When unfamiliarity matters: Changing environmental context between study and test affects recognition memory for unfamiliar stimuli.

Russo, Riccardo; Ward, Geoffrey D; Geurts, Hilde M.; Scheres, Anouk

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.488

Cited by 37 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First of all, there is a clear trend toward the appearance of place-context-dependent recognition being influenced by the familiarity or meaningfulness of the materials. It has been repeatedly reported that the recognition of unfamiliar or meaningless materials, such as unfamiliar faces and nonwords, is influenced by changes in place context (e.g., Dalton, 1993;Malpass & Devine, 1981;Russo, Ward, Geurts, & Scheres, 1999). For instance, Dalton found place-context-dependent recognition of unfamiliar faces; Russo et al successfully replicated the place-context-dependent recognition of unfamiliar faces, and further found context-dependent recognition with nonwords but not with meaningful words.…”

supporting

confidence: 55%

“…A trend for the effect size to decrease with greater familiarity and meaningfulness can be found in previous studies. In particular, Russo et al (1999) found significant context-dependent recognition with nonwords but not with words. They compared the influences on words and nonwords within one study but in separate experiments, and used an incidental-learning paradigm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Godden and Baddeley (1980) found no effect with a 2-s study time per item when participants were given 4 s breathing time after every three items, such that the functional study time was 3.3 s per item. Russo et al (1999) used a 5-s study time per item and found significant context-dependent recognition discrimination with nonwords, but no effect with words. , who found no context-dependent effects in any processing-level conditions, used 10 s per item in their Experiments 1 and 2 and 5 s per item in Experiment 4.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of study time and meaningfulness on environmental context-dependent recognition

Isarida

Isarida²,

Sakai

2012

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we examined whether the size of place-context-dependent recognition decreased with study time and with the meaningfulness of the to-beremembered materials. A group of 80 undergraduates intentionally studied a list of words in a short (1.5 s per item) or a long (4.0 s per item) study-time condition (Exp. 1). Another 40 undergraduates studied lists consisting of words and nonwords in the long-study-time condition (Exp. 2). After a short retention interval, recognition for the targets was tested in the same or in a different context. Context was manipulated by means of the combination of place, subsidiary task, and experimenter. Significant context-dependent recognition discrimination was found for words in the shortstudy-time condition (Exp. 1), but not in the long-study-time condition (Exps. 1 and 2). Significant effects were found as well for nonwords, even in the long-study-time condition (Exp. 2). These results are explained well by an outshining account: that is, by principles of outshining and encoding specificity.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of study time and meaningfulness on environmental context-dependent recognition

