Running head: CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 1

Closing the Semantic Eye: A Method to Reduce Retroactive Semantic Interference

Damien Soon Wei Xiang

Department of Psychology, National University of Singapore

 PL3281: Lab in Cognitive Psychology

Dr. Nicholas Hon Hsueh Hsien

Nov. 15, 2017

Author Note

Soon, D. W. X. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6178-8757

There is no conflict of interest to disclose.

As it has been some time since the data was re-analysed, the raw data files are missing.

Due to methodological issues (human error), the contents of this paper differ slightly from

that of the original report submitted for this module.

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 2

Abstract

Several studies have found that simply closing one’s eyes is sufficient to reduce visual

interference and improve recall of eyewitness events. Drawing parallels, this study explores

the possibility of improving semantic recall by engaging in a non-semantic activity to reduce

retroactive semantic interference. A 3 x 2 within-subjects factorial design was used to assess

this hypothesis. After reading a passage, participants engaged in a semantic interference

condition (maximum, minimised or no interference) and subsequently answered factual and

inferential questions pertaining to the passage. Results suggest that the type of questions but

not the degree of semantic interference, affected semantic recall. Possible reasons for the lack

of supportive evidence and future directions are discussed.

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 3

Closing the Semantic Eye: A Method to Reduce Retroactive Semantic Interference

The “eye-closure effect” is a finding that recalling details about an eyewitness event is

more accurate when it is done with the eyes closed. This effect has been replicated by several

studies and has implications in how police interviews could be improved (Mastroberardino &

Vredeveldt, 2014; Perfect et al., 2008; Vredeveldt, Hitch & Baddeley, 2011).

The eye-closure effect is a generalizable finding with some ecological validity.

Perfect et al. (2008) found that regardless of how the witnessed event was shown (in the form

of a video or in reality), how questions pertaining to the event were asked (cued recall or free

recall), or the modality of the details being asked (auditory details or visual details),

participants who were instructed to close their eyes during the interview consistently recalled

more correct details as compared to those who were interviewed without any specific

instructions. Moreover, this effect was also found in at least one field study conducted by

Vredeveldt and Penrod (2013).

 The eye-closure effect is not only generalizable, it is also robust. The effects were

replicated not only with adult populations (e.g. Wagstaff et al., 2004) but also amongst

children between 6 to 11 years old (e.g. Mastroberardino, Natali & Candel, 2012;

Mastroberardino & Vredeveldt, 2014). Additionally, the beneficial effects of eye closure are

persistent and have been found to last for at least a week (Natali, Marucci & Mastroberardino,

2012; Vredeveldt, 2011). Specifically, after witnessing an eyewitness event, participants who

were instructed to close their eyes during the immediate interview (as compared to those who

were not instructed to close their eyes) recalled more correct and less incorrect details about

the eyewitness event and the same results were obtained even when they were interviewed

again a week later without being instructed to close their eyes (Natali et al., 2012).

Two explanations for the eye-closure effect had been proposed by Vredeveldt et al.

(2011). According to the cognitive load hypothesis, the act of closing the eyes frees up finite
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 4

cognitive resources, which would have otherwise been used to monitor one’s immediate

surroundings. This extra cognitive resource can then be diverted to facilitate the retrieval of

earlier memories. The alternative explanation is based on the modality-specific interference

hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, eye closure improves recall of eyewitness events

because it removes visual interference and therefore helps to promotes visualisation of the

visual event.

In short, from the perspective of the cognitive load hypothesis, eye closure can

improve recall of the witnessed event in general, regardless of the modality of the details

being recalled (e.g. visual, auditory or tactile). On the other hand, from the perspective of the

modality-specific interference hypothesis, eye closure can only improve recall of visual

details pertaining to the witnessed event.

Using a television drama as the eyewitness event, the study by Vredeveldt et al. (2011)

obtained supportive evidence for both explanations. In accordance with the cognitive load
hypothesis, the authors found that the number of correct visual and auditory details recalled

during the interview was greater in the low distraction conditions (staring at a blank screen or

closing eyes) as compared to the high distraction conditions (presence of visual or auditory

distractors). Also, consistent with the modality-specific interference hypothesis, fewer visual

details were correctly recalled in the presence of visual distracters as compared to auditory

distractors whereas fewer auditory details were correctly recalled in the presence of auditory

distractors as compared to visual distractors.

Given that the modality-specific interference hypothesis is one plausible explanation

for the eye-closure effect, could methods -akin to closing the “semantic eye”- be developed to

reduce retroactive semantic interference and consequently, improve recall for the critical

semantic information acquired earlier? Since retrieval of visual information is more sensitive

to visual interference than auditory interference and retrieval of auditory information is more
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 5

affected by auditory than visual interference, perhaps parallels can be drawn with regards to

the retrieval of semantic information. Specifically, one could hypothesise that the recall of

semantic information is more vulnerable to retroactive semantic interference as compared to

non-semantic interferences.

