Reflections of the mirror effect for item and associative recognition

Abstract

In five experiments, participants studied pairs of words and yes/no recognition memory for both item and associative information was tested. Two stimulus manipulations, nouns versus nonnouns and high versus low word concreteness, produced the mirror effect for both item and associative recognition. The mirror effect was reflected in both measures of accuracy and response latency. A word frequency manipulation, however, produced the mirror effect only for item recognition. Two additional experiments showed that the mirror effect could also be obtained between nouns and nonnouns and between high and 'low concrete words for associative recognition in a forced-choice recognition procedure. The results extend the generality of the mirror effect to measures of response latency and to associative recognition and also suggest that similar retrieval and decision processes underlie recognition of item and associative information.The mirror effect has been shown to be an important feature of item recognition (Glanzer & Adams, 1985, 1990Glanzer, Adams, & Iverson, 1991;Glanzer, Adams, Iverson, & Kim, 1993). The purpose of the present study was to compare and contrast the mirror effect for item and associative recognition memory.Item information provides the basis for remembering that a particular event has previously been experienced, whereas associative information represents relationships between items or events (Humphreys, 1976;Murdock, 1974). Tests of item recognition involve discriminations between old (studied) and new (nonstudied) events. Associative recognition requires subjects to discriminate intact or studied pairs from rearranged or new pairs (see, e.g., Clark, 1992;Hockley, 1991Hockley, , 1992Humphreys, 1976Humphreys, ,1978Murdock & Hockley, 1989). Rearranged test pairs consist of two previously studied words that have been presented in different study pairs. Thus, the discrimination of intact pairs from rearranged pairs cannot be based on the familiarity of the individual items in the test pairs but, rather, must be based on memory for the associations formed between items during the study phase.Several findings provide strong empirical support for the theoretical distinction between these two types of information in human memory. For example, processes at encoding can differentially emphasize item or associaThis work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant OGPINOI2. Portions of this study were presented at the XXV International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, in July 1992. I thank Murray Glanzer for providing the high/low word frequency pool; Deborah Connolly, Lyla Caudle, and Carolina Cristi for data collection; and Steve Clark, Michael Humphreys, Margaret Intons-Peterson, and Doug Hintzman for helpful comments on earlier versions ofthis paper. Correspondence can be addressed to the author, Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3C5 (e-mail: whockley@ mach l.wlu.ca).tive information (see, e.g., Bain & Humphreys, 1988;McGee, 1...

Frequency Effects on Memory: A Resource-Limited Theory

“…In contrast to serial and free recall, the most common finding in item recognition memory is that LF words are recognized better, showing more hits and fewer false alarms than HF words (Clark, 1992;Glanzer & Adams, 1990Hockley, 1994;MacLeod & Kampe, 1996;Malmberg & Murnane, 2002;Reder et al, 2000;Schulman, 1967). At first blush it might seem that this effect is inconsistent with the proposal for an encoding advantage for HF words.…”

“…Associative learning is more demanding because it requires the encoding of each item, as well as binding the two items together; in our view, each of these operations draws on the same limited resource pool. Consistent with this idea, multiple experiments have demonstrated that pairs (Chalmers & Humphreys, 2003;Clark, 1992, Experiment 1;Clark & Shiffrin, 1992) or triplets (Clark, 1992, Experiment 2) of HF words are easier to recognize than pairs or triplets of LF words (although see Hockley, 1994 for a null effect). For example, Clark (1992) tested item recognition, pair recognition and free recall for the same items studied in triplets.…”

“…Normative word frequency has been a favorite stimulus variable in service of our understanding of the effect of prior item strength on memory. A myriad of research indicates that high frequency words do worse than low frequency words in episodic recognition tasks (Clark, 1992;Glanzer & Adams, 1990Hockley, 1994;MacLeod & Kampe, 1996;Malmberg & Murnane, 2002;Reder et al, 2000;Schulman, 1967); however, on the basis of multiple recent findings, it has become clear that the frequency of prior exposure can help encoding. Specifically, the evidence suggests that highly frequent and familiar items are easier to encode, to associate to one another, to bind to an episodic context and to hold in WM (WM; e.g.…”

The picture superiority effect in associative recognition

“…This pattern of the picture superiority effect for associative recognition also stands in contrast with other types of stimulus comparisons that have been made in tests of associative recognition. A mirror pattern has been observed in associative recognition for comparisons between words versus letter strings and pseudowords (Greene, 1996(Greene, , 2004, concrete versus abstract words (Hockley, 1994), words versus unfamiliar faces (Criss & Shiffrin, 2004;, and words versus Chinese characters . Why do these stimulus comparisons result in a mirror pattern in tests of associative recognition, whereas line drawings versus words do not?…”

“…As was noted previously, the picture superiority effect in tests of item recognition is typically observed as a mirror pattern in which the advantage for pictures is seen in both a higher hit rate and a lower false alarm rate (Glanzer & Adams, 1985). A mirror pattern has been found in tests of associative recognition for several different types of stimulus comparisons: words versus letter strings (Greene, 1996), words versus pseudowords (Greene, 2004), concrete versus abstract words (Hockley, 1994), words versus unfamiliar faces (Criss & Shiffrin, 2004;, and words versus Chinese characters . Words and line drawings represent another type of stimulus comparison and, on the basis of the above findings, it was expected that if associations formed between items from one type of stimulus class were more memorable than associations between items of the other stimulus class, then this advantage would also be seen as a mirror effect.…”