The Declining course of recognition memory

Schulman, Arthur I.

doi:10.3758/bf03197485

Cited by 42 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, HRs and FARs moved closer together as testing proceeded, to produce an overall decrease in d 0 . The data replicate prior findings of output interference in yes-no recognition (Murdock & Anderson, 1975;Norman & Waugh, 1968;Ratcliff & Hockley, 1980;Schulman, 1974).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Early studies evaluating output interference in recognition memory are limited in number (Murdock & Anderson, 1975;Norman & Waugh, 1968;Schulman, 1974) and used methods that may be subject to the confounds that Dennis and Humphreys (2001) suggested were responsible for listlength effects (e.g., study-test lag, differential attention across condition, displaced rehearsals, and the lack of context reinstatement). The first experiment is a simple replication of earlier experiments (though the exact details differ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…While only a few experiments have evaluated output interference in recognition, they also document output interference. Norman and Waugh (1968) and Schulman (1974) found detrimental effects as the number of items tested increased. Murdock and Anderson (1975) replicated these findings and reported longer response times with increasing output position.…”

Section: Output Interferencementioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Output interference in recognition memory

Criss

Malmberg

Shiffrin

2011

Journal of Memory and Language

116

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Output Interferencementioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Output interference in recognition memory

Criss

Malmberg

Shiffrin

2011

Journal of Memory and Language

116

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First is the finding that, both in terms of hit rate and d', common names were superior to rare names. These trends contrast with those of Ingleby (1973), Schulman (1974) and Rabinowitz, Mandler and Patterson (1977) who found that the recogni tion of items with low taxonomic frequency was superior, in terms of hit rate and de, to items of high taxonomic frequency. Second is the interaction of changes in Beta with d'.…”

contrasting

confidence: 51%

Recognition memory for prose items in noise

Jones

Thomas

Harding

1982

Current Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a probe-recognition technique the signal detection theory parameters d' and Beta were estimated for three types of probe (common surnames, uncommon surnames and synonyms) for material contained in a prose passage. Subjects were presented with the prose passage either in the presence of noise (85dBA) or in quiet (60dBA). In two experiments the effects of noise on auditory and visual presentation of the passage were studied. In both cases the recognition test took place in quiet. Noise decreased values of Beta for rare names and increased Beta for common names in both auditory and visual versions of the task. Noise influenced d' values in the audi tory version only, with d' increasing for common names in loud noise. The results support the view that noise influences performance by disturbing the pigeon-holing mechanism with the qualification that when material may not be recapitulated (as in the auditory presentation in the present study) greater attention may be allocated to easily recognizable material. The findings gi ve li ttle support to theories of noiseinduced deficits in performance based on the masking of inner speech.Theoretical views of the way in which noise influences performance are particularly polarized in regard to the effects on memory. On the one hand there are those who argue that noise influences factors such as the allocation of attention or the adoption of strategies (e. g., Broadbent, 1981), while on the other there are those who posit that noise has its action through the masking of inner speech (e.g., Poul ton, 1979). Problematical for the latter view are studies which (a) find noise improves performance, (b) find two opposite effects of noise, and (c) find the effect extending beyond the period of noise exposure. One study showing all three effects is by Schwartz (1974). The aim of the present small-scale study is to examine further the details of the phenomena to be observed. Schwartz (1974) found that noise influenced the signal detection parameters d' and Beta in a probed-recogni tion test of memory for surnames. Subjects were asked to give confidence judgements to probe items in a transcript of a passage originally

show abstract

“…Using the retroactive design, Schulman (1974) found no list-length effect in a forced choice test. Bowles and Glanzer (1983) did not analyze the retroactive condition separately from the proactive condition, but the difference in the proportion correct between short and long conditions was small (0.033) Also, in the third experiment of Murnane and Shiffrin (1991) the effect of length was not significant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%