A technique to reduce retroactive semantic interference comes with some practical

implications. For one, it can potentially improve people’s quality of life by helping them

remember the bits of information that are important to their personal and professional lives.

Such a method is especially useful in modern, technologically advanced societies where

people are constantly bombarded with information and consequently, their memories for

information acquired earlier are more susceptible to distortion from information encoded later.

The hypothetical technique can also contribute to ongoing efforts in the development

of more effective studying strategies by offering a new avenue for research. Presently, most

of the empirically tested studying techniques are based on the testing effect (e.g. McDaniel,
Howard & Einstein, 2009; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). The testing effect is the finding that

repeated and deliberate retrieval of the to-be-remembered information leads to stronger long-

term memory for that information as compared to repeatedly reading it (Bangert- Drowns,

Kulik & Kulik al., 1991; Karpicke & Roediger, 2008). Besides developing techniques that are

focused on enhancing the learning process itself, research can also focus on the period after

the learning. This “post-learning” period is when newly-acquired information is being

consolidated and hence, most vulnerable to interferences (Wixted, 2004). Perhaps, in addition

to engaging with repeated testing, further gains in memory retention of the learning material

could potentially be achieved by applying methods that reduce retroactive semantic

interference.

In light of the theoretical possibility and practical implications of reducing retroactive

semantic interference, this study considered one potential technique to close the “semantic
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 6

eye”: by engaging in a non-semantic task immediately after studying a learning material. The

non-semantic task used in this study required participants to identify whether a given

nonword contains the letter “E” (no semantic interference condition). Two semantic tasks

believed to induce different levels of semantic interference were used as comparisons. The

semantic task that produces the greatest level of interference (maximum semantic

interference condition) required participants to determine whether a given word has a

“pleasant” or “unpleasant” meaning. The semantic task that produces a lower level of

interference (minimised semantic interference condition) required participants to determine

whether a given word contains the letter “E”. It was hypothesized that more correct

information about the learning material would be retrieved in the “no semantic interference”

condition as compared to the “maximum semantic interference” condition. To further assess

the effectiveness of this semantic interference-reducing technique, it was also hypothesized

that although more correct information would be recalled in the “minimised semantic
interference” condition than the “maximum semantic interference” condition, less correct

information would be recalled in the “minimised semantic interference” condition as

compared to the “no semantic interference” condition.

Method

Participants

Twenty undergraduates (4 males and 16 females) took part in this study. Participants

are between the ages of 21 to 23 (M = 21.70, SD = 0.86) and are taking the module “PL3281:

Lab in Cognitive Psychology”. Participation in this study was part of the course requirement.

Materials

The experiment was conducted using the E-Prime 2.0 software (Psychology Software

Tools, 2017). All participants undertook the study using the same type of desktop and all

computers were running on the Windows 10 operating system. Appendix A contains the 4
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 7

narrative passages that were used as learning materials (Ereading Worksheets, n.d.). Each

passage was exactly 147 words long and some editing of the original passages was done by

the authors. Correspondingly, a total of three word lists and a nonword list were developed

for the purposes of varying the degree of semantic interference (see Appendix B for the word

and nonword lists). Each list comprised of 30 items and the nonwords were obtained from an

online nonword generator (Soybomb, n.d.). Also, for each passage, 10 free-recall questions

(five factual and five inferential) were used to assess participants’ memory for the passage

(see Appendix C). Two to three questions were taken from the same website where the

passage was obtained while the remaining free-recall questions were developed by the

authors. The use of two different types of questions was intended as a more sensitive measure

of participants’ memory pertaining to the passages.

Since the minimised and no semantic interference conditions required participants to

identify the presence or absence of the letter “E”, to ensure that all four lists are equal, each
list contained 15 items with the letter “E” and 15 items without the letter “E”. Similarly,

because the maximum semantic interference condition required participants to categorize

words based on their pleasant or unpleasant meaning, to ensure equivalence, each of the three

word lists comprised of 15 pleasant and 15 unpleasant words. Also, each word list contained

a roughly equal number of pleasant and unpleasant words that has the letter “E”. For example,

a given word list could have eight pleasant words and seven unpleasant words that has the

letter “E”.

Data on word valence ratings for the 90 words were obtained from the Affective

Norms for English Words (ANEW) dataset (Bradley & Lang, 1999). An independent samples

t-test was conducted to compare the valence ratings of pleasant (M = 7.53, SD = 0.46) and

unpleasant (M = 2.54, SD = 0.61) words. There was a significant difference in valence ratings

for the two categories of words, t(88) = 43.83, p < .001. This suggests that each word list
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 8

comprised of words that can be clearly categorised as having either a pleasant or unpleasant

meaning.

