Word Frequency and Short-Term Recognition Memory

Underwood, Benton J.; Freund, Joel S.

doi:10.2307/1420411

Cited by 55 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fact that the VL words do not conform to the word-frequency effect offers support for this argument. Underwood and Freund (1970) have shown an interesting reversal of the word-frequency effect using a two-alternative forced-choice recognition test. When high-and low-frequency words were tested with highand low-frequency distractors, respectively, the low-low combination produced the usual better level of recognition than the high-high combination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The word-frequency paradox in recognition

1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-frequency words are recalled better than are low-frequency words, but low-frequency words produce higher hit rates in a recognition test than do high·frequency words. Two experiments provided new data on the phenomenon and also evidence relevant to the dual process model of recognition, which postulates that recognition judgments are a function of increments in item familiarity and of item retrievability. First, recall and recognition by subjects who initially performed a single lexical decision task were compared with those of subjects who also gave definitions of high-, low-, and very low-frequency target words. In the second experiment, subjects initially performed either a semantic, elaborative task or an integrative task that focused attention on the physical, perceptual features of the same words. Both experiments showed that extensive elaborative processing results in higher recall and hit rates but lower false alarm rates, whereas word frequency has a monotonic, linear effect on recall and false alarm rates, but a paradoxical, curvilinear effect on hit rates. Elaboration is apparently more effective when the potential availability of meaningful connections with other structures is greater (as for high-frequency words). The results are consistent with the dual process model.A major challenge to any theory of recognition of prior occurrences is the word-frequency effect. What is challenging is the paradoxical finding that highfrequency words are recalled better than low-frequency words but in episodic recognition, hit rates for lowfrequency words are higher than those for high-frequency words. The earliest study to report the word-frequency effect in recognition appears to be that of Gorman (1961), which was later generalized by Schulman (1967). It should be noted, though, that the paradoxical reversal is not simply a function of some uniqueness of low-familiarity words or of the testing procedure. Glanzer and Bowles (1976), for example, have shown that false alarms demonstrate the dominance of highfrequency words; they are higher for high-than for lowfrequency words.The present paper is concerned with providing more evidence for the generality of the phenomenon across different kinds of processing conditions, and also with relating these to the dual process model of recognition (see Mandler, 1979Mandler, , 1980Mandler, , 1981.The dual process model states that the recognition of prior occurrence is the result of two additive and separate processes: familiarity and retrievability. We have assumed that the familiarity of an event is determined by the integration, perceptual distinctiveness, and internal structure of that event. Familiarity is affected by the frequency of exposure of the eventThe research reported here and the preparation of this report were supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 79-15336. George Goodman is now at BellLaboratories, Piscataway, New Jersey. Requests for reprints should be sent to George Mandler, Center for Human Information Processing, C-Q09, University of Ca...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The word-frequency paradox in recognition

1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Free recall follows the more expected pattern, of course, in that high frequency items are easier to recall than low frequency ones. There has been much speculation about the locus of the recognition advantage for low frequency words (Glanzer & Bowles, 1976;Kinsbourne & George, 1974;Shepard, 1967;Underwood & Freund, 1970).…”

Section: The Word Frequency Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.

Mandler¹

1980

Psychological Review

2,570

100

2,128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several suggestions for a class of theories of recognition memory have been proposed during the past decade. These models address predictions about judgments of prior occurrence of an event, not the identification of what it is, The history and current status of one of these models is discussed. The model postulates the detection of familiarity and the utilization of retrieval mechanisms as additive and separate processes. The phenomenal experience of familiarity is assigned to intraevent organizational integrative processes; retrieval depends on interevent elaborative processes. Other current theoretical options are described, and relevant supportive data from the literature are reviewed. New tests of the model involving both free recall and word pair paradigms are presented. The dual process model is extended to the word frequency effect and to the recognition difficulties of amnesic patients.

show abstract

“…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.…”

mentioning

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

Word Frequency and Short-Term Recognition Memory

Cited by 55 publications

References 0 publications

The word-frequency paradox in recognition

The word-frequency paradox in recognition

Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.

An analysis of interference in recognition memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About