Featuring old/new recognition: The two faces of the pseudoword effect

The similarities (and familiarities) of pseudowords and extremely high-frequency words: Examining a familiarity-based explanation of the pseudoword effect.

“…On the other hand, Simulation 2 nicely points out that the regularity of features appears to be more important for the hit rates than for the false-alarm rates, with less regular features decreasing hit rates and more regular features increasing hit rates. In fact, this observation was previously reported by Joordens et al (2008), although not specifically in the context of the irregular nonword effect.…”

“…These results are completely consistent with Simulation 2, showing that linguistic regularity has a larger impact on hit rates than false alarms and is the driving force behind the reversal of the hit rate advantage for irregular nonwords. Thus, as a whole, the results of Joordens et al (2008) can be easily understood within the framework of our current model. We therefore argue that the familiarity-based model presented here represents a good general framework for understanding the pseudoword effect and variations thereof.…”

“…Joordens et al (2008) reported a case in which six sets of pseudowords were manipulated such that orthographic interitem similarity and linguistic similarity (i.e., similarity between pseudowords and a large corpus of words) were varied independently. Examining the hit and false-alarm rates of these sets in recognition memory experiments where they were intermixed with words, Joordens et al found evidence that the hit rate and false-alarm rate differences between pseudowords and words may be the result of two separate processes.…”

Super Memory Bros.: Going from mirror patterns to concordant patterns via similarity enhancements

“…To examine the pseudoword effect in more detail, we compiled the results from several previous studies that compared recognition memory for words and pseudowords (Cleary et al, 2007;Gardiner & Java, 1990;Greene, 2004;Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2001;Joordens et al, 2008;Rao & Proctor, 1984;Whittlesea & Williams, 1998Wixted, 1992). For each study, we subtracted the hit or false alarm rates for the pseudowords from the hit or false alarm rates for the normal words.…”

“…This is because they demonstrate that a range of manipulations that primarily should target one's ability to recollect (e.g., divisions of attention, manipulations of study-test lag, reductions in study time or response time at test) all lead to dramatic and predictable changes in the mirror pattern. Greene, 2004;Joordens, Ozubko, & Niewiadomski, 2008, for data supporting this contention; see Wixted, 1992, for a similar explanation regarding concordant effects with rare words).…”