To ensure that the valence ratings of pleasant or unpleasant words do not

significantly differ across the three word lists, two single-factor between-subjects analysis of

variances (ANOVAs) was performed, once for the pleasant words and once for the

unpleasant words. There was no significant main effect of word list for both the pleasant,

F(2,42) < 1, and unpleasant F(2,42) < 1, words (see Table 1 for the distributions).

Steps were also taken to ensure that the word lists do not significantly differ from

each other in terms of word frequency and concreteness. Data on the ratings of word

frequency per million words was obtained from the SUBTLEX-US corpus (Brysbaert & New,

2009). Word concreteness ratings were obtained from data reported by Brysbaert, Warriner

and Kuperman (2014). Separate single-factor between-subjects ANOVAs were conducted to

compare word frequency and concreteness across the 3 word lists. There was no significant
main effect of word list for either word frequency, F(2,87) < 1, or word concreteness, F(2,87)

< 1, (see Tables 2 and 3 for the distributions of word frequency and concreteness

respectively).

Finally, a single-factor between-subjects ANOVA was done to compare the average

number of letters in the items across all four lists. There was no significant main effect of

word list for the mean number of letters in the items, F(3,116) < 1, (see Table 4 for the

distributions).

In short, the word lists do not significantly different from each other in terms of their

meaning (pleasant or unpleasant), word frequencies as well as word concreteness. The

average number of letters that make up the items are also similar across the four lists.

Design
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 9

The study used a 3 x 2 factorial design. The first factor was the degree of retroactive

semantic interference (maximum interference, minimised interference or no interference)

participants had to engage in. The second factor was the type of test question (factual or

inferential). All factors are within-subjects variables, that is, participants had to complete all 3

semantic interference tasks and had to answer both types of test questions. The dependent

variable is the number of correct answers recalled in each of the three interference conditions.

Of note, participants were required to go through the maximum semantic interference

condition twice. This was because both the minimised and no semantic interference

conditions provided participants with opportunities to identify whether an item contains the

letter “E”. In contrast, participants could only practice determining whether a word had a

pleasant or unpleasant meaning during the maximum interference condition. The additional

experience with the “E or No E” task, could have resulted in practice effects and potentially

distort the study’s results.

 Nevertheless, it was expected that recall performance in the two maximum

interference conditions would not significantly differ from each other and the results would

eventually be combined. There was no reason to believe that recall performance under

identical semantic interference conditions and control settings could lead to significantly

different results. Consequently, a 3 x 2 factorial design was expected to remain appropriate.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned into four groups. The combination of which

passage and word or nonword list to be used in each of the four semantic interference

conditions was predetermined for each group (see Table 5 for the specific combinations for

each group). Within each group, the order of the semantic interference conditions for each

participant was also randomly determined by the E-prime 2.0 software.

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 10

All participants took part in the experiment at the same time and in the same room.

Before the experiment commenced proper, participants were told that a passage will first be

presented for 1 minute followed by a list of items that are presented individually. To prevent

potential confusion stemming from the later appearance of yet another passage, they were

also told that the sequence of stimuli will be repeated for a few times. They were further

instructed that all passages must be read and that they are required to make a response to each

of the subsequent items in the list within 2 seconds.

At the start of the experiment, participants were first asked to enter their age and

gender. They were then directed to the first set of instructions, which reminded them to spend

1 minute reading the passage. They were also informed that further instructions pertaining to

the subsequent task will be given at the end of the 1 minute duration. After reading the

passage for 1 minute, participants were automatically directed to the second set of

instructions.
 The second set of instructions differed depending on the type of semantic interference

condition participants were randomly assigned to. If a participant was in the maximum

semantic interference condition, the instructions would state that a series of words would be

presented individually. The participant would also be instructed to categorize the words as

either “pleasant” or “unpleasant” in meaning by pressing the numbers “1” or “2” on the

keyboard respectively.

If a participant was engaging in the minimised semantic interference condition, the

instructions would likewise state that the subsequent series of words would be presented

individually. However, the participant would instead be instructed to identify whether a given

word contains the letter “E”. Similarly, the participant was told to press the number “1” or “2”

on the keyboard if the letter “E” was present or absent respectively.

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 11

If a participant was engaging in the no semantic interference condition, the

instructions would state that the subsequent series of nonwords would be presented one at a

time. Unlike the minimised semantic interference condition, the participant would be told to

identify whether a nonword contains the letter “E”. Again, the participant was also told to

press the number “1” or “2” on the keyboard if the letter “E” was present or absent

respectively.

