Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words

Tulving, Endel; Wiseman, Sandor

doi:10.3758/bf03333153

Cited by 138 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, like verbal paired associates tasks that aim to distinguish object and associative information (Tulving & Wiseman, 1975), this design removes the demand for correct associations during location recall and might reveal latent location knowledge that was obscured in Experiments 1 and 2.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragile associations coexist with robust memories for precise details in long-term memory.

Lew¹,

Pashler²,

Vul³

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What happens to memories as we forget? They might gradually lose fidelity, lose their associations (and thus be retrieved in response to the incorrect cues), or be completely lost. Typical long-term memory studies assess memory as a binary outcome (correct/incorrect), and cannot distinguish these different kinds of forgetting. Here we assess long-term memory for scalar information, thus allowing us to quantify how different sources of error diminish as we learn, and accumulate as we forget. We trained subjects on visual and verbal continuous quantities (the locations of objects and the distances between major cities, respectively), tested subjects after extended delays, and estimated whether recall errors arose due to imprecise estimates, misassociations, or complete forgetting. Although subjects quickly formed precise memories and retained them for a long time, they were slow to learn correct associations and quick to forget them. These results suggest that long-term recall is especially limited in its ability to form and retain associations.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fragile associations coexist with robust memories for precise details in long-term memory.

Lew¹,

Pashler²,

Vul³

2016

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The process dissociation procedure also relies on the strong assumption that the two processes are stochastically independent of one another; when the assumption is violated, estimates obtained from this procedure are uninterpretable (Curran & Hintzman, 1995;Hillstrom & Logan, 1997). Indeed, it has long been established that there is a correlation between the probability of correct recall and that of correct recognition (Tulving & Wiseman, 1975;Kahana, Rizzuto, & Schneider, 2005), strongly arguing against the process dissociation assumption of independence (item and source memory performance are also correlated; Starns, Rotello, & Hautus, 2014). Finally, even if the assumption of the process dissociation procedure are satisfied, it is insufficient for identifying the relevant processing components (Humphreys, Dennis, Chalmers, & Finnigan, 2000).…”

Section: Chapter 4 Secondary Processes In Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dynamic Approach to Recognition Memory

Cox¹,

Shiffrin²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ii Acknowledgements First, I extend my thanks to my committee members for their time, consideration, and guidance. I would especially like to thank my advisors, Rich Shiffrin and Mike Jones, for first convincing me to come to Indiana, making me feel welcome, and guiding me into the world I now inhabit. I must also thank Isaiah Harbison, Michael Dougherty, and Sharona Atkins for introducing me to the very idea of mathematical psychology and for teaching me and trusting me. show how the dynamic model can be extended to account for paradigms like associative recognition and list discrimination, leading to another novel test of the presence of recall-like processes. Associative recognition, list discrimination, recognition of similar foils, and source exclusion are all better explained by the formation of a compound cue rather than recall, although source memory is found to be better modeled by a recall process.

show abstract

“…In a popular application of this method (Nilsson & Gardiner, 1993;Tulving & Wiseman, 1975), subjects first study a list of A-B pairs. The experimenter first tests recognition memory for the B items, asking the subjects to distinguish these list items from lure items that had not been previously presented.…”

Section: Yule's Q and The Methods Of Successive Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative symmetry and memory theory

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines a basic question concerning the nature of episodic associations. On the one hand, associations can be viewed as directional pointers connecting different mental representations. While studying a pair of words in a memory experiment (A-B), subjects strengthen a pointer going from A to B and a separate one going from B to A, thus forming two distinct unidirectional associations. This view maps onto the classic independent association hypothesis (IAH), which viewed forward and backward associations as distinct, separately modifiable (e.g., Ebbinghaus,1885Ebbinghaus, /1913Robinson, 1932), and even statistically independent (Wolford, 1971).Arguing against the IAH, Gestalt theorists promoted a principle of associative symmetry (Asch & Ebenholtz, 1962;Köhler, 1947). This alternate view saw an episodically formed association is a holistic conjunction of the A and B representations, without any directional A®B or B®A pointers. According to this associative symmetry hypothesis (ASH), each member of the associated pair can recover the entire pattern, independent of the order of presentation (Asch, 1968;Asch & Ebenholtz, 1962;Rock & Ceraso, 1964). Experimental evidence on the equality of forward and backward associative recall, discussed below, and the arguments in favor of one-trial associative learning (e.g., Estes, 1960;Rock, 1957) lent support to this position.With the ascent of computational and distributed memory models, this basic question concerning the nature of episodic associations gained renewed importance. Distributed memory models make explicit assumptions about the mechanisms of association. As we will show in this article, some models assume symmetrical associative learning of item representations, whereas other models allow for separate formation of forward and backward associations.Studies aimed at discriminating the IAH from the ASH examined the dependence of recall on the temporal order of encoding.This was examined by using the classic pairedassociate method. Subjects studied randomly paired meaningful items, denoted A-B, in temporal succession. Then the experimenter tested each pair by either probing with A for recall of B (a forward test) or probing with B for recall of A (a backward test). A finding of asymmetric retrieval (e.g., better forward than backward recall) was seen as evidence against ASH and in favor of IAH. Similarly, a failure to find the expectedasymmetry result was taken as support for the ASH, at least on grounds of parsimony (e.g., Asch & Ebenholtz, 1962;Murdock, 1962).Even if forward and backward recall are equivalent on average, this does not strictly imply symmetry. Rather, the ASH requires that for every studied pair, A-B, the probability of recalling B given A perfectly predicts the probability of recalling A given B. That is, the correlation between forward and backward recall, at the level of individual pairs, must be 1.0. At the other extreme, the IAH (e.g., Wolford, 1971) implies a correlation of 0.0 between forward and backward recall.Although there ha...

show abstract

Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words

Cited by 138 publications

References 9 publications

Fragile associations coexist with robust memories for precise details in long-term memory.

Fragile associations coexist with robust memories for precise details in long-term memory.

A Dynamic Approach to Recognition Memory

Associative symmetry and memory theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About