Dissociating early- and late-selection processes in recall: The mixed blessing of categorized study lists

Abstract

Two experiments are reported in which we used type-2 signal detection theory to separate the effects of semantic categorization on early-and late-selection processes in free and cued recall. In Experiment 1, participants studied cue-target pairs for which the targets belonged to two, six, or 24 semantic categories, and later the participants were required to recall the targets either with (cued recall) or without (free recall) the studied cues. A confidence rating and a report decision were also required, so that we could compute both forced-report quantity and metacognitive resolution (type-2 discrimination), which served as our estimates of early-and late-selection processes, respectively. Consistent with prior research, having fewer categories enhanced the early-selection process (in performance, two > six > 24 categories). However, in contrast, the late-selection process was impaired (24 > six = two categories). In Experiment 2, encoding of paired associates, for which the targets belonged to either two or 20 semantic categories, was manipulated by having participants either form interactive images or engage in rote repetition. Having fewer categories again was associated with enhanced early selection (two > 20 categories); this effect was greater for rote repetition than for interactive imagery, and greater for free recall than for cued recall. However, late selection again showed the opposite pattern (20 > two categories), even with interactive-imagery encoding, which formed distinctive, individuated memory traces. The results are discussed in terms of early-and late-selection processes in retrieval, as well as overt versus covert recognition.Keywords Recall . Recognition . Metamemory . Categorization . Type 2 signal detection theory It has been well documented that semantic or categorical relatedness between study items (e.g., study lists composed of exemplars from semantic categories) has a facilitative effect on recall, as compared to no relationship between

Why Can Some Service Employees Provide Service of a Consistently High Quality While Others Cannot?

“…Correct signal memory and retrieval are also negatively related to the number of stimuli (Guzel and Higham 2013). Applying the findings to the present research settings, control over practice is associated with reduced workload, or noise.…”

The semantic distance task: Quantifying semantic distance with semantic network path length.

“…Finally, we replicated our findings from free-recall to cued-recall memory retrieval. Previous studies have demonstrated how free-recall and cued-recall are attributed to different aspects of memory retrieval (Guzel & Higham, 2013; Higham & Tam, 2005; Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966). Participants better retrieve from memory with cued-recall, performance which improves with list size.…”

“…The authors argue that this difference demonstrates the availability of the memory trace and how the cue facilitates its accessibility (Tulving & Pearlstone, 1966). Thus, cued-recall is considered to result in stronger memory retrieval than free-recall (Guzel & Higham, 2013). The fact that both free- and cued-recall tasks were similarly affected by path length strengthens the validity of this approach and its generality in regard to memory retrieval from semantic memory.…”

Giving and stealing ideas in memory: Source errors in recall are influenced by both early-selection and late-correction retrieval processes

“…More recently, the framework has been further developed to acknowledge the potential role of early-selection processes in the genesis of memory errors (e.g. Halamish, Goldsmith & Jacoby, 2012;Goldsmith, 2016;Guzel & Higham, 2013). This work has largely been based upon the use of extended recall (Bousfield & Rosner, 1970;Halamish, Goldsmith & Jacoby, 2012;Kahana, Dolan, Dauder & Wingfield, 2005).…”