All 30 items in each list were presented to participants in a random order. Regardless

of the interference conditions, the second set of instructions would also remind participants to

make their response for each item within 2 seconds. To ensure that participants were

following the given instructions, data pertaining to their response time and accuracy in each

of the interference task was collected. Accuracy was defined as (1) the number of words

correctly categorized as pleasant or unpleasant or (2) the number of words or nonwords

where the letter “E” was correctly identified as present or absent, out of a total of 30 items.
 After completing an interference task, participants were shown the third set of

instructions. This set of instruction would inform them that the next task would be a test

pertaining to the passage that was most recently read. Participants then attempt to answer five

factual and five inferential questions pertaining to the passage. These questions were also

presented in a random order.

Upon completion of the 10 questions, the participants would be randomly assigned to

the other uncompleted semantic interference conditions. They would again be shown the first

set of instructions and the cycle continues until all four semantic interference conditions are

completed. Data was collected for subsequent scoring and analyses only after all participants

had completed the experiment.

Scoring
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 12

Answers pertaining to the free recall questions were marked by all six authors. Only

answers considered correct by at least five of the authors were deemed correct for the

purposes of data analyses.

Results

Seven participants failed to respond within the given time limit for the interference

tasks. Throughout the entire experiment, five participants did not respond to only one item

and the most number of items a participant failed to respond to was three. Given that each

participant had to respond to a total of 120 items, the number of no responses was considered

negligible. It also suggests that all participants were aware of the 2 second limit.

However, the manipulation checks also suggest that four participants were not

following the specific instructions for the interference tasks properly. In the minimised

semantic interference condition, the response accuracy of two participants was 2 and 3 SDs

below the mean (M = 0.93, SD = 0.14). In the maximised semantic interference conditions,
the response accuracy of another two participant was 3 SDs below the mean (M = 0.93 &

0.95, corresponding SD = 0.11 & 0.04). Response accuracy for all other participants did not

exceed the exclusion criteria, which was set at 2 SDs of the mean, in each of the four

interference conditions (see Table 6 for the distributions). Since the performance of the three

participants was clearly unusual relative to the other participants, their data were excluded

from subsequent analyses.

Two paired samples t-tests was conducted between the two maximum interference

conditions; once for factual answers and once for inferential answers. There was no

significant difference between the two conditions with regards to the number of correct

factual answers, t(15) = -0.70, p = .50, and the number of correct inferential answers, t(15) =

0.60, p = .56 (see Table 7 for the distributions). Since the number of correct answers do not
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 13

significantly differ, data from the two maximum interference conditions were combined for

the main analysis.

Finally, the data was analysed using a 3 (degree of semantic interference) x 2 (type of

test question) within-subjects ANOVA. There was no significant main effect of the degree of

semantic interference, F(2,30) < 1 (see Table 8). This meant that participants recalled similar

number of correct answers regardless of whether they were in the maximum (M = 3.57, SD =

0.86), minimised (M = 3.81, SD = 1.26) or no (M = 3.66, SD = 1.10) semantic interference

conditions. A significant main effect was found for the type of test question F(1,15) = 12.7, p

< .01. This suggested that participants recalled significantly more correct answers for factual

questions (M = 4.04, SD = 0.91) than inferential questions (M = 3.32, SD = 1.12). However,

there was no significant interaction between the degree of semantic interference and the type

of test question, F(2,30) < 1. This implied that the degree of semantic interference did not

affect participants’ abilities to recall correct answers, regardless of the type of question being
asked.

Discussion

This study does not provide supportive evidence for the hypothesis that engaging in a

non-semantic task can reduce retroactive semantic interference and improve recall of

semantic information. Specifically, engagement in the non-semantic task did not enable

participants to recall any more answers correctly as compared to engaging in tasks that

introduced intermediate and high levels of semantic interference.

Furthermore, it seems to be the case that participants were not affected by the varying

degrees of semantic interference. As shown in the results, the number of correct answers

recalled after engaging in either the maximum or minimised semantic interference tasks did

not significantly differ. This finding puts into question whether retroactive semantic

interference could be reduced in the first place. One possible explanation could be that the
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 14

content of the passages and word lists were unrelated and memory for distinctive contents do

not interfere much with each other. Indeed, this idea is consistent with many studies of

retroactive interference (e.g. Bower & Mann, 1992; Bower, Thompson-Schill & Tulving,

1994; Cumming & De Miranda, 2012; Marsh, Landau & Hicks, 1996). Using a two-list word

paradigm, these studies have found that retroactive interference could be reduced when the

two word lists belong to distinctly different categories (e.g. names of famous people, 8 letter

words). Moreover, the present study did not use a two-list word paradigm- participants were

given a passage followed by the word list. The different ways in which the contents were

presented may have accentuated the distinctiveness of each content and further reduced the

amount of retroactive semantic interference.

