Item identification following varying presentations of pairs on a heterogeneous multiple-item recognition learning task.

Abstract

Sets of pairs for a multiple-item recognition (verbal discrimination) learning task varied in their number of presentations during a single extended study trial. The test phase required old-new and right-wrong (functional) identifications of individual items. Old-item identification increased with increasing exposure for both right and wrong items. However, an increase in functional identification with increasing exposures occurred for right items but not for wrong items. This pattern of results suggests that identifications of prior wrong items are mediated by frequency cues alone, whereas identifications of right items are supplemented by nonfrequency cues that are associated with right items through their elaborative rehearsal during the study phase.The ability of subjects to identify both the oldness and the prior function (i.e., whether they are right or wrong) of individual items following study trials on a multiple-item recognition, or verbal discrimination, task has been demonstrated in several recent studies (e.g., Kausler, Pavur, & Yadrick, 1975;Kausler & Yadrick, 1977). The means by which response-based frequency units may mediate such identifications have been described by Kausler et al. (1975) in terms of a signal detection model. Briefly, separate distributions of frequency units are presumed to be generated for right and wrong items during practice. Although these distributions are expected to be partially overlapping, the mean of the right-item distribution should exceed the mean of the wrong-item distribution, beginning with the first study trial (see Figure 1). The disparity between distributions is attribut-

Effects of imagery on individual item identifications and frequency judgments in multiple-item recognition learning.

“…The effect for exposures reflects the expected overall higher hit rate for items exposed twice (.830) than for items exposed once (.686). A comparable effect for pairs varied in their exposures during a single study trial was obtained by Kausler et al (1978).…”

“…Consistent with this hypothesis, overt reports by subjects revealed imagery to be the preferred strategy for learning high-imagery pairs and rote rehearsal the preferred strategy for learning low-imagery pairs (Rowe, 1975). More indirect support for the nonfrequency cue hypothesis comes from the individual item test procedure (e.g., Kausler, Dalezman, & Yadrick, 1978). The processing of right items appears to differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively (as predicted by frequency theory) from the processing of wrong items, presumably reflecting more elaborative rehearsal (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) for right items than for wrong items.…”

“…Since low-imagery right items do not elicit such supplementary cues, they are identified as right only if their frequency values exceed the high criterion value (with the probability of this event equaling that of high-imagery right items). Finally, in the absence of distinctive nonfrequency cues, functional identifications of wrong items should be mediated primarily, if not exclusively, by frequency cues (Kausler et al, 1978). Since high-and lowimagery items do not differ markedly in their frequency values, their proportions exceeding the low criterion but falling below the high criterion should be approximately equal.…”

“…First, there should be little, if any, effect of imagery on old item identifications for either right or wrong items. Frequency cues alone should provide sufficient information for recognition of oldness (Kausler et al, 1978). The nonfrequency cue hypothesis assumes that imagery does not affect response-based frequency values and, therefore, proportions of these items exceeding either criterion should not differ.…”

“…Procedure. In general, the procedure followed closely that of Kausler et al (1978) in terms of instructional set (inducing the expectancy of a standard pairwise test for all subjects), pacing conditions (presentation via a slide projector at a 3-sec rate for pairs in the study list and at a 6-sec rate for individual items in the test list), and format of the test phase (recording old-new and right-wrong decisions on an answer sheet). Subjects were informed in advance that some pairs would be shown twice.…”