Encoding homophones and synonyms for verbal discrimination and recognition

Buschke, Hermas; Lenon, Richard

doi:10.3758/bf03329117

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latencies of correct recognition responses suggested that memory of decoding acts can facilitate subsequent similar decodings.Research evidence suggests that words are represented in long-term memory as composites of semantic, associative, and phonetic information (e.g., Anisfeld & Knapp, 1968). Recognition in a two-alternative forced-choice test is better if the distractor (Le., incorrect choice) is unrelated to the target word (Le., the word previously presented for study) than if the d.istractor is an associate, synonym, or homophone of the target (Underwood & Freund, 1968;Buschke & Lenon, 1969;Cermak, Schnorr, Buschke, & Atkinson, 1970). Recognition performance in these experiments was generally very good regardless of the relationship between the target word and its distractor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Word recognition as a function of spelling direction during study and test

1970

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spelling direction (backward or forward) of words presented for study and test was varied factorially. During recognition Ss indicated which word of each test pair had been presented for study, and the incorrect choice of each pair was a homophone, a synonym, or a word unrelated to the correct choice. Recognition was worst with synonym distractors and best with unrelated word distractors. For each type of distractor, recognition was better for backward-spelled study words than for forward-spelled study words, and words spelled in the same direction in both study and test were recognized better than words spelled in a different direction du ring study and test. The latter result supports the hypothesis that visual information may be important for word recognition. The latencies of correct recognition responses suggested that memory of decoding acts can facilitate subsequent similar decodings.Research evidence suggests that words are represented in long-term memory as composites of semantic, associative, and phonetic information (e.g., Anisfeld & Knapp, 1968). Recognition in a two-alternative forced-choice test is better if the distractor (Le., incorrect choice) is unrelated to the target word (Le., the word previously presented for study) than if the d.istractor is an associate, synonym, or homophone of the target (Underwood & Freund, 1968;Buschke & Lenon, 1969;Cermak, Schnorr, Buschke, & Atkinson, 1970). Recognition performance in these experiments was generally very good regardless of the relationship between the target word and its distractor. Since long-term memory is often concluded to be prirnarily semantic (e.g., Adams, 1967), the high recognition rates obtained when the distractor was a synonym of the target suggests that information other than semantic, acoustic, or associative word properties may be important for word recognition.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Word recognition as a function of spelling direction during study and test

1970

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data concerning similarity effects are somewhat mixed. Some studies report that similarity to a matched list item reduces performance (e.g., Anisfeld & Knapp, 1968;Underwood & Freund, 1968), but others do not (at least not for some related distractors or under some encoding instructions- Buschke & Lenon, 1969;Cramer & Eagle, 1972;Elias &Perfetti, 1973;Underwood & Freund, 1968). Furthermore, it is often the case that physical similarity (phonemic or graphemic) produces more false alarms (and lower performance) than does semantic similarity (Cramer & Eagle, 1972; see also Davies & Cubbage, 1976;Eagle & Ortof, 1967;Juola et al, 1971).…”

Section: Distractor Type and Similaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.

Gillund¹,

Shiffrin²

1984

Psychological Review

1,526

1,605

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Search of Associative Memory (SAM) model for recall (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981b) is extended by assuming that a familiarity process is used for recognition. The recall model posits cue-dependent probabilistic sampling and recovery from an associative network. Our recognition model is closely related to the recall model because the total episodic activation due to the context and item cues is used in recall as a basis for sampling and in recognition to make a decision. The model, formalized in a computer simulation program, correctly predicts a number of findings in the literature as well as the results from a new experiment on the wordfrequency effect."A critical problem of long standing in psychological study of memory is concerned with the relation between recall and recognition. In what sense are they the same, and in what sense are they different?" (Tulving & Watkins, 1973, p. 739).This article is a preliminary attempt to formulate a theory that describes in detail the relationship between recall and recognition. The relationship is realized in a computer simulation model, and the model's predictions are checked against existing data as well as data generated in our laboratory. The model for recognition is related mathematically and logically to the Search of Associative Memory (SAM) theory of memory retrieval that has

show abstract

“…Structural models (e.g., Bower, 1967) have conceived of the memory trace as a cluster of features (e.g., semantic features, acoustic features), and the popular view (Adams, 1967;Baddeley, 1966;Dale & Baddeley, 1969;Norman, 1969) is that acoustic features are stored only in STM, while LTM stores only semantic features. However, some recent findings (Baddeley, 1970;Buschke & Lenon, 1969;Laurence, 1970;Wickens, Ory, & Graf, 1970) suggest that this feature-memory-state dichotomy may not be accurate: Retrieval from LTM may also involve acoustic information. If acoustic information is stored in LTM, this could have direct import for research on the nature of the savings residual.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic savings for items forgotten from long-term memory.

Nelson¹,

Rothbart²

1972

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A widely held view is that semantic, but not acoustic, information is stored in long-term memory (LTM). The present study explored the possibility that acoustic information might comprise part of the savings residual for items forgotten from LTM. Twenty undergraduate 5s originally learned (OL) a list of 24 number-word paired associates and 4 wk. later returned for a retention test and subsequent relearning (RL). During RL, the OL stimuli were paired with responses that were either homophones of OL responses or acoustically unrelated to the OL responses. For items incorrectly recalled on the retention test, RL performance was better for the homophone condition than for the acoustically unrelated condition, suggesting that acoustic information is stored in LTM and comprises part of the savings residual for items forgotten from LTM.

show abstract

Encoding homophones and synonyms for verbal discrimination and recognition

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Word recognition as a function of spelling direction during study and test

Word recognition as a function of spelling direction during study and test

A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.

Acoustic savings for items forgotten from long-term memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About