FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2589772258> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2589772258 abstract "Role of Context in Memorability of Intuitive and Counterintuitive Concepts M. Afzal Upal Intelligent Agents & Multiagent Systems Lab Electrical Engineering & Computer Science Department University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, 43606 afzal@eecs.utoledo.edu Abstract A number of recent studies have shown that minimally counterintuitive concepts are better recalled than intuitive and maximally counterintuitive concepts. This paper presents a computational model that relates memorability of a concept to the amount of new information that the concept provides to a rational agent seeking to build a more accurate model of its environment. Given two different types of concepts (or same type of concepts presented in two different contexts), the model can be used to make strong predictions about which concepts will be better comprehended, remembered, and recalled by people. Free recall experiments with human subjects provide strong support to the memorability hypothesis. Keywords: Comprehension; memory; concept acquisition. Introduction and Background Bartlett (1932) was one of the first to systematically study how concepts embedded in stories are transformed as they pass from person to person. He asked British university students to read passages from various folk tales including the Native North American folk tale “the war of the ghosts” (Erdoes & Ortiz 1984) and retell it to others in writing who then retold it to others. Bartlett analyzed the transformation of various concepts over successive retellings. He concluded that culturally unfamiliar concepts were distorted and replaced by more familiar concepts; for instance, a canoe was replaced by a rowboat. In none of the series of ten reproductions of, “the war of ghosts,” did a mention of ghosts remain, even though the story’s title mentions ghosts. Bartlett reasoned that culturally unfamiliar concepts such as canoe and ghost are more difficult to represent in human memory and therefore they are more likely to get distorted. Even though, Bartlett did not systematically measure and compare the recall rates of culturally familiar and unfamiliar concepts, he argued that culturally unfamiliar concepts are less likely to be remembered and recalled and hence less likely to be transmitted than familiar concepts. Kintsch and Greene (1978) selected an Apache tale and a story from Brothers Grimm. Similar to Bartlett, they found that five retellings of the Apache story introduced more severe distortions than the Grimm story. They concluded that this happened because the Grimm story better conformed to the structure expected by their subjects. Barrett and Nyhoff (2001) also repeated Bartlett’s methodology using a larger set of Native North American folk tales from Erdoes & Ortiz (1984). Six stories of about 500 words or less, containing both intuitive concepts such as the river, mountain, and bird and expectation violating counterintuitive concepts such as a talking bird and a walking stone, were chosen. They found that recall rates for counterintuitive concepts were significantly higher than recall rates for intuitive concepts. Barrett and Nyhoff also designed an artificial story to better control for the number of intuitive and counterintuitive concepts, narrative structure, and the amount of repeated exposure to a concept. The futuristic story about a person visiting a museum to see alien beings and artifacts was designed to contain six concepts of each of the following three types: 1. intuitive concepts that conform to expectations such as a being who is aware of its existence 2. minimally counterintuitive concepts that violate one intuitive expectations such as a being who never dies, and 3. bizarre concepts that do not violate any category expectations but have an unusual feature value such as a being who weighs 1000 pounds. They found that after three retellings, counterintuitive concepts were better recalled than bizarre concepts which were better recalled than intuitive concepts. Boyer and Ramble (2001) used a variant of Barrett and Nyhoff’s (2001) alien museum story but did not use a serial reproduction task. Instead, they had subjects read a story and following a brief distraction task answer a question requiring reproduction of as many intuitive, counterintuitive and bizarre items mentioned in the story as the subject could recall. Their results supported Barrett and Nyhoff’s conclusion that minimally counterintuitive items are best recalled and the intuitive items are worst recalled. Atran and Norenzayan (2005) constructed three lists of intuitive, minimally counterintuitive (such as a nauseating cat) and maximally counterintuitive concepts (concepts that violate two intuitive expectations such as a chattering nauseating cat). Subjects were presented lists of concepts without the narrative structure used by previous researchers. Each subject saw a list containing an equal number of all three types of concepts and was asked to recall as many concepts as he/she could after a brief distraction task. They found that subjects recalled intuitive concepts better than minimally counterintuitive concepts which were better recalled than maximally counterintuitive concepts. Removing the narrative structure used by Barrett" @default.
• W2589772258 created "2017-03-03" @default.
• W2589772258 creator A5072703861 @default.
• W2589772258 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W2589772258 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2589772258 title "Role of Context in Memorability of Intuitive and Counterintuitive Concepts" @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1510672157 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1586474954 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1674947250 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1679907412 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1967105754 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1974991348 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1982620740 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W1990689692 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2000900121 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2037408089 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2070145320 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2072875864 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2097764122 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2098182652 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2113079292 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2121703346 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2124600506 @default.
• W2589772258 cites W2166928309 @default.
• W2589772258 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2589772258 type Work @default.
• W2589772258 sameAs 2589772258 @default.
• W2589772258 citedByCount "14" @default.
• W2589772258 countsByYear W25897722582014 @default.
• W2589772258 countsByYear W25897722582015 @default.
• W2589772258 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2589772258 hasAuthorship W2589772258A5072703861 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C100660578 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C101097943 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C511192102 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C100660578 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C101097943 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C111472728 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C138885662 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C154945302 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C15744967 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C166957645 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C180747234 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C188147891 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C199360897 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C2779343474 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C41008148 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C511192102 @default.
• W2589772258 hasConceptScore W2589772258C95457728 @default.
• W2589772258 hasIssue "27" @default.
• W2589772258 hasLocation W25897722581 @default.
• W2589772258 hasOpenAccess W2589772258 @default.
• W2589772258 hasPrimaryLocation W25897722581 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W1545605900 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W1617267527 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W1967105754 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W1990689692 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W1998071908 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2000900121 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2003537392 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2027052431 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2037408089 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2068250825 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2098182652 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2105687216 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2113079292 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2118007841 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2124600506 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2154740397 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2166928309 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2170870424 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W2767739956 @default.
• W2589772258 hasRelatedWork W60160250 @default.
• W2589772258 hasVolume "27" @default.
• W2589772258 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2589772258 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2589772258 magId "2589772258" @default.
• W2589772258 workType "article" @default.