Transfer and false recognitions based on phonetic identities of words.

Nelson, Douglas L.; Davis, Mary J.

doi:10.1037/h0032366

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 1 3 1 3 phemically and phonemically to target items than to control items or synonyms. Such results have been found before (e.g., Cramer & Eagle, 1972; see also Eagle & Ortof, 1967;Nelson & Davis, 1972). 2 In all three studies, performance was higher for slow tests than for fast tests-a result that is in accord with much work on speed-accuracy trade-offs-and research using the signal-to-respond technique (e.g., Dosher, 1981;Pachella, 1974;Reed, 1973;Wickelgren & Corbett, 1977).…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.

Gillund¹,

Shiffrin²

1984

Psychological Review

1,526

1,605

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Search of Associative Memory (SAM) model for recall (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1981b) is extended by assuming that a familiarity process is used for recognition. The recall model posits cue-dependent probabilistic sampling and recovery from an associative network. Our recognition model is closely related to the recall model because the total episodic activation due to the context and item cues is used in recall as a basis for sampling and in recognition to make a decision. The model, formalized in a computer simulation program, correctly predicts a number of findings in the literature as well as the results from a new experiment on the wordfrequency effect."A critical problem of long standing in psychological study of memory is concerned with the relation between recall and recognition. In what sense are they the same, and in what sense are they different?" (Tulving & Watkins, 1973, p. 739).This article is a preliminary attempt to formulate a theory that describes in detail the relationship between recall and recognition. The relationship is realized in a computer simulation model, and the model's predictions are checked against existing data as well as data generated in our laboratory. The model for recognition is related mathematically and logically to the Search of Associative Memory (SAM) theory of memory retrieval that has

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 86%

A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.

Gillund¹,

Shiffrin²

1984

Psychological Review

1,526

1,605

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings suggest that the interference produced by phonetic similarities was primarily related to the stimulus recognition link in the hypothetical chain of the two-stage retrieval hypothesis. This stimulus confusion effect parallels that reported by Nelson and Davis (1972) who found that phonetic commonalities significantly increased false recognition errors in the context of a recognition memory task.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Interference produced by phonetic similarities: Stimulus recognition, associative retrieval, or both?

Nelson¹,

Borden²

1973

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word-digit paired associates were learned by the study-test method. In different lists the stimulus words shared either first, middle, or last letters. On test trials, stimulus recognition as well as associative recall were examined. The results indicated that interference produced by phonetic similarity occurred primarily within the stimulus recognition phase, not at the point of response retrieval. Implications for a model of stimulus identification were discussed.

show abstract

“…We used norms from two published sources (Anisfeld & Knapp, 1968;Nelson & Davis, 1972) as well as unpublished norms developed in our laboratory.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Arousal and Accessibility to Information in Memory

Libkuman

Griffith²,

Wines³

et al. 1998

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors conducted 9 experiments to test the hypothesis (S. Schwartz, 1975) that arousal influences the accessibility of information stored in memory. They investigated the relationship between arousal levels (as indexed by personality types) and the type of stimuli or cues presented during study or test. They predicted that low-arousal individuals (stable extraverted individuals in Experiments 1-3 and 5-9 and high-impulsive individuals in Experiment 4) would be influenced by semantic stimuli, whereas high-arousal individuals (neurotic introverted individuals in Experiments 1-3 and 5-9 and low-impulsive individuals in Experiment 4) would be influenced by physical (i.e., graphic, phonetic, or both) stimuli. They tested the arousal-accessibility hypothesis by using a variety of tasks including verbal discrimination, false recognition, cued recall, and paired associates. With the exception of the finding that stable extraverted participants performed better than neurotic introverted participants on an incidental associative-matching task (Experiment 3), the results from the verbal discrimination studies (1-5) did not support the hypothesis. In Experiment 6, the authors tested the hypothesis by using a false-recognition task. False alarms varied as a function of phonetic and semantic stimuli, but personality types were not differentially sensitive to the manipulation. The same was true for the cued-recall studies (Experiments 7 and 8); personality types were not differentially sensitive to the semantic and phonetic stimuli. Experiment 9 (paired-associate learning) was a replication of Schwartz's study. The authors found some support for the Schwartz hypothesis: Extraverted participants were adversely affected by semantic similarity. Overall, the findings did not provide much support for the arousal-accessibility hypothesis.

show abstract

Transfer and false recognitions based on phonetic identities of words.

Cited by 13 publications

References 14 publications

A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.

A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.

Interference produced by phonetic similarities: Stimulus recognition, associative retrieval, or both?

Individual Differences in Arousal and Accessibility to Information in Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About