The finding that performance on factual questions tend to be better than inferential

questions is consistent with results reported in several studies (e.g. Eason, Goldberg, Young,

Geist & Cutting, 2012; Green, 2000; Oakhill, 1984; Raphael & Wonnacott, 1985; Yonker,
2011). However, caution is required when interpreting this significant result. Participants

reported- both within their answers during the experiment and to the experimenters after the

study- that they were confused by the inferential questions. In one particular inferential

question, six participants commented that the answer was “not specified” in the passage.

Despite the confusion, all participants did attempt to answer the inferential questions, and this

enabled the experimenters to proceed on with the scoring.

In hindsight, the study had several methodological limitations that might have

contributed to the inconsistent findings, the most obvious being the lack of participants (N =

17) and the consequent lack of power.

A second limitation was that participants might not have been sufficiently exposed to

the semantic interference tasks. Participants were given a full minute to read each passage. In

contrast, they only spent an average of 21 to 25 seconds working on each of the interference
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 15

task (see Table 9 for the distribution). It would have been fairer to devote equal amounts of

time to both the encoding of the passage and exposure to retroactive semantic interference.

Thirdly, two types of questions (factual and inferential) were used to ensure that the

measurements were sensitive to participants’ memory retention of the passage. However,

there was only five factual and five inferential questions in each of the interference conditions.

The limited number of questions might have ironically, lead to the insensitivity of the

measurements.

Although the findings are inconclusive, it is still premature to discount the possibility

that retroactive semantic interference on semantic memory can be reduced by engaging in

non-semantic tasks. After all, the study only considered one kind of non-semantic task and

more alternative activities should be considered in future studies before the plausibility of this

theory can be properly assessed.

Moreover, techniques that can prevent many kinds of retroactive interference- that is,
non-specific to semantic interference- have already been developed. For example, the

application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on either the right dorsolateral

prefrontal cortex or the right primary motor cortex has been demonstrated to both reduce

semantic interference on procedural memory as well as interference from learning a motor

skill on semantic memory (Cohen & Robertson, 2011). In a slightly more dramatic example,

the consumption of alcohol was demonstrated to reduce retroactive interference in general.

Specifically, the study found that memories formed before the consumption of an alcoholic or

a placebo (non-alcoholic) drink was more accurately recalled a week later by participants in

the alcohol condition as compared to those in the placebo condition (Bruce & Phil, 1997).

These general findings suggest that methods that specifically reduce semantic interference on

semantic memory could potentially exist and are not merely theoretical speculations.
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 16

While future studies should consider alternative non-semantic tasks, it is important

that the alternative tasks are neither too invasive (as with TMS) nor detrimental to health (as

with alcohol consumption). As was mentioned in the introduction, the practical value of

reducing retroactive semantic interference lies in its potential to improve subjective well-

being and complement effective study methods to further enhance one’s learning experience.

In short, alternative non-semantic tasks must not only be applicable but feasible in real-life

situations.

Other than focusing on the non-semantic task itself, future research should also

consider how the effectiveness of such tasks might vary for different individuals. One

possible factor may be individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC). WMC is

the amount of information one can temporarily retain in memory while concurrently

processing other kinds of information (Eysenck, 2012). Engaging in non-semantic tasks may

be more effective in reducing retroactive semantic interference for people with high WMC as
compared to those with low WMC. This is because there is a tendency for high WMC

individuals to also have better attentional control (Barrett, Tugade & Engle, 2004).

Specifically, high WMC individuals are less prone to both visual and auditory distractions as

compared to low WMC individuals (Poole & Kane, 2009; Robison & Unsworth, 2015;

Sorqvist, 2010). High WMC individuals are also less likely to attend to irrelevant information

as compared to low WMC individuals (Vogel, McCollough & Machizawa, 2005). This

implies that unlike low WMC individuals, those with high WMC may be better able to focus

on the non-semantic task because they experience less frequent lapses of attention.

Consequently, one may go further and speculate that high WMC individuals will also

experience less semantic interference and recall more correct semantic information as

compared to low WMC individuals.

