Recall of categorized words lists.

A face recognition by similarity (FRBS) conjecture

“…Whereas Cohen's (1963) findings supported the prediction that W(n ) C (g, z), the present findings showed that facial dimensions (hair and forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and chin), where each dimension included a spread of n values presented simultaneously. For example, the participant was presented with a spread of n 9 mouths, followed by a spread of n 9 noses, and so on.…”

“…List l has n 10 unrelated words, n g. The question is whether the number of categories that will be correctly recalled from L [denoted by C(g, z), which depends on g and z] will be equal to the number of words that will be correctly recalled from l [denoted by W(n ), which depends on n ]-that is, whether W(n ) C (g, z). Cohen (1963) tested the hypothesis that W(n ) C(g, z) (called the chunk hypothesis) under two conditions: one that fulfilled and one that did not fulfill the total-time (T ) requirement. Accordingly, the lists should be equal in their T: the multiplication of the number of words in a list (n) by the presentation time of a word (t)-that is, T nt-since it was found that the number of words recalled in a single-trial free recall increased as a function of T (see Murdock, 1960Murdock, , 1974.…”

Manipulating the word frequency effect in free recall

“…In order to test the hypothesis that subjects categorized the recall words, subjects' recall protocols were evaluated for evidence of clustering of category items in recall. Clustering has generally been observed in the recall of categorized lists of words (e.g., Bousfield, 1953;Cofer, Bruce, & Reicher, 1966;Cohen, 1963). Roenker, Thompson, and Brown (1971) proposed a method of calculating the degree of clustering in recall based on the number of times that two sequentially recalled items are members of the same category.…”

Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a connectionist model.

“…The main difference between the simulation and the human experiment was that the simulation made the simplifying assumptions that (a) words are recalled independently during each recall test and (b) the two recall tests are independent. This does not seem to be the case with human participants as many effects of words and test dependencies (e.g., priming) have been observed (e.g., Cohen, 1963). These differences could probably be resolved by modeling the dependencies between the words (e.g., by using top-level rules or the correlation between the bottom-level representations) and by adding a recency-based base-level activation (J. R. Anderson & Milson, 1989).…”