Errors in a recognition memory task are a U-shaped function of word frequency

Zechmeister, Eugene B.; Curt, Carol L.; Sebastian, Julie A.

doi:10.3758/bf03336857

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same pattern of results was obtained with corrected hits (hits false alarms) as the measure of accuracy. Thus the present study replicates prior research with respect to item recognition; recognition accuracy was an inverted Ushaped function of word frequency, with highest accuracy for words of relatively low frequency and lower accuracy for words of high and very low frequency (e.g., Chalmers et al, 1997;Mandler et al, 1982;Rao & Proctor, 1984;Schulman, 1976;Wixted, 1992;Zechmeister, Curt, & Sebastian, 1978). 3 Figure 2 presents the results of the order reconstruction test.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 59%

Word frequency and memory: Effects on absolute versus relative order memory and on item memory versus order memory

Mulligan

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A primary reason that memory researchers are interested in word frequency is that it produces opposite effects on recognition and recall. Low-frequency words produce better recognition memory, whereas high-frequency words produce superior recall (at least in pure-list designs, as discussed below) (see, e.g., Shepard, 1967; and see Gregg, 1976, for an early review). These results have informed debates about the relationship between recall and recognition, and they are traditionally interpreted as strong evidence against single-process models of recognition and recall (e.g., Crowder, 1976;Murdock, 1974). Word frequency effects are also important to theoretical models of recognition memory, such as dual-process models (e.g., Chalmers & Humphreys, 1998;Gardiner & Java, 1990;Guttentag & Carroll, 1997;Jacoby & Dallas, 1981;Mandler, 1980), as well as to attempts to delineate empirical regularities in recognition memory, such as the mirror effect (e.g., Glanzer, Adams, Iverson, & Kim, 1993;Greene, 1996;Maddox & Estes, 1997;Wixted, 1992).A traditional account of the word frequency effect in recall is that high-frequency words lend themselves to more organizationaland interitem associative processing (Gregg, 1976;Schulman, 1976;Zechmeister & Nyberg, 1982), types of encoding that are especially useful in recall but that have little impact on recognition (e.g., Hunt & McDaniel, 1993;Kintsch, 1977). Several results are consistent with this view. First, in comparison with low-frequency words, high-frequency words produce more category clustering in recall protocols (e.g., Bousfield & Cohen, 1955), a standard index of organizational processing at encoding (e.g., Hunt & Einstein, 1981). Second, meaning-based associations are more easily produced in lists of high-frequency items (e.g., Sumby, 1963;Tulving & Patkau, 1962), enhancing later recall. Third, the index of interitem associative strengths, which is predictive of recall, is greater with high-than with low-frequency lists (Deese, 1960) (see Gregg, 1976, for additional evidence for the importance of organizational and associative bases of the word frequency effect in recall). Finally, and most important for the present purposes, high-frequency words produce greater order memory, as measured by the order reconstruction task (DeLosh & McDaniel, 1996). Under the standard assumption that this and other tests of absolute order are based on interitem associations (Greene, Thapar, & Westerman, 1998; Hunt & McDaniel,1993;McDaniel, DeLosh, & Merritt, 2000; see also Li & Lewandowsky, 1993), these results imply that high-frequency words lead to more interitem associative encoding than do low-frequency words.This traditional view is expanded in the order-encoding hypothesis proposed by DeLosh and McDaniel (1996). This hypothesis proposes that word frequency produces an encoding tradeoff between information about the item itself and information about the order in which items occur. According to this view, the unusual nature of low-frequency words focuses processing resources on item ch...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 59%

Word frequency and memory: Effects on absolute versus relative order memory and on item memory versus order memory

Mulligan

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The user is presented with a cue that is an exact match for something that may be encoded, but not necessarily stored in memory (e.g. Shepard, 1967;Zechmeister et al, 1978). In contrast, recall is a measure of what has actually been passed into long term storage by the user and requires the user to search and retrieve information in storage with no extra cues provided (e.g.…”

Section: Article In Pressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why structure and genre matter for users of digital information: A longitudinal experiment with readers of a web-based newspaper

Vaughan

Dillon

2006

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The low-frequency advantage in recognition has since been confirmed in a number of studies over a range of conditions and manipulations (see Glanzer & Adams, 1985, for a review). When word frequency effects are studied over a larger range offrequencies (not just low vs. high), the relationship between frequency and accuracy is an inverted U-shaped function (Wixted, 1992;Zechmeister, Curt, & Sebastian, 1978). Recognition is highest for lowfrequency words and decreases as word frequency either increases or decreases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonwords are assumed to be poorly recognized either because they have no meaning or because they have never been encountered prior to the experiment. Although poor recognition of very low-frequency words has been linked to low ratings of lexicality (Schulman, 1976) and to low ratings of meaningfulness and familiarity (Zechmeister et al, 1978), the influence of these experiential factors has not been separated from other correlates ofword frequency (e.g., phonemic and graphemic composition). ' Allen and Garton (1968) adopted a naturalistic approach in their investigation of the word frequency effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A naturalistic study of the word frequency effect in episodic recognition

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to separate the effects of experience from other characteristics of word frequency (e.g., orthographic distinctiveness), computer science and psychology students rated their experience with computer science technical items and nontechnical items from a wide range of word frequencies prior to being tested for recognition memory of the rated items. For nontechnical items, there was a curvilinear relationship between recognition accuracy and word frequency for both groups of students. The usual superiority of low-frequency words was demonstrated and high-frequency words were recognized least well. For technical items, a similar curvilinear relationship was evident for the psychology students, but for the computer science students, recognition accuracy was inversely related to word frequency.The ratings data showed that subjective experience rather than background word frequency was the better predictor of recognition accuracy.Gorman (1961) was one of the first to report on the superior recognition oflow-over high-frequency words. The low-frequency advantage in recognition has since been confirmed in a number of studies over a range of conditions and manipulations (see Glanzer & Adams, 1985, for a review). When word frequency effects are studied over a larger range offrequencies (not just low vs. high), the relationship between frequency and accuracy is an inverted U-shaped function (Wixted, 1992;Zechmeister, Curt, & Sebastian, 1978). Recognition is highest for lowfrequency words and decreases as word frequency either increases or decreases. Nonwords are assumed to be poorly recognized either because they have no meaning or because they have never been encountered prior to the experiment. Although poor recognition of very low-frequency words has been linked to low ratings of lexicality (Schulman, 1976) and to low ratings of meaningfulness and familiarity (Zechmeister et al., 1978), the influence of these experiential factors has not been separated from other correlates ofword frequency (e.g., phonemic and graphemic composition).'Allen and Garton (1968) adopted a naturalistic approach in their investigation of the word frequency effect. They compared physics and arts students' recognition memory for two classes of words: physics technical words (expected to be in the ordinary vocabulary of the physics but not the arts students) and common words (Thorndike & Lorge, 1944, rating of 30 or more). Their results showed the usual word frequency effect in that the lower frequency physics words were recognized better

show abstract

Errors in a recognition memory task are a U-shaped function of word frequency

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

Word frequency and memory: Effects on absolute versus relative order memory and on item memory versus order memory

Word frequency and memory: Effects on absolute versus relative order memory and on item memory versus order memory

Why structure and genre matter for users of digital information: A longitudinal experiment with readers of a web-based newspaper

A naturalistic study of the word frequency effect in episodic recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About