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 17

To conclude, despite the null findings, the possibility of using non-semantic tasks to

reduce retroactive semantic interference on semantic memory remains a new area to research

on and if successful, holds great promises for both the self and society. Future research

should consider alternative non-semantic tasks while bearing in mind that (1) the task has to

be feasible and (2) its effectiveness might vary for different individuals.
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 18

References

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom

testing. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 89-99.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1991.10702818

Barrett, L. F., Tugade, M. M., & Engle, R. W. (2004). Individual differences in working

memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4),

553-573. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553

Bower, G. H., & Mann, T. (1992). Improving recall by recoding interfering material at the

time of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

18(6), 1310-1320. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1310

Bower, G. H., Thompson-Schill, S., & Tulving, E. (1994). Reducing retroactive interference:

An interference analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 20(1), 51-66. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.51

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW):

Instruction manual and affective ratings. NIMH Center for the Study of Emotion and

Attention. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from

http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/teaching/courses/2009-08UVM-

300/docs/others/everything/bradley1999a.pdf

Bruce, K. R., & Pihl, R. O. (1997). Forget "drinking to forget": Enhanced consolidation of

emotionally charged memory by alcohol. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,

5(3), 242-250. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.5.3.242

Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond kučera and francis: A critical evaluation of

current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word

frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-990.

doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 19

Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40

thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904-

911. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5

Cohen, D. A., & Robertson, E. M. (2011). Preventing interference between different memory

tasks. Nature Neuroscience, 14(8), 953-955. doi:10.1038/nn.2840

Cumming, J. M., & De Miranda, M. A. (2012). Reducing retroactive interference through the

use of different encoding techniques: An exploration of pre-test/post-test analyses.

International Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 22-31. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v1n1p22

Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader-

text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed

for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515.

doi:10.1037/a0027182

Ereading Worksheets. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2017, from

 https://www.ereadingworksheets.com/free-reading-worksheets/reading-comprehension-

worksheets/inferences-worksheets/

Eysenck, M. W. (2012). Short-term and working memory. In fundamentals of cognition (2nd

ed., pp. 118-141). New York: Psychology Press.

Green, L. B. (2000). Fourth graders' literal and inferential reading comprehension: Effects

of readability and answer format (Order No. 9975986). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global. (304637813). Retrieved from

http://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/docview/304637813?accountid=13876

Karpicke, J., & Roediger, H. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science,

319(5865), 966-968. doi:10.1126/science.1152408

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 20

Marsh, R. L., Landau, J. D., & Hicks, J. L. (1996). The postinformation effect and reductions

in retroactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 22(5), 1296-1303. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1296

Mastroberardino, S., Natali, V., & Candel, I. (2012). The effect of eye closure on children's

eyewitness testimonies. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(3), 245-257.

doi:10.1080/10683161003801100

Mastroberardino, S., & Vredeveldt, A. (2014). Eye-closure increases children’s memory

accuracy for visual material. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 241.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00241

Mcdaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study

strategy. Psychological Science, 20(4), 516-522. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02325.x

Natali, V., Marucci, F. S., & Mastroberardino, S. (2012). Long-term memory effects of eye

closure on children eyewitness testimonies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 730-736.

 doi:10.1002/acp.2853

Oakhill, J. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 31-39. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-

8279.1984.tb00842.x

Perfect, T. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Moore, D., Andrews, B., Cleveland, V., Newcombe, S., . . .

Brown, L. (2008). How can we help witnesses to remember more? It’s an (eyes) open and

shut case. Law and Human Behavior, 32(4), 314-324. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9109-5

Poole, B. J., & Kane, M. J. (2009). Working-memory capacity predicts the executive control

of visual search among distractors: The influences of sustained and selective attention. The

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1430-1454.

doi:10.1080/17470210802479329
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 21

Psychology Software Tools. (2017). E-Prime (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Available

from https://pstnet.com/welcome-to-e-prime-2-0/

Raphael, T. E., & Wonnacott, C. A. (1985). Heightening fourth-grade students' sensitivity to

sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Reading Research

Quarterly, 20(3), 282-296. doi:10.2307/748019

Robison, M. K., & Unsworth, N. (2015). Working memory capacity offers resistance to

mind-wandering and external distraction in a context-specific manner: Mind-wandering

and distraction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 680-690. doi:10.1002/acp.3150

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-Enhanced Learning. Psychological Science,

17(3), 249-255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

Sorqvist, P. (2010). High working memory capacity attenuates the deviation effect but not the

changing-state effect: Further support for the duplex-mechanism account of auditory

distraction. Memory & Cognition, 38(5), 651-658. doi:10.3758/MC.38.5.651

Soybomb. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2017, from http://soybomb.com/tricks/words/

Vogel, E. K., McCollough, A. W., & Machizawa, M. G. (2005). Neural measures reveal

individual differences in controlling access to working memory. Nature, 438(7067), 500-

503. doi:10.1038/nature04171

Vredeveldt, A. (2011). The benefits of eye-closure on eyewitness memory. University of York,

York, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://annelies.vredeveldt.com/wp-

content/uploads/2012/04/PhD-thesis-Annelies-Vredeveldt.pdf

Vredeveldt, A., Hitch, G. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2011). Eyeclosure helps memory by

reducing cognitive load and enhancing visualisation. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1253-

1263. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0098-8
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 22

Vredeveldt, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Eye-closure improves memory for a witnessed event

under naturalistic conditions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(10), 893-905.

doi:10.1080/1068316X.2012.700313

Wagstaff, G. F., Brunas-Wagstaff, J., Cole, J., Knapton, L., Winterbottom, J., Crean, V., &

Wheatcroft, J. (2004). Facilitating memory with hypnosis, focused meditation, and eye

closure. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 52(4), 434-455.

doi:10.1080/00207140490889062

Wixted, J. T. (2004). The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. Annual Review of

Psychology, 55(1), 235-269. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141555

Yonker, J. E. (2011). The relationship of deep and surface study approaches on factual and

applied test-bank multiple-choice question performance. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 36(6), 673-686. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.481041

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 23

Appendix A

Passage 1

Kyle ran into his house, slamming the door behind him. He threw his book bag on the

floor and plopped excitedly onto the couch. After six hours of playing pac-man, he ate pizza

and fell asleep with a slice on his stomach and his feet on his book bag. Kyle’s book bag was

on the floor for the entire day. If Kyle’s mother was at home, she would ask Kyle to wake up

and clean up the mess he made. When Kyle came home from school the next day, he was

noticeably distraught. He balled up his report card and placed it inside a soup can in the

garbage. He then flipped the soup can upside down in the garbage can and then arranged

loose pieces of trash over it. As he plopped down on the couch, he let out a huge sigh and

picked up his controller.

Passage 2

"William, don't forget your towel!" Mom shouted hurriedly as she carefully applied
sunblock on the baby. William threw the folding chairs in the back of the minivan and

shouted through the garage door, "OK Mom! I will get it." He then quickly ran up and

grabbed his towel from the cupboard. "Georgie!" William shouted loudly. There was no

response from Georgie. Mom packed the baby up into the car seat. "William, can you help

me with his umbrella?". William ran down the stairs and out the door, tripping over a chew

toy. He then got back up and ran towards the garage. Then, William helped his mother load

the large umbrella in the minivan. "Mom, I can't find Georgie, he is nowhere to be seen"

William said anxiously. His mother shrugged and replied, "That's OK, William, he is

sleeping at his favourite spot". They drove away quickly.

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 24

Passage 3

“A year older, a year wiser - don’t forget to buy a cake!”, said his wife on the phone.“Yes,

dear”. Tony walked out of the shopping mall carrying four shopping bags. He hope he does

not get drenched. As he approached his BMW, he started awkwardly feeling around his

pockets with his arm full of bags. He did not find what he was looking for so he transferred

the bags on one arm to the other arm, which already had bags. He still couldn't find what he

was looking for. Now he dropped all the bags and plunged both hands desperately into all of

the pockets on his jeans. Tony scrambled quickly to his car. He tried to open the door, but it

was locked. Then he saw something on the passenger seat of the car. He stopped looking and

pulled his iPhone out of his pocket.

Passage 4

Screech! Karen stomped on the gas pedal the moment the light turned green. She looked

over her left shoulder and zigged past a semi-truck. She zoomed ahead and looked over her
right shoulder and then zagged past a motorbike. She glanced at the clock on the console and

darted into the airport parking lot. Whipping into a parking spot, she grabbed her heavy

suitcase and ran through the lot, up the escalator, and into the terminal. Her heavy suitcase

was bumping and bouncing the whole way. Just as she entered the terminal, she heard an

announcement over the loudspeaker, "Final boarding call for flight 205 from Singapore to

Tokyo..." Karen looked at her ticket and then at the line to get through the security

checkpoint, which wrapped around several turnstiles and slithered like a lethargic snake.

Karen sighed and then slowly walked to the customer service desk.
 CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 25

