Repetition and laterality effects on recognition memory for words and pictures*

Abstract

Recognition memory for a list of words was tested by presenting a series of items with Ss instructed to make positive responses to targets (list items) and negative responses to distractors (nonlist items). The test items were either words or pictures. and they were presented tachistoscopically either to the left or right visual field. The results showed mean response latencies to be generally faster for stimuli presented to the right visual field. Response times were faster for target and distractor stimuli on their second test presentations than on initial tests. but this effect was much larger for targets. Repetitions were shown to decrease the amount of time necessary to execute the stimulus encoding and initial retrieval stages of recognition. This was also true. although to a lesser extent. if different stimulus forms (words or pictures) were used on the two tests. Subsequent recognition stages, including memory search and decision processes. were apparently independent of test stimulus form.

Hemispheric differences in stimulus identification

“…This finding agrees with previous research employing a manual RT identification task and faces as nonverbal stimuli (Geffen et al, 1971;Moscovitch et al, 1976;Rizzolatti et al, 1971). However, this finding is contrary to previous studies that employed outlines of common objects or geometric forms and found inconsistent hemispheric effects (Juola, 1973;Klatzky & Atkinson, 1971). Since these "nonverbal" stimuli do have well-learned labels, they could have been rehearsed given the procedure employed.…”

“…Occasionally, lefthemisphere presentations have yielded superior performance (Paivio & Ernest, 1971). Inconsistent results have also been obtained for these nonverbal stimuli when manual RT is employed as the dependent measure (Juola, 1973;Klatzky & Atkinson, 1971;Umilta, Rizzolatti, Marzi, Zamboni, Franzini, Camarda, & Berlucchi, 1974).…”

“…A matching-to-memory procedure, by eliminating any overt stimulus labeling, could provide a means to evaluate just the effects of the type of stimulus, but very few studies have employed such a task for both types of stimulus materials. When this has been done with outlines of common objects as the nonverbal stimuli and letters or words as