Memory scanning as a serial self-terminating process.

Abstract

Argues that there is a confounding between stimulus presentation probability and memory set size in S. Sternberg's classic study of character recognition. 2 experiments were conducted, with 20 undergraduates in each, in which stimulus probability and memory set size were varied independently. Using Sternberg's analysis, results essentially replicate his. However, a pronounced and systematic stimulus probability effect was found on reaction time to both positive and negative stimuli. The data are consistent with a self-terminating process which searches a stochastically ordered memory stack containing representations of both positive and negative stimuli which are stored with their appropriate response codes as paired associates. (20 ref.)

Serial-position effects for lures in short-term recognition memory

“…In the fixed-set variant, each study list is tested with a series of probes. As was noted earlier, both targets and lures benefited when repeated within the test series (e.g., Theios, Smith, Haviland, Traupmann, & Moy, 1973); when features were repeated across trials of the experiment, however, targets and lures with repeated features were both slowed (Johns & Mewhort, 2003). Furthermore, both targets and lures were speeded if preceded in the test series by a related test (Johns & Mewhort, 2009).…”

Priorities in item recognition

“…In summary, the basic data pattern observed by Sternberg (1966), equal linear slopes for positive and negative responses, was mirrored in these three experiments (Burrows & Okada, 1971;Corcoran et al, 1971;Theios et al, 1973). Additionally, there was evidence in all three that reaction time to certain positive targets Was significantly faster than reaction time to other positive targets.…”

“…Theios, Smith, Haviland, Traupmann, and Moy (1973) found that reaction time increased linearly with s size and that this rate of increase was equal for positive and negative response trials. These results are comparable to Sternberg's (1966) results.…”

“…The slope of this function reflects the number, and duration, of comparisons required for a response decision. If the reaction time reductions observed by Burrows and Okada (1971), Corcoran et al (1971), and Theios et al (1973) were due to a d encoding bias, the intercept of a function relating reaction time to s size based on high-priority targets would be less than the intercept of a function based on all other targets. There would be no slope difference between the two functions, since the time required to encode a target is independent of positive set size.…”

“…This trend suggests that some positive items may have been given preferential comparison or decision stage processing. A reanalysis of the data from the Theios et al (1973) study is not possible because target presentation frequency and the number of high-frequency targets are confounded with positive set size.…”