The two-process theory of detection, search, and attention presented by Schneider and Shiffrin is tested and extended in a series of experiments. The studies demonstrate the qualitative difference between two modes of information processing: automatic detection and controlled search. They trace the course of the learning of automatic detection, of categories, and of automaticattention responses. They show the dependence of automatic detection on attending responses and demonstrate how such responses interrupt controlled processing and interfere with the focusing of attention. The learning of categories is shown to improve controlled search performance. A general framework for human information processing is proposed; the framework emphasizes the roles of automatic and controlled processing. The theory is compared to and contrasted with extant models of search and attention.

A two-process theory of human information processing is proposed and applied to detection, search, and attention phenomena. Automatic processing is activation of a learned sequence of elements in long-term memory that is initiated by appropriate inputs and then proceeds automatically-without subject control, without stressing the capacity limitations of the system, and without necessarily demanding attention. Controlled processing is a temporary activation of a sequence of elements that can be set up quickly and easily but requires attention, is capacity-limited (usually serial in nature), and is controlled by the subject. A series of studies using both reaction time and accuracy measures is presented, which traces these concepts in the form of automatic detection and controlled, search through the areas of detection, search, and attention. Results in these areas are shown to arise from common mechanisms. Automatic detection is shown to develop following consistent mapping of stimuli to responses over trials. Controlled search is utilized in varied-mapping paradigms, and in our studies, it takes the form of serial, terminating search. The approach resolves a number of apparent conflicts in the literature. I. General Introduction Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) advocated a fundamental division of human memory and information processing into (a) labile control processes and (b) learned or inherent structural components.

No abstract

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

A general theory of retrieval from long-term memory combines features of associative network models and random search models. It posits cue-dependent probabilistic sampling and recovery from an associative network, but the network is specified as a retrieval structure rather than a storage structure. The theory is labeled SAM, meaning Search of Associative Memory. A quantitative simulation of SAM is developed and applied to the part-list cuing paradigm. When free recall of a list of words is cued by a random subset of words from that list, the probability of recalling one of the remaining words is less than if no cues are provided at all. SAM predicts this effect in all its variations by making extensive use of interword associations in retrieval, a process that previous theorizing has dismissed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract