Recall and judged frequency of implicitly occurring words

Leicht, Kenneth L.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(68)80097-0

Cited by 30 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, JOFs tended to regress toward the overall average in the second half of the list; that is, means and SDs became more uniform across frequencies. A similar regression in mean JOFs, over a 24-h retention interval, can be seen in the data of Leicht (1968).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Similarity, global matching, and judgments of frequency

Hintzman

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

retrieval cue does not isolate a specific memory trace, but rather activates many traces simultaneously, each to a degree depending on its similarity to the cue. The retrieved information is a scalar value (variously referred to as strength, familiarity, similarity, or echo intensity) that represents the sum of memory activation produced by the cue. Old-new recognition judgments are made relative to a criterion on the summed activation scale, and forced-choice recognition judgments are made by choosing the test alternative whose summed activation is the highest. Clark and Gronlund (1996) discuss some of the successes and failures of these models.One success of global-matching models has been in explaining the test-pair similarity effect-a phenomenon of forced-choice recognition. Consider two unrelated items, A and B, both of which are old with respect to the study list, and two new items, A¢ ( similar to A) and B¢ (similar to B). Two-alternative forced-choice performance is better on similar pairs such as A versus A¢ than it is on dissimilar pairs such as A versus B¢. In the first case, the lure is related to the old test item with which it is paired, and in the second case, it is related to an old item that is not part of the same test pair. The test-pair similarity effect has been found in experiments manipulating the orthographic similarity of words (Hall, 1979), the semantic similarity of words (Hintzman, 1988), and the visual similarity of photographs (Tulving, 1981). An exception is that the opposite effect-a similar-pair disadvantage-occurs in associative recognition (Clark, Hori, & Callan, 1993).The test-pair similarity prediction derives from a fundamental property of global matching models, which is that correlated inputs or cues produce correlated outputs. Because cues A and A¢ are similar, they tend to activate the same subset of memory traces, prominently including the trace of A itself. Thus, if A produces summed activation that is relatively high for an old test item, A¢ will tend to cause activation that is relatively high for a new item. If A produces activation that is low for an old item, A¢ is likely to produce activation that is low for a new item. No such correlation is predicted for the unrelated test pair, A versus B¢.The choice between an old test item and a new test item is made by selecting the item with the higher summed activation; thus the probability of an error is P[(X 2 Y ) < 0], where X is activation caused by the old item, and Y is activation caused by the new item. In the simplest model, the old-and new-item means ( μ X and μ Y ) and variances (s 2 X and s 2 Y ) are assumed to be unaffected by the type of test pairing. Thus, P[(X 2 Y ) < 0] increases as a direct function of the variance of the differences, X 2 Y:where r XY is the Pearson correlation relating X and Y. When the old item is A and the new item is B¢, r is zero and the error rate is at its maximum. When the old item is A and the new item is A¢, r is positive and the error rate is reduced. To see intuitively why thi...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 79%

Similarity, global matching, and judgments of frequency

Hintzman

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both theories predict that, as the perceptual details are forgotten (or given less emphasis during retrieval), there will be a relative increase in the emphasis placed on more semantic/cognitive/emotional/gist features (see Barclay & Wellman, 1986, Leicht, 1968, Reyna & Kiernan, 1994, Sachs, 1967, Spiro, 1980, and Sulin & Dooling, 1974, for empirical evidence of this process in other paradigms). Our data go beyond the prediction of an interaction, however, in that they show that (at least in this paradigm), false recall and false recognition decline across time.…”

Section: Retention Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

False recall and false recognition induced by presentation of associated words: Effects of retention interval and level of processing

Thapar

McDermott²

2001

Memory & Cognition

189

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Of special interest is the claim that people will judge whether they have seen a word among a set of recently presented words by comparison to a baseline that depends, in part, on associative frequency, rather than just on frequency of occurrence. If these claims are true, then it might be expected that people's conscious judgments of the familiarity of words would also depend, in part, on associative freAVAllABILITY AND RETRIEVAL 89 quency (Leicht, 1968;Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). That is, if people judge the probability of past occurrence in a recognition experiment against associative frequency, then they might judge the probability of past occurrence in general using associative frequency.…”

Section: Experiments 4: Associatne Frequency and Familiaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative asymmetry, availability, and retrieval

Rubin

1983

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associative frequency, the ease with which a word comes to mind in free association, is taken as a measure of general response availability. As expected from this view, in both controlled experiments and in reanalyses of previously published correlational data, high associative frequency words were judged to be more familiar and were easier to recall but harder to recognize than low associative frequency words, even with meaningfulnees, imagery, length in letters, and frequency excluded as factors. When used as follll in a recognition experiment, high associative frequency words attracted more responaes than low aaeocietive frequency words. In addition, associative frequency and meaningfulness correlated only moderately and had different patterns of correlations with other variables, suggesting that the number of associationsleading to and from a word differ.

show abstract

Recall and judged frequency of implicitly occurring words

Cited by 30 publications

References 6 publications

Similarity, global matching, and judgments of frequency

Similarity, global matching, and judgments of frequency

False recall and false recognition induced by presentation of associated words: Effects of retention interval and level of processing

Associative asymmetry, availability, and retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About