Isarida

Isarida²,

Sakai

2012

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clark & Gronrund, 1996)ῌ ̰ΰῳῤῧQQ ῦ̮̮ῡ´῎ῷ̲̲ΰ̯QQ̳Ύῦ῎QΊ`̲ ῲQ ΅QῳῢῨ̮`Ὺῧῧῌ QQΎ̲ ῧῬ̮ῥQῴΎ̲ ῧQQQ̮ΏQ̲ΰΊῡ̮̯ (cf. Clark & Gronrund, 1996) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1994, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Smith, 1988(Smith, , 1994)῍ ῙῙῡῌ Q̮̮΅ῦQῚῧῌ Q̮̮΅Qῥ̰̰῝`ῢῲ ῠ` (Watkins & Watkins, 1975) Dalton, 1993;Q̯ , 1991;Russo, Ward, Geurts, & Scheres, 1999;Smith, 1986ῐ῎ (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999) (Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1995) ῡQ̮̯Ί῭ῠ̮Ῥ῍ Ὶ῭ῥ̮ ῠῌ QῨῥ̮̰̰῞QQῳῶῦQ̳`ΊῨ̯QQῡῧῌ ̯ῦ̮῟῭̰̮ῳῶ̱Ώῲ̲ Q`QQῠ̮Ῥ ῒe.g., Dalton, 1993;Q̯ῌ 1991;Russo et al, 1999;Smith, 1986ΐ῍ ̰QQῳῶ̰ῗQQQῳῶῦ̰̮ῥῌ ̱̲Ὸῼῑῴ̱Ὼ̲ῲῦ̲̯ῤῚ`῏Q̯ῳῶ ῢῌ QQῌ ῦ̮ῌ BGM ῦ̰̮ῥῌ ῧQ̯QQῥQ῞ Ῥῳῶῦ̮῟῭̰̮QQ̯ῳῶῥῲ̲Ί῭ῠ̮Ῥ̮ (e.g., Smith, 1988)ῌ ̯ῦQQῥῧQῐῦῐ̯̮Q ῞ῬῚῢ̮̱QΊ῭ῠ̮Ῥ῍ ̰QQῳῶ̰ῗQQQῳῶ ῧῌ Q̮̮Ύ΅̳̮QῘῤῬῢῌ QῨ̱̱QΎῡῧῳῶ Q̳̮Q῝ῤῘῤῬ̮ ῒῴQQ῏ Dougal & Rotello, 1999;Murnane & Phelps, 1993, 1995Murnane et al, 1999ΐῌ ̯ῦ̰̮ῤQ̮Q̮̮Ύ΅̳QQῡ̰ῌ Q QῳῶῡῧῺ῾ῤῳῶQ̳̮Q῝Ῥ (Canas & Nelson, 1986;…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences of cue-overload on background-color context effects in recognition

Isarida¹,

Isarida²,

Okamoto³

2005

NINCHISHINRIGAKUKENKYU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments, with a total of 120 undergraduates, were carried out to examine whether recognition for words is better when tested against a background-color that matches that at study compared to testing in a context in which no items were studied. The experiments also examined whether presentation rateῌa determinant of item strengthῌinteracts with the background-color context. Undergraduate participants studied 40 target words presented at either a rate of 1.5 or 3.0 seconds per word in one of two background-color contexts in Experiment 1, and studied 36 words in one of six contexts in Experiments 2 and 3. Recognition for the targets was tested with lists consisting of equal numbers of distractors and targets, immediately after study in Experiments 1 and 2, and after a 5-minute filled retention interval in Experiment 3. Although no e#ect on recognition of the background-color context was observed in Experiment 1, context e#ects were found in Experiments 2 and 3. Presentation rate did not interact with the context e#ect. The implications of the present findings are discussed.Key words : recognition, environmental context, background color, cue-overload, presentation rate ῎Q̳̯ῌ 3 ῞̯QQ̰Q̮῟ῌ QQ̯QῖQQQῌῐῼ̯QQ̰ῬῳῗῨQQ̮ῌ QQ̯QQ̮ Ῡ̯̮῝Ίῌῐῼ̯ῬῳῗῨQQῥῧΰῌ ̮QQQQQQ̰Qῗ̮Q̮̰QῢΊ῍ ῎Q̳̯QQQ̯ῌ QQ 120 ῑ̯Q Q̯ΐ῝Ί῍ ̮ῦ̯῎Q̳̯ῌ Qῒ̳Q̯ QῸ̯ῡ̯῞̯ΐῨQQQQ̯Q̲̯QQ QῌῐQ̲̯ ̯QQQ̮QῖῨ̮Q̮ΰQῢΊ῍ QQQ̯ῌ 40 Q̯QQ ῐQQ 1ῑῌ ΐῨ̯ 36 Q ̯QQ ῐQQ 2 ̯ 3ῑ ̰ Q̮Ί῍ QQ̯ 1.5Q/QΐῨ̯ 3.0Q/Q̯QQQQ̯QQ̮Ί῍ ̮ῦ̯ῌ QQ̯ 2 Q̮̯QQQῌῐ ῐQQ 1ῑῌ ΐῨ̯ 6 Q̮̯QQQῌῐ ῐQQ 2 ̯ 3ῑ ̯ῘῩ̮̯ΰ̯̯ QQ̮Ί῍ QQῬῳ̯̯ῌ Q̮ΊQQ ῐ`῏Ὺῳῑ ̯QQ̯ῲ̰Ῥῳ̱̰`῏̰QῚQ̰ῙΊ῍ QQ 1 ̯ 2 ̯ Q῭Ύ̱ῴ̯QQ̯Ῥῳ̮ῌ QQ 3 ̯ 5 Q ̯QΌ Q̯Ῥῳ̮Ί῍ QQ 1 ̯̯ῌ Q Q̯QQQῌῐQ̲̰QῙ̯̮῝Ί̮ῌ QQ 2 ̯ 3 ̯̯ΐῶ̯ῌῐQ̲̰Q̮Ί῍ ῌῐQ̲̯Q QQQQ̲̯QQQ̯ΐῶ̯̯̮῝Ί῍ QQ̯ῌ ῎Q̳Q̲̯ῶ̳̯῞῟QQ̮Ί῍ ̰῏̱῏̱ ῎ QQῌ ̳Qῌῐῌ QQQῌ Q̮̮ῧ̲Q̲ῌ QQQQ ̰̱΅῏̱ ΏQQ̯ῌ `῏Ὺῳ̯ῌῐ̯̯QQ̮ Ῡ῟Ῠ῍ `῏Ὺῳ̯QQ´ῤQQ̯QQ̯̯ῨQ῍ ̯ΐῧῌ ῌῐ̯`῏Ὺῳ῾̯̰̱΅῏̱QQ̯QQ ̮Q̯ΐῨ῍ ῌῐ̯Q̯ῌ Q̮Q̯Q̳̮῟Ῠ ̳̯

show abstract

“…Though some researchers have demonstrated that unfamiliarity matters (Russo, Ward, Geurts, & Scheres, 1999), it could be that there are affects from familiarity also. It is possible that familiarity might lead to quicker and presumably more accurate judgement based on the familiarity (though rushing to a decision was also possible, leading to error).…”

Section: Famementioning

confidence: 99%

Facial Recognition and Visual Processing as We Age: Using the Thatcher Illusion with Famous and Non-Famous Faces

Hicks¹,

Alexander²,

Bahr³

2017

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports a study examining preferred visual processes in recognition of facial features in older vs younger age groups, using Thatcherised images of famous and non-famous people in the one study. The aims were to determine whether decline in visual system processing occurs increasingly as we grow older, and whether there is less decline in recognition of famous (or familiar) faces. Three groups (younger, middle-old and older) made up the sample of 73 people (aged 19-82 years). Visual decline in face recognition across the age groups was assessed based on the Thatcher illusion-using four famous and four non-famous faces either with normal features or with distorted features. The faces were presented one at a time on computer screen, and participants were asked to judge whether the face was distorted (eyes and/or mouth not aligned in relation to the face); in addition, time taken to decision (latency) was also measured. Decline was found in visual processing such that older individuals gave limited attention to facial details (processing faces holistically, with detail errors) and they took longer to decide. Whether the faces were famous or not did not have significant effects on the decisions and there was no interaction with age, though famous faces were given longer attention. Our visual system processes decline as we age in that we give less attention to details and more to holistic processing and so make more errors in recognition. Implications for treatment or amelioration of the effects are discussed.

show abstract

When unfamiliarity matters: Changing environmental context between study and test affects recognition memory for unfamiliar stimuli.

Cited by 37 publications

References 35 publications

Effects of study time and meaningfulness on environmental context-dependent recognition

Effects of study time and meaningfulness on environmental context-dependent recognition

Influences of cue-overload on background-color context effects in recognition

Facial Recognition and Visual Processing as We Age: Using the Thatcher Illusion with Famous and Non-Famous Faces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About