Factors that influence search termination decisions in free recall: An examination of response type and confidence

Unsworth, Nash; Brewer, Gene A.; Spillers, Gregory J.

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.05.001

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the simulations presented above, these results suggest a difference in the stopping threshold between open-and closed-interval retrieval. As shown in Figure 3, the relativestrength model, when equipped with the stopping rule supported by existing patterns (see Harbison et al, 2009;Unsworth et al, 2011), predicts a positive correlation between the final IRT and the stopping threshold. To explain the present results, we must assume that a stopping threshold changes; that is, in the absence of a stopping rule, the model is liable to show exaggerated final IRTs as it searches until all list items are recovered.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Total time increased and exit latency decreased as a function of number of words retrieved (see also Unsworth et al, 2011). Importantly, this behavioural regularity was anticipated by only one of the four stopping rules tested-namely, the total number of failures rule (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

“…As a result, it is unclear whether participants persist in search for the entire allotted time or opt to truncate search prior to the expiration of the preset interval. Even though search termination decisions are ubiquitous in nonlaboratory memory tasks, and many of the computational models of free recall assume that participants make termination decisions during the retrieval process (e.g., Anderson, Bothell, Lebiere, & Matessa, 1998;Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981), few studies (Dougherty & Harbison, 2007;Harbison, Dougherty, Davelaar, & Fayyad, 2009;Klein, Addis, & Kahana, 2005;Shiffrin, 1970;Unsworth, Brewer, & Spillers, 2011) have examined memory processes in contexts in which memory search is self-terminated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While previous work has made progress in describing the behavioural regularities involved with self-terminated memory search (Dougherty & Harbison, 2007;Harbison et al, 2009;Unsworth et al, 2011), there has not been a direct comparison between open-and closedinterval memory retrieval. Anecdotally, inspection of data presented in Dougherty and Harbison (2007) and Harbison et al (2009) suggests that Figure 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Retrieval Dynamics in Self-Terminated Memory Search

Hussey

Dougherty

Harbison

et al. 2014

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most free-recall experiments employ a paradigm in which participants are given a preset amount of time to retrieve items from a list. While much has been learned using this paradigm, it ignores an important component of many real-world retrieval tasks: the decision to terminate memory search. The present study examines the temporal characteristics underlying memory search by comparing within subjects a standard retrieval paradigm with a finite, preset amount of time (closed interval) to a design that allows participants to terminate memory search on their own (open interval). Calling on the results of several presented simulations, we anticipated that the threshold for number of retrieval failures varied as a function of the nature of the recall paradigm, such that open intervals should result in lower thresholds than closed intervals. Moreover, this effect was expected to manifest in interretrieval times (IRTs). Although retrieval-interval type did not significantly impact the number of items recalled or error rates, IRTs were sensitive to the manipulation. Specifically, the final IRTs in the closed-interval paradigm were longer than those of the open-interval paradigm. This pattern suggests that providing participants with a preset retrieval interval not only masks an important component of the retrieval process (the memory search termination decision), but also alters temporal retrieval dynamics. Task demands may compel people to strategically control aspects of their retrieval by implementing different stopping rules.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 75%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retrieval Dynamics in Self-Terminated Memory Search

Hussey

Dougherty

Harbison

et al. 2014

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A ubiquitous aspect of searching through a pile of papers or through memory is the decision to give up the search. Search termination decisions in memory search are under intense investigation (Davelaar, Yu, Harbison, Hussey, & Dougherty, 2013;Harbison et al, 2009;Unsworth, Brewer, & Spiller, 2011). With the cRAT, giving up the search might induce new stages of the search process, such as allowing the activation of competitor items to fully decay.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic Search in the Remote Associates Test

Davelaar

2015

Topics in Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Searching through semantic memory may involve the use of several retrieval cues. In a verbal fluency task, the set of available cues is limited and every candidate word is a target. Individuals exhibit clustering behavior as predicted by optimal foraging theory. In another semantic search task, the remote associates task (RAT), three cues are presented and a single target word has to be found. Whereas the task has been widely studied as a task of creativity or insight problem solving, in this article, the RAT is treated as a semantic retrieval task and assessed from the perspective of information foraging theory. Experiments are presented that address the superadditive combination of cues and the anti-clustering behavior in the recall sequence. A new type of search behavior in the RAT is put forward that involves maximizing the difference in activation between target and distractors. This type of search is advantageous when the target is weak and cue patches are contaminated with strong competitors.

show abstract