow, Greenspan,
& Bower, 1987; Radvansky & Copeland, 2010; Rinck &
Bower, 1995). Also, people read more slowly when they
encounter a spatial shift in a text (Zwaan, Magliano, &
Graesser, 1995; Zwaan, Radvansky, Hilliard, & Curiel,
1998) and organize narrative information by spatial re-
gions (Radvansky, 1999; Radvansky et al., 1993; Rad-
vansky & Zacks, 1991; Zwaan, Langston, & Graesser,
1995), even with more perceptual events, such as narrative
film (Magliano, Miller, & Zwaan, 2001).
In sum, walking through doorways reduces the avail-
ability of information in memory. This is relatively unaf-
fected by the degree of integration of the information with
the surrounding environmental context. Movement from
one location to another disrupts cognition. Ongoing and
future research is aimed at understanding the underlying
causes of this forgetting.
AUTHOR NOTE
We thank Daniel Blakely, Mark Bohay, Abbi Daugherty, Erica
Nason, Patrick O’Keefe, Jenny Walls, Megan Cefferillo, and Brittany
Gragg for their assistance in collecting the data. We also thank Jeff
Smith and Mike Villano for their programming expertise. This research
was supported in part by a grant from the Army Research Institute,
ARMY-DASW01-02-K-0003, and by funding from J. Chris Forsythe of
Sandia National Laboratories. Please address correspondence to G. A.
Radvansky, Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, IN 46556 (e-mail: gabriel.a.radvansky.1@nd.edu).
Note—Accepted by Cathleen M. Moore’s editorial team.
REFERENCES
Bower, G. H., & Rinck, M. (2001). Selecting one among many ref-
erents in spatial situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 81-98. doi:10.1037/0278
-7393.27.1.81
Copeland, D. E., Magliano, J. P., & Radvansky, G. A. (2006). Situ-
ation models in comprehension, memory, and augmented cognition.
In C. Forsythe, M. L. Bernard, & T. E. Goldsmith (Eds.), Cognitive
systems: Human cognitive models in systems design ( pp. 37-66). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Curiel, J. M., & Radvansky, G. A. (2002). Mental maps in memory
retrieval and comprehension. Memory, 10, 113-126. doi:10.1080/
09658210143000245
Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models con-
tribute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Mem-
ory & Language, 26, 69-83. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90063-5
Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L., III (1984). Procedures of mind. Jour-
Results
The error rate and response time data are summarized
in Table 2. The object and word probe data were analyzed
separately. The response time data were trimmed as in Ex-
periment 1, with 8% of the data being dropped. The data
were submitted to two-way (shift vs. no-shift) repeated
measures ANOVAs.
Object probes
. For the error rates, the location updat-
ing effect was significant [F(1,39) 5 4.29, MSe 5 .012,
p 5 .04]. Walking through a doorway caused forgetting of
the objects. This was supported by the response time data
[F(1,39) 5 12.31, MSe 5 87,164, p 5 .001].
Word pair probes
. There was a location updating ef-
fect for the error rate data [F(1,39) 5 5.47, MSe 5 .016,
p 5 .03], with people forgetting the word pair more often
when they needed to update the event model. This differ-
ence, although in the appropriate direction, did not reach
significance in the response times [F(1,39) 5 2.18, MSe 5
48,029, p 5 .15].
Discussion
The results of Experiment 2 showed a location updat-
ing effect for both objects and word pairs. These data are
more consistent with the view that most of what a person
is attending to becomes less available following an event
boundary as the event model is updated.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Two experiments further explored the location up-
dating effect (Radvansky & Copeland, 2006), in which
people show poorer memory for objects after a shift from
one room to another. This effect was not limited by how
strongly the probed-for information was integrated with
the context of the interactive environment. People in Ex-
periment 1 showed that using visual probes that were a
better match for that information from the environmen-
tal context did not add any benefit to retrieval. In Ex-
periment 2, word pairs that were less well integrated also
showed the effect. Thus, both increasing and decreasing
the degree of integration of the probed-for information
consistently resulted in a location updating effect.
Moving from one location to another serves as an event
boundary (e.g., Swallow et al., 2009) as information as-
sociated with a prior location becomes less available. This
is noteworthy in that in the present study, (1) the amount
of to-be-remembered information was relatively small
and (2) the task demanded that information was relevant
Table 2
Error Rates (Proportions) and Response Times (RTs,
in Milliseconds), With Standard Errors, for Experiment 2
Error Rate RT
M SE M SE
Object Probes
No shift .18 .02 1,747 82
Shift .23 .03 1,978 101
Word Pair Probes
No shift .08 .02 1,234 45
Shift .14 .02 1,306 64
904 ra d va n s k y , ta m p l i n , a n d kr aw i E t z
Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2009).
Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor
experiences. Psychological Science, 20, 989-999. doi:10.1111/j.1467
-9280.2009.02397.x
Swallow, K. M., Zacks, J. M., & Abrams, R. A. (2009). Event bound-
aries in perception affect memory encoding and updating. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 236-257. doi:10.1037/
a0015631
Thorndyke, P. W. (1981). Distance estimation from cognitive maps.
Cognitive Psychology, 13, 526-550. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90019-0
van Selst, M., & Jolicœur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample
size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 47A, 631-650.
Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., & Reynolds, J. R. (2009). Segmentation in
reading and film comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: General, 138, 307-327. doi:10.1037/a0015305
Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1196-
1207. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1196
Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The con-
struction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-
indexing model. Psychological Science, 6, 292-297. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.1995.tb00513.x
Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions
of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21,
386-397. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in lan-
guage comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-
185. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
Zwaan, R. A., Radvansky, G. A., Hilliard, A. E., & Curiel, J. M.
(1998). Constructing multidimensional situation models during
reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 199-220. doi:10.1207/
s1532799xssr0203_2
(Manuscript received February 11, 2010;
revision accepted for publication July 17, 2010.)
nal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23, 425-449. doi:10.1016/
S0022-5371(84)90282-2
Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the percep-
tion and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 72-79.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.11.004
Magliano, J. P., Miller, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). Indexing space
and time in film understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15,
533-545. doi:10.1002/acp.724
McNamara, T. P. (1986). Mental representations of spatial relations. Cog-
nitive Psychology, 18, 87-121. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90016-2
Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibil-
ity and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Mem-
ory & Language, 26, 165-187. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(87)90122-7
Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The fan effect: A tale of two theories. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 198-206. doi:10.1037/
0096-3445.128.2.198
Radvansky, G. A. (2005). Situation models, propositions, and the fan
effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 478-483.
Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2006). Walking through door-
ways causes forgetting: Situation models and experienced space.
Memory & Cognition, 34, 1150-1156.
Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2010). Reading times and the
detection of event shift processing. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 210-216. doi:10.1037/
a0017258
Radvansky, G. A., Spieler, D. H., & Zacks, R. T. (1993). Mental
model organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, & Cognition, 19, 95-114. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.95
Radvansky, G. A., & Zacks, R. T. (1991). Mental models and the fan
effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, &
Cognition, 17, 940-953. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.5.940
Rinck, M., & Bower, G. H. (1995). Anaphora resolution and the focus
of attention in situation models. Journal of Memory & Language, 34,
110-131. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1006
Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent
memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Re-
view, 8, 203-220.
