Adapting a memory framework (source monitoring) to the study of closure processes

Abstract

The present experiments adapt a memory framework (source monitoring) to the study of closure processes. Closure processes are invoked as explanatory mechanisms underlying the ability to identify objects under conditions of incomplete visual information. If closure processes are activated, filling in missing pieces of visual information, intriguing memory predictions follow. When making source judgments about the way in which visual information was experienced initially (e.g., complete or incomplete in form), a particular kind of memory error should be evident. Incomplete visual information should be remembered as complete in form, and indeed, this error is observed. The present experiments test alternative interpretations for the initial reports of this memory error in the context of a search task modeled after the Where's Waldo? children's books. The effects of several new factors (e.g., familiarity) are reported, and alternative interpretations for the bias to report complete are eliminated. Findings, therefore, have implications for understanding the mechanisms of closure processes, as well as for the source-monitoring framework itself.

Seeing is remembering: Do deficits in closure affect visual memory recognition in schizophrenia?

“…Compensation afforded by closure on healthy controls was partial with Frag-15% and Frag-25% figures, but was total for Frag-0%, thus suggesting that representations of Frag-0% figures were that of the figures in their complete version. Foley, Foley, Durso, and Smith (1997) and Foley, Foley, and Korenman (2002) provided support to this possibility by showing that healthy participants, when asked to decide the version (complete or incomplete) in which figures were presented previously, tend to claim that incomplete figures were presented in a complete fashion. In opposition to this idea of total compensation, one may postulate that Frag-0% figures were simply not closed because they had not to be closed.…”

Source-monitoring judgments about anagrams and their solutions: Evidence for the role of cognitive operations information in memory

“…More generally, the absence of an advantage for letter transformation tasks leading to nonwords may have less to do with the unimportance of cognitive operations information per se and more to do with the possibility that memory tests vary in their sensitivity to the presence of cognitive operations information. Consistent with this point, the wording of source judgments has important consequences for accuracy (e.g., Foley et al, 2002;R. L. Marsh & Hicks, 1998).…”

“…or reading (e.g., "did you read this item or not?"). Within the source-monitoring framework, variations in the wording of source tests are expected to influence accuracy by affecting the characteristics of memory traces that are consulted when rendering these judgments (e.g., Foley et al, 2002;Johnson et al, 1993;Johnson et al, 1981; R. L. Marsh & Hicks, 1998).…”

“…Central tenets of the source-monitoring framework support the prediction that variations in the wording of source tests should influence source judgments because these variations in wording are thought to affect the characteristics of memory traces that are consulted, or the activation of beliefs about what affects one's memory, or both (Foley et al, 2002;Johnson et al, 1981;R. L. Marsh & Hicks, 1998).…”

“…In part, this expectation arose from demonstrations in other contexts of the sensitivity of source judgments to cognitive operations information (Finke, Johnson, & Shyi, 1988;Foley, Durso, Wilder, & Friedman, 1991;Foley, Foley, & Korenman, 2002;Foley & Ratner, 1998, Experiment 3;Johnson et al, 1981). After generating materials in response to experimenters' prompts, source judgments about the origin of the items (e.g., self or experimenter) are better when the generations are more difficult to complete (e.g., Johnson et al, 1981).…”