Recognition memory for common and rare words.

McCormack, P. D.; Swenson, Amy L.

doi:10.1037/h0033296

Cited by 58 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that the present results differ somewhat from those reported by McCormack and Swenson (1972), who found no significant changes in hit rates either within or between lists. The false alarm rates, on the other hand, rose within lists and also increased slightly across lists.…”

Section: Methodscontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…Postman, 1971). While LTL in recognition has not been investigated extensively, little or no change in accuracy over successive study-test cycles was found in several experiments, both for categorized lists (Carey & Lockhart, 1973;Connor, 1977;Jacoby, 1973) and for lists of unrelated words (Connor, 1977;McCormack & Swenson, 1972). Divergent effects of practice on performance may represent a potentially important difference between recall and recognition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Schulman, 1971;Underwood, 1971). In the study of McCormack and Swenson (1972), there was some indication that such interference may carryover from one list to the next. However, the increases in false alarm rates across lists were quite small.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An examination of practice effects in recognition

Postman

1982

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A study of practice effects in recognition performance is reported. In each of two experiments, different conditions of training were followed by a critical final test. In Experiment I, a yes-no procedure was used on the critical test. During the training phase, some subjects were tested by the same method, either with or without item-by-item feedback, whereas others were given forced-choice tests. No significant changes in recognition accuracy were observed, either during the training trials or on the final test. However, feedback and experience with forcedchoice tests both served to increase the bias toward positive responding. In Experiment 2, the forced-choice procedure was used on the critical final test. Either foreed-choice tests or yes-no tests were given on the training lists. Again, there were no significant changes in performance. The absence of practice effects is attributed to the difficulty of identifying and implementing test-appropriate strategies.

show abstract

Section: Methodscontrasting

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An examination of practice effects in recognition

Postman

1982

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This equality, which was observed in both the accuracy and the latency data, has not been demonstrated before. Some investigators have found proactive interference (McCormack & Swenson, 1972;Schulman, 1974;Shepard & Teghtsoonian, 1961); some have failed to find such effects (Donaldson & Murdock, 1968;Shepard & Chang, 1963). Only one study examined both proactive and retroactive interference in recognition (Schulman, 1974).…”

Section: Additional Supporting Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of interference in recognition memory

Bowles

Glanzer

1983

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A stimulus-sampling model of recognition memory is presented that predicts both proactive and retroactive interference. To test the predictions of the model, a recognition memory experiment was carried out using a standard proactive-retroactive design with a forced-choice task. Both accuracy and latency were measured. The data showed, as predicted, equal proactive and retroactive effects on accuracy, providing solid support for the model. The interference effects are interpreted in terms of the model as arising from an increase in indirect marking, the marking of shared stimulus elements in words other than the study word. The model has two parameters representing the rate of indirect marking for high-frequency and low-frequency words and two parameters reflecting the efficiency of direct marking. The latency results completely paralleled the accuracy findings, showing proactive and retroactive effects. A possible extension of the model to handle latencies is considered.On an intuitive level, there is considerable agreement among recognition theorists on the source of interference effects in recognition memory. While it is couched in different language, the fundamental concept proposed is a single one: Interference arises ou t of overlapping elements in study-list and test-list items. Underwood and his associates (e.g., Underwood & Freund, 1970) propose that study items elicit implicit associational responses. Such responses result from elements of the study items shared with other items. Shepard (1961), in his trace model of recognition, postulates that there is some probability of diffusion of trace elements from presented stimuli to other related stimuli. Bower's (1972) stimulus-sampling model of the recognition process has a parameter that represents the amount of overlap between stimulus elements of old and new items. Glanzer and Bowles (1976) use an indirect marking parameter to refer to the tagging of overlapping elements in unpresented stimuli in their stimulussampling model of recognition.Models such as these provide the means to identify the locus of interference effects by offering mechanisms of the underlying memory processes. In particular, the This article is based on a dissertation submitted to New York University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree. The authors wish to thank Doris Aaronson, Jean-Claude Falmagne, Richard Koppenaal, and Joan Gay Snodgrass for their helpful comments and criticism of the original manuscript. During the time the research was carried out, Nancy L. Bowles received support from NIMH Training Grant IT32 MHI4267-02. Additional support for the research was from NIMH Grant R MH32799-01 to Murray Glanzer. Requests for reprints should be submitted to Nancy L. Bowles, who is now at the Geriatric Research, Educational and Clinical Center, VA Outpatient Clinic, 17 Court Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.Glanzer and Bowles (1976) model makes strong predictions concerning interference effects. It will be presented here in detail. A MODEL FOR INTERFERENCE...

show abstract

“…lt cannor be ascribed simply to differences in concrereness: Subsets of concrete and abstract words that differed in cue value did not differ in recognition memory. Neither can it be ascribed to differences in ward frequency, which might have been expected to favor the less frequent keywords (McCormack & Swenson, 1972) but which in fact did not. No really satisfactory explanation presents itself, but one possibility, admittedly ad hoc, is that keywords may be "tagged" as words about which decisions have been made.…”

Section: Recognition Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory for words recently classified

1974

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thi: paper describe s research whose goal is to determine the implications 01' verbal classificatory judgrnents for recognition rneruorv and recall. TOII'ard this end, Ss were required to answer 100 queries 01' attribution and superordlnaticn Ils a TW[NGI:: sudden? Is SP1~ACH ecstatic? Is a CORKSCREW an opener Is a DCNGEO;-'; 1 scholar") befare being tested unexpectedly on their ability to rernernber either the uppercase "keywords" or the lowercase "descriptors." l.exical mernorv did not depend on whether a ward had been part 01' an attribu tiv, or a superordinate query. But words from "incongruous" queries almost invariably were more poorly remembered-under conditions 01' free recall, cued recall. and recognition mernorv-than word s from "congruous" querie s. Ccngruous cues, but not incongruous ones, greatly facilitated recall. with keyword s being morc effective cues than descriptors. Recognition mernory 01' keywords was uniforrnly superior to that 01' descriptors. It is argued that the large and pervasive mernorial advantages 01' congruity arise because a congruous query, unlike an incongruous one, fosters a relational encoding 01' keyword and descriptor.

show abstract

Recognition memory for common and rare words.

Cited by 58 publications

References 14 publications

An examination of practice effects in recognition

An examination of practice effects in recognition

An analysis of interference in recognition memory

Memory for words recently classified

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About