Contingent dissociation between recognition and fragment completion: The method of triangulation.

Hayman, C. Gordon; Tulving, Endel

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.228

Cited by 93 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

167

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yoder & Feurer, 2000), and as an index in experiments in perception and memory (e.g. Hayman & Tulving, 1989;Levitin, 1994). To its advantage, this measure has, as explained below, a well-defined sampling distribution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

Drahota

Costall

Reddy

2008

Speech Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

Drahota

Costall

Reddy

2008

Speech Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Repetition priming has been argued to exhibit "hyperspecificity" (e.g., Hayman & Tulving, 1989). That is, small changes in the stimulus characteristics between study and test may diminish the priming effect.…”

Section: Ipsi-versus Contralateral Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evidence comes, for instance, from finding different patterns of outcome for more or less parallel explicit and implicit tasks. The former asks for recall or recognition of previously presented information and the latter does not, but assesses how the previously presented information reflects itself otherwise (e.g., Hayman & Tulving, 1989;Jacoby, 1991;La Voie & Light, 1994;Ostergaard, 1993). In some cases, the comparison of explicit and implicit processing has entailed a contrast between the right and left hemispheres.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit and explicit memory for odors: Hemispheric differences

Olsson

Cain

2003

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, implicit and explicit tests were used to investigate the lateralization of odor memory. Odors were at all times presented monorhinically. At test, odors were presented to either the ipsi-or the contralateral side of the nostril used for inspection. In Experiment 1, participants were first primed to a set of odors. At test, response latencies for odor identification were measured. The results were that priming odors tested via the left but not the right nostril were identified faster than control odors. In Experiment 2, a similar design probed episodic recognition memory. Memory performance did not differ between the left and right nostrils, but the measures of response latency favored the right side. The study demonstrates that it is possible to tap differences in memory performance between the cerebral hemispheres through monorhinic presentation of odors in healthy persons, and that these differences depend on the test nostril rather than the inspection nostril.

show abstract

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For each 2 ϫ 2 contingency table, there are four different tallies of the possible Test 1/Test 2 outcomes: (a) ϭ correct/correct, (b) correct/incorrect, (c) incorrect/correct, and (d) incorrect/incorrect (Yule's Q ϭ ͓ad Ϫ bc͔ Ϭ ͓ad ϩ bc͔). Differences in Q were evaluated using the chi-square test for the interaction between the two contingency tables based on the log-odds ratio transform of Q as discussed by Bishop, Fienberg, and Holland (1975) and Hayman and Tulving (1989).For response time correlation analyses, response times for cases in which Test 1 and Test 2 were both correct were percentile-transformed (ranktransform divided by the total number of response times) for each participant individually. Spearman correlations were then computed on the transformed values compiled across participants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking associative and serial list memory: Pairs versus triples.

Caplan

Glaholt

McIntosh

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paired associates and serial list memory are typically investigated separately. An "isolation principle" (J. B. Caplan, 2005) was proposed to explain behavior in both paradigms by using a single model, in which serial list and paired associates memory differ only in how isolated pairs of items are from interference from other studied items. In the present study, 2 experiments identify a critical dissociation between the 2 paradigms, challenging this unified account. Specifically, forward and backward probes were highly correlated for pairs and less so for short lists (triples). The authors asked whether the isolation principle could quantitatively accommodate this type of dissociation. A simulation confirmed that a single model incorporating the isolation principle can adequately explain this and other dissociations, supporting the common processes view.Paired associates and serial list memory paradigms have much in common. Memory for associations tests whether participants can remember that two items are linked (usually by having been presented at adjacent times during a study episode). Memory for serial lists also requires participants to recall the relationships among items, but serial lists include more than two items. One important difference is that with a pair of items, AB, order is irrelevant for many types of memory probes. For example, consider cued recall. When presented with one item of the pair, the participant need only recall the other item, regardless of whether it was the first or second item. In contrast, when presented with a single item from a list of three items, ABC, the participant may require some order information to recall the actual target item and rule out the third, incorrect item. Memory investigators have generally asked questions about associative memory and serial list memory in separate studies, underlining their differences. But models that account for a broad range of data have more explanatory value. If it could be shown that there are common mechanisms underlying behavior in both associative and serial list memory, then researchers could not only explain behavior in those two paradigms, but also potentially explain behavior in related and hybrid paradigms. By investigating associative and serial list memory together, we identify how performance on the two paradigms is similar and how it differs (Experiments 1 and 2), and test whether a single model can account for both the similarities and differences in behavior by using identical model processes (Simulation).The notion that associative and serial list memory are closely related dates back to Ebbinghaus's (1885Ebbinghaus's ( /1913) chaining model. In chaining, the participant learns a list by encoding item-to-item associations between neighboring items in the list (and sometimes between pairs of items separated by a lag): ͕A-B, B-C, C-D, D-E, E-F, . . .͖,where letters denote items (e.g., nouns) and the dash symbol denotes a learned association. The participant could retrieve the list by starting at the first item, A, using ...

show abstract

Contingent dissociation between recognition and fragment completion: The method of triangulation.

Cited by 93 publications

References 63 publications

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

Implicit and explicit memory for odors: Hemispheric differences

Linking associative and serial list memory: Pairs versus triples.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About