Effects of list organization on item recognition.

Abstract

The effects of list organization on recognition decisions were studied in four experiments. Subjects memorized supraspan word lists which had been organized either into arbitrarily determined subsets or into subsets based on taxonomic categories. Subjects responded to a series of yes-no recognition probes for each list. The latency of response (RT) was reduced when a probe came from the same subset as the preceding probe; the relevant subset appears to be activated in the recognition process. RTs did not vary with the number of subsets comprising the study list; this result discredits models that posit scanning of the subsets as units. With categorized lists, RTs for both old and new probes increased with the size of the relevant studied subset. The slope of the RT function for old items was affected by the number of distractors from the studied categories. The overall pattern of results cannot be accommodated by existing search models, but the data may be compatible with a model in which associations to the probe item are examined for evidence of list membership.

Level of discrimination for recognition judgments reduced following the recognition of semantically related words

“…In previous studies of episodic recognition, the general finding has been that semantic priming either facilitates correct recognition judgments to old and new test words (Johns, 1985;Lewandowsky, 1986), or facilitates and impedes correct recognition judgments to old and new test words, respectively . In previous studies of recognition, more generally construed, the general finding has been that semantic priming either increases or fails to affect the level of discrimination for recognition judgments to the test item Farah, 1989;Johns, 1985;Lewandowsky, 1986;Rhodes et al, 1993). Thus, the present results suggest an enlarged view of the effects of semantic priming on recognition judgments.…”

“…Consider, first, the results of Johns (1985) and Lewandowsky (1986), who found that semantic priming facilitated correct recognition judgments to old and new test words. The most important difference between Johns and Lewandowsky, on one hand, and the present study, on the other hand, probably lies in the stimulus materials.…”

“…Here again, semantic relationships have been most extensively explored. Johns (1985) and Lewandowsky (1986) tested memory for lists of common nouns, each of which was composed of several words from each of several semantic categories. On each trial of the experimental procedure, the participant studied a list of words and then made recognition judgments to a series of pairs of words, with each pair consisting of a prime word and a test word.…”

“…Thus, priming increased the level of discrimination for recognition judgments to the test word. Dosher, McElree, Hood, and Rosedale (1989) tested memory for uncategorized lists of common nouns using a procedure that differed from that of Johns (1985) and Lewandowsky (1986) in that the lists were shorter and that no response was required to the prime word. On each trial of the Dosher et al procedure, the participant studied a list of words and then responded to a series of prime word/test word pairs.…”

“…In contrast to Johns (1985) and Lewandowsky (1986), we used uncategorized rather than categorized lists. In contrast to , we required successive recognition judgments to the prime word and the test word.…”