Perceptual and conceptual cueing in implicit and explicit retrieval

Abstract

Subjects saw or heard words in a list (e.g. limerick) and then took two successive tests. The first was a yes/no recognition test in which auditory/visual modality of test words was manipulated orthogonally to the study modality. The second test varied with experimental conditions: subjects produced words to either perceptual (fragment) cues (l- -e-ick) or conceptual cues (What name is given to a lighthearted five-line poem?), under either explicit or implicit retrieval instructions. The major findings were: (a) that regardless of the type of retrieval cue (perceptual or conceptual) the degree of dependency between recognition and cued recall was greater than that between recognition and implicit retrieval; and (b) that modality shifts adversely affected perceptually cued explicit and implicit retrieval, whereas they had no effect either on conceptually cued retrieval or on recognition. These results suggest that the memory system subserving, and the processes involved in, conceptual priming differ from those underlying recognition and perceptual priming.

Cross-Modal Feature and Conjunction Errors in Recognition Memory

“…One manipulation not addressed in their article was aural/ visual modality shifts from study to test. Changing the modality from aural study to a (visual) perceptual implicit test has been shown to produce about half as much priming compared to modality-consistent conditions (e.g., visual study and visual test; perceptual identification, Jacoby & Dallas, 1981;Kirsner, Milech, & Standen, 1983;Rajaram & Roediger, 1993; word stem completion, Jacoby, 1996; and word fragment completion, Blaxton, 1989;Challis et al, 1993;Rajaram & Roediger, 1993;Roediger & Blaxton, 1987). In contrast, as noted above, aural/ visual modality effects have been small and inconsistent on recognition tests.…”

“…Turning to the recognition of old words, main effects of modality on recognition memory for old words often are not obtained, and several recent experiments have failed to yield significant differences (Challis et al, 1993;Gregg & Gardiner, 1994;Rajaram, 1993; though see Gregg & Gardiner's data on Know judgments). Where differences between study/test modalityconsistent and modality-inconsistent conditions have been obtained, the differences have been very small, though usually in favor of the modality-consistent condition.…”

“…However, changes in study-to-test modality (e.g., aural study and visual test) do not always affect recognition memory relative to a situation in which the study and test modality match (e.g., visual study and visual test). Some researchers have found an advantage on the hit rate for words presented in the same study and test modalities (Gregg & Gardiner, 1994;Jacoby & Dallas, 1981;Kirsner, 1974), but others have not (Challis et al, 1993;Gregg & Gardiner, 1994;Rajaram, 1993). 2 Gregg and Gardiner (1994) used the Remember/Know procedure (e.g., Gardiner, 1988;Tulving, 1985) and found a significantly higher proportion of Know judgments, which are thought to provide an index of familiarity, for a modality-consistent condition when the study stimuli were presented relatively briefly and the orientation task was perceptual in nature.…”

Levels-of-Processing Effects on a Variety of Memory Tasks: New Findings and Theoretical Implications

“…On the one hand, both tests are affected by physical manipulations (e.g., modality of presentation) consistent with a perceptual test (e.g., Blaxton, 1989;Challis, Chiu, Kerr, Law, Schneider, Yonelinas, & Tulving, 1993;Craik, Moscovitch, & McDowd, 1994). On the other hand, both tests are strongly affected by LOP, consistent with a conceptual test (our Experiment 1, for graphemic cued recall; Roediger, Weldon, Stadler, & Riegler, 1992, for word fragment cued recall).…”

Data-driven recognition memory: A new technique and some data on age differences

“…However, as with PDP, evidence that familiarity responses are perceptually mediated is equivocal. For instance, changes in modality or image size between study and test are not captured by differences in "know" responding (Challis et al, 1993;Rajaram, 1993Rajaram, , 1996, even though it is well established that these manipulations influence perceptual memory, as has been shown by priming studies (e.g., Berry et al, 1997).…”