Encoding specificity: Relation between recall superiority and recognition failure.

Wiseman, Sandor; Tulving, Endel

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.2.4.349

Cited by 73 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 76%

“…Although this cue-target relatedness effect on episodic RF occurs for both word pairs and name pairs, it conflicts with Wiseman and Tulving's (1976) finding that the TWF accurately predicts RF rates for targets from unrelated as well as weakly related word pairs. Because we and Wiseman and Tulving (1976) used the same procedures and word pool to generate our unrelated pairs, a difference in materials cannot explain the discrepancy between our and their results. However, since our subjects studied the unrelated word pairs in the same list with weakly related word pairs and strongly related famous name pairs, they may have used an encoding strategy for the unrelated pairs different from the one they would have used had they studied only unrelated word pairs, as did Wiseman and Tulving's subjects.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 76%

“…Indeed, when averaged across all four groups, RF of targets from unrelated nonname pairs was significantly lower than the TWF predicted. Although this result is in accord with the RF data obtained in the episodic memory test for the unrelated nonfamous names from the study list, it is incongruent with Wiseman and Tulving's (1976) finding that the TWF accurately predicted RF of targets from unrelated pairs.…”

Section: Nonname Testssupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Also, performance was far better for "related" famous names than for "unrelated" nonfamous names [F(1 ,45) = 229.5, MSe= .015] . However, this "relatedness" effect was larger for correct cued recall than for recognition hits [F(1 ,45) = 160.6, MSe = .013], a fmding both similar and dissimilar to results reported by Wiseman and Tulving (1976). Using nonname cue-target items, Wiseman and Tulving also found that cue-target relatedness had a much larger effect on cued recall than on recognition.…”

Section: Note-see the Text For A Description Of The Items Constitutinsupporting

confidence: 51%

“…(4) Can the TWF accurately predict RF of word targets from unrelated and weakly related pairs? Wiseman and Tulving (1976) found that although cued recall performance was much better when targets appeared in weakly related pairs rather than in unrelated pairs, RF of targets from these two types of pairs was equivalent and accurately predicted by the TWF. (This was so because the relatedness manipulation had little effect on overall recognition, from which RF is predicted.)…”

Section: For the Nonname Recognition Test And The Episodic Name Recogmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A direct comparison of recognition failure rates for recallable names in episodic and semanticmemory tests

Neely

Payne

1983

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an extension of Muter's (l978l research, subjects studied pairs of lowercase cues and uppercase targets consisting of famous names (e.g., betsy ROSS), nonfamous names (e.g., edwin CONWAY), weakly related words (e.g., grasp BABY), and unrelated words (e.g., art GO). Following recognition tests in which surname and word targets were tested in the absence of their cues, cued recall tests for the surname and word targets were given. In semantic recognition and recall tests, the response to a surname was to be made solely on the basis of its fame, regardless of whether or not it had appeared in the study list. In episodic memory tests, the response to a surname was to be made solely on the basis of whether or not it had appeared in the study list, regardless of its fame. In all tests, the response to a nonname was to be made solely on the basis of whether or not it had appeared in the study list. The Tulving-Wiseman (1975) function accurately predicted recognition failure rates for famous surnames, whether or not they were from the study list and whether the test was episodic or semantic, and for targets from the weakly related word pairs. However, recognition failure rates were lower than the Tulving-Wiseman function predicted for nonfamous surnames in the episodic memory test and for targets from unrelated word pairs. Discussion focused on these results' implications for the nature of the Tulving-Wiseman function and the psychological reality of the episodic-semantic memory distinction.According to Tulving (1972), episodic memory tasks require subjects to answer queries about when, where, or under what circumstances they experienced an event, whereas semantic memory tasks require them to answer queries about organized knowledge concerning word meanings and the relations among concepts, independent of the autobiographical context in which that knowledge was gained. Although most researchers accept Tulving's episodic-semantic distinction as a useful taxonomy for classifying different kinds of memory tasks, considerable disagreement centers on whether episodic and semantic memory tasks tap functionally different memory stores and/or retrieval processes (e.g

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 76%

Section: Nonname Testssupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Note-see the Text For A Description Of The Items Constitutinsupporting

confidence: 51%

Section: For the Nonname Recognition Test And The Episodic Name Recogmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A direct comparison of recognition failure rates for recallable names in episodic and semanticmemory tests

Neely

Payne

1983

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Very long‐term recall and recognition of well‐learned material

Noice

2002

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined very long-term verbatim memory (from 4 months to 28 years) for lengthy, complex material. Experiments 1 and 2 found that recall (12 and 20 months after the material was last accessed) was at or near ceiling for many participants, and was significantly higher than free-choice recognition, with recognition failure for recallable words (RF) being observed. The magnitude of the effect corresponded to that predicted by the Tulving-Wiseman (1975) function. Experiment 3 found that recall was at or near ceiling for 3 years, then declined dramatically as the retention interval increased. However, given equal amounts of context as retrieval cues, forcedchoice recognition remained relatively strong for as long as 28 years. These findings provide evidence of long-term memory for exact details of complex discourse far in excess of previous demonstrations, and, under certain circumstances, extend the RF phenomenon to lengthy, welllearned texts over long retention intervals.

show abstract

Psychologie des Gedächtnisses

Oberauer¹,

Lange²

Handbuch Psychologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Encoding specificity: Relation between recall superiority and recognition failure.

Cited by 73 publications

References 12 publications

A direct comparison of recognition failure rates for recallable names in episodic and semanticmemory tests

A direct comparison of recognition failure rates for recallable names in episodic and semanticmemory tests

Very long‐term recall and recognition of well‐learned material

Psychologie des Gedächtnisses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About