A reexamination of stimulus-frequency effects in recognition: Two mirrors for low- and high-frequency pseudowords.

Abstract

The word-frequency mirror effect (more hits and fewer false alarms for low-frequency than for high-frequency words) has intrigued memory researchers, and multiple accounts have been offered to explain the result. In this study, participants were differentially familiarized to various pseudowords in a familiarization phase that spanned multiple weeks. Recognition tests given during the first week of familiarization replicated a result of W. T. Maddox and W. K. Estes (1997) that failed to show the classic word-frequency mirror effect for pseudowords; however, recognition tests given toward the end of training showed the classic mirror pattern. In addition, a stimulus-frequency mirror effect for "remember" vs. "know" judgments was obtained. These data are consistent with an account of the mirror effect that posits the involvement of dual processes for episodic recognition.

Frequency Effects on Memory: A Resource-Limited Theory

“…First, we discuss at length experiments that make alternative explanations unlikely. Second, we show that similar results hold when frequency is experimentally manipulated by differential training in the lab (Reder, Angstadt, Cary, Erickson, & Ayers, 2002;Reder et al, 2016;Shen, Popov, Delahay, & Reder, 2017; also see Nelson & Shiffrin, 2013).…”

“… Single item recognition of very low LF is worse than HF (with both natural frequency, Schulman, 1976, and pseudo-word familiarization, Reder et al, 2002).  LF recognition advantage is reduced in older adults (Balota et al 2002).…”

“…The most straightforward variable to analyze is word frequency, but the effects are likely to occur with any variable that affects how many resources are depleted in processing the preceding study items. Of the nine studies, five studies used word frequency as a factor (Healey & Kahana, 2016;Cox et al, 2018;Reder et al, 2002;Ward et al, 2003), two studies manipulated how many times a studied item had already been presented (Buchler et al, 2008;Aue et al, 2017) and two directed-forgetting studies that manipulated whether each item should be remembered or forgotten (Marevic et al, 2017;Popov et al, 2018).…”

Conceptual and perceptual memory: Retrieval orientations reflected in event-related potentials

“…The rejection of new pictures is usually more accurate than the rejection of new words, but certain conditions eliminate this advantage. The possibility that the mirror eVect can be abolished is of theoretical interest, because such a dissociation can bolster the case for two-process theories in the ongoing debate about the nature of recognition memory (Arndt & Reder, 2002;Joordens & Hockley, 2000;Reder et al, 2002;Reder et al, 2000). In this study, the mirror eVect was used as a probe for perceptual and conceptual orientations, following suggestions from earlier work (Mintzer & Snodgrass, 1999;Stenberg et al, 1995) that participants' orientation toward a conceptual or perceptual match can switch the eVect on or oV.…”

“…In spite of this diversity, theoretical models of memory have been remarkably successful in mimicking the typical Wndings within the conWnes of a unitary store and a single measure of memory strength (Clark & Gronlund, 1996;RatcliV & McKoon, 2000). Some Wndings have, however, raised stumbling blocks for unitary memory theories, among them the mirror eVect (Reder, Angstadt, Gary, Erickson, & Ayers, 2002). The present study examines uses of memory in which interest is geared towards either perceptual of conceptual features of the sought-for memory images.…”