Memory search in a Brown-Peterson short-term memory paradigm.

Gorfein, David S.; Jacobson, David

doi:10.1037/h0034759

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, with the reasonable and widely held assumption that search sets include items from the most recent list as well as categorically related items from prior lists, these effects of proactive interference on latency are to be expected (cf. Gorfein & Jacobson, 1973).The four experiments in the present investigation were rather straightforward: a single-subject analysis, a manipulation of list length, a manipulation of study duration, and a manipulation of both list length and study duration. The analyses were threefold.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments, subjects freely recalled previously studied items while a voice key and computer recorded each item's recall latency relative to the onset of the recall period. The measures of recall probability and mean recall latency were shown to be empirically independent, demonstrating that there exists no a priori relationship between the two. In all four experiments, latency distributions were fit well by the ex-Gaussian, suggesting that retrieval includes a brief normally distributed initiation stage followed by a longer exponentially distributed search stage. Further, the variation in mean latency stemmed from the variation in the duration of the search stage, not the initiation stage. Interresponse times (IRTs), the time elapsed between two successive item recalls, were analyzed as well. The growth of mean IRTs, plotted as a function of output position, was shown to be a simple function of the number of items not yet recalled. Finally, the mathematical nature of both free recall latency and IRT growth are shown to be consistent with a simple theoretical account of retrieval that depicts mean recall latency as a measure of the breadth of search. 511Perhaps the most striking feature of episodic free recall is the distinctively long pause that sometimes precedes a response. Even a study list with only a few items often results in response latencies greater than 10 sec. These lengthy response times are unique to free recall, as cued recall and recognition typically yield response times of 1 or 2 sec. Yet although analyses of cued recall latency (e.g., MacLeod & Nelson, 1984) or recognition latency (e.g., Hockley, 1982) are quite common, few investigators have measured free recall latency, the time elapsed from the onset of the recall period to the recall of an item, or interresponse times (IRTs), the time between consecutive retrievals.The limited attention given to either temporal measure may stem from the belief that recall probability and recall latency are a priori inversely related and therefore redundant measures. That is, an experimental manipulation that weakens the memory trace and thereby reduces recall probability should necessarily increase recall latency as well. Ifthis were the case, researchers could simply ignore free recall latency without overlooking any important information. Although such negative correlations can occur, there is no prior evidence that they either must (or even usually) occur. Indeed, three experiments in the present investigation yielded correlations between recall probability and latency that were negative, nonexistent, This research was supported in part by NIMH Training Grant MH-14268 to the first author. We thank Mari Chernow for her assistance in the laboratory and Bennet Murdock, Jeroen Raaijmakers, Richard Shiffrin, and Geoffrey Loftus for their comments. Correspondence concerning this article, as well as requests for raw data, should be addressed to D. Rohrer, Department of Psychology 0 I09, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093. and po...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experimental procedure used a modification of Bennett's (1975) forced choice procedure and Gorfein and Jacobson 's (1973) recognition latency procedure. Items to be remembered were single words.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual encoding and recovery from interference in the Brown-Peterson paradigm

Gorfein

Schulze

1975

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term memory in the Brown-Peterson paradigm has consistently shown enhanced performance on a trial following a long intertrial interval (ITI) as compared to performance in the absence of such an IT!. Whereas the fact of dissipation of interference has been clearly documented. the mechanism of such is not as well understood. The nature of the activity required of the subject during the long ITI was manipulated to assess the hypothesis that the amount of improvement obt~ned is a function of the contextual change produced during the IT!. The data indicated that such an interpretation is a tenable explanation of release from proactive interference over a long IT!.

show abstract

“…Crowder and Greene (1987) have pointed out the similarity between Gorfein's notion of environmental context and Glenberg's (e.g., 1987) notion of temporal context, as put forth in his temporal distinctiveness explanation of long-term recency. Semantic context referred to the relationship in meaning among the TBRIs as demonstrated in studies showing a build-up of proactive interference with repeated taxonomic categories and a release from interference when the category is changed (Gorfein & Jacobson, 1973;Loess, 1967;Wickens, Born, & Allen, 1963). Gorfein proposed two roles for semantic context, one in enhancing the activation of the TBRIs and the other in influencing the similarity of same-category TBRIs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bennett (1975) employed a two-alternative forced-choice procedure, in which the false choice had been a TBRI on an earlier trial, to demonstrate that the probability of correctly selecting the current TBRI was greater when the foil was of greater lag. Gorfein and Jacobson (1973) employed a yes-no decision where the TBRI was a single word and the recognition probe was either that word or a false lure that was either a word that had been a TBRI on a prior trial or a word new to the experiment. Both decision latency and errors increased over trials when the words were from the same taxonomic category but returned to the trial one level when the semantic category was changed, indicating the build-up and release of proactive interference.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A new look at recognition in the Brown-Peterson distractor paradigm: Toward the application of new methodology to unsolved problems of recognition memory

Brown

Gorfein

2004

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable impetus to the current interest in recognition memory was supplied by Jacoby's (1991) attempt to develop a process-sensitive analysis of memory tasks. In this methodology, two or more lists are studied and followed by a recognition test under one of two post study instructions. Under what is labeled the exclusion instructions, participants are asked to say "old" to any item that was on one particular list (e.g., the first list studied) and "new" to any other word, including words presented on the other study list. Under inclusion instructions, participants are asked to say "old" to an item presented on any study list and "new" to any extra-experimental item. The methodology has the potential of separating recognition based on familiarity from recognition based on recollection (Mandler, 1980). Although the interpretation of the results from experiments in which Jacoby's process dissociation technique has been used have been controversial (see Brainerd, Reyna, & Mojardin, 1999, for a recent review), the methodology has been widely employed. Criticisms of the approach include the facts that the fit of the process dissociation model cannot be tested and the model contains no parameters for guessing bias.In developing their fuzzy trace theory of memory, Reyna and Brainerd (1995) emphasized the distinction between verbatim recall and what is referred to as gist memory. They proposed that at encoding, two different kinds of memory traces are potentially formed. One, the verbatim trace, is seen as an exact representation of the memory event. The other, the gist trace, records only certain general features of the event, such as its meaning. According to Reyna and Brainerd, the accessibility of the verbatim trace declines rapidly, whereas the availability of the gist trace declines very slowly. In an effort to separate verbatim memory from gist memories, Brainerd et al. (1999) have developed a variation of Jacoby's (1991) exclusioninclusion procedure. In this paradigm, a single list of words is presented for study. The recognition test list, however, contains three types of items: the study items, items semantically related to the study items, and novel distractors. Prior to recognition testing, participants are presented with one of three sets of instructions: (1) accept any item that was on the study list, (2) accept only items that appear to be related to the studied items (items rec- Data from a recognition version of the classic Brown-Peterson short-term memory paradigm was analyzed using a modified version of the conjoint recognition model (Brainerd, Reyna, & Mojardin, 1999), which assumes that recognition is based on either a verbatim comparison of the recognition probe and the target item or a gist comparison of the items. Separate groups of participants were instructed to judge whether the recognition probe was an item from the current trial (exclusion condition), a previous trial (prior-only condition), or either the current or the previous trial (inclusion condition). The concept of gist is commo...

show abstract

Memory search in a Brown-Peterson short-term memory paradigm.

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall

An analysis of latency and interresponse time in free recall

Contextual encoding and recovery from interference in the Brown-Peterson paradigm

A new look at recognition in the Brown-Peterson distractor paradigm: Toward the application of new methodology to unsolved problems of recognition memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About