Appendix B

Item List

Word list 1 Word list 2 Word list 3 Nonword list

handicap joyful cockroach optimism corrupt decorate closite squismot

rejected intellect suffocate luxury burial fireworks poinated ansvily

spanking leisurely slaughter waterfall abduction relaxed artler launco

infection rainbow poverty delight insecure incentive crutte ructinial

terrorist diploma blackmail cuddle measles promotion deficatan vismists

inferior thankful quarrel affection paralysis scholar midatests cobiocols

hardship inspired lawsuit festive mosquito applause chaotiest sailiturt

defeated dignified deformed savior impotent sunlight berapsi micrips

disloyal blossom bankrupt kindness obnoxious ambition dearance guruss

maggot snuggle seasick riches tornado enjoyment logearch ortiman

smallpox hopeful abortion triumph nuisance admired negrunch protching

immoral improve carcass wealthy crucify radiant nessibon grudying

crushed intimate assassin bouquet humiliate sapphire acklisse astank

fearful trophy sickness carefree dreadful thrill bobreas procurn

malaria magical scandal warmth massacre comedy greeplic oviago

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 26

Appendix C

Questions for Corresponding Passages

Passage 1

Factual

1. What did Kyle play?

2. Where did Kyle place his report card first?

3. What is Kyle’s occupation?

4. How long did Kyle play the game?

5. What did Kyle eat on the first day?

Inferential

1. Why is Kyle distraught?

2. Why did Kyle put the report card in a soup can?

3. Was Kyle’s report card good or bad and why was it like that?
4. Was Kyle’s mother at home?

5. Why did Kyle plop excitedly on the couch?

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 27

Passage 2

Factual

1. What was loaded in the vehicle?

2. What type of vehicle was featured?

3. What did William trip over?

4. Was Father present?

5. What did William fetch as he ran up?

Inferential

1. Where are Mom and William going?

2. Who is Georgie?

3. How many people are there in the story?

4. How was the weather?

5. Were the people in a hurry?

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 28

Passage 3

Factual

1. What phone does Tony use?

2. What type of car does Tony drive?

3. Was Tony with anyone?

4. How many bags was Tony carrying?

5. What is one item among Tony’s bags?

Inferential

1. Why does Tony get so frantic?

2. How was the weather?

3. What does Tony see on the passenger seat?

4. Why is Tony getting on the phone?

5. What is the occasion?

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 29

Passage 4

Factual

1. Where did she slowly walk to at the end?

2. What was she carrying with her?

3. Where is she going?

4. Where does she leave from?

5. What is the flight number?

Inferential

1. Why is Karen in a hurry?

2. Why does she start walking slowly at the end of the passage?

3. What is Karen going to do at the customer service desk?

4. Is the queue long or short?

5. How many vehicles did Karen have to pass?

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 30

Table 1

Valence Scores in Each Word List

Mean Standard deviation

Word list
Pleasant Unpleasant Pleasant Unpleasant

1 7.47 2.43 0.48 0.66

2 7.66 2.59 0.40 0.69

3 7.47 2.61 0.51 0.47

Note: Numbering of the word lists correspond to the numbering used for the word lists shown

in Appendix B
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 31

Table 2

Word Frequency Scores in Each Word List

Word frequency
Word list
Mean Standard deviation

1 4.37 3.15

2 4.51 2.45

3 4.48 2.94
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 32

Table 3

Word Concreteness Scores in Each Word List

Word concreteness
Word list
Mean Standard deviation

1 2.94 1.22

2 3.31 0.94

3 3.09 1.02
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 33

Table 4

Average Number of Letters in an Item for Each Word List

Number of letters
Type of list
Mean Standard deviation

Word list 1 7.57 0.90

Word list 2 7.50 0.97

Word list 3 7.73 1.02

Nonword list 7.60 1.04

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 34

Table 5

Combinations of Passage and Word List for Each Group

Semantic interference condition

Maximum 1 Maximum 2 Minimised No

Group
Passage Word list Passage Word list Passage Word list Passage Nonword list
1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4

2 4 2 1 1 2 3 3

3 3 3 4 2 1 1 2

4 2 1 3 3 4 2 1

Note: All groups used the same nonword list. Numbering of passages and word lists

correspond to numbering used in Appendix A and B respectively.

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 35

Table 6

Response Accuracy for the Interference Tasks in Each Interference Condition

Semantic Accuracy
interference
condition Mean Standard deviation

Maximum 1 0.96 0.04

Maximum 2 0.93 0.11

Minimised 0.93 0.14

No 0.95 0.05
CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 36

Table 7

Number of Correct Answers in the Two Maximum Interference Conditions

Semantic
Factual questions Inferential questions
interference
condition Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

Maximum 1 3.75 1.18 3.44 1.36

Maximum 2 4 1.03 3.13 1.26

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 37

Table 8

Number of Correct Answers as a Function of Interference Condition and Question Type

Semantic
Factual questions Inferential question
Interference
condition
Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

Maximum 3.88 0.85 3.28 0.80

Minimum 4.25 0.86 3.38 1.45

No 4 1.03 3.31 1.02

CLOSING THE SEMANTIC EYE 38

Table 9

Total Time Taken for Each Interference Task

Semantic Total time taken (seconds)

interference
condition Mean Standard deviation

Maximum 1 22.76 5.95

Maximum 2 24.52 3.56

Minimised 22.38 4.58

No 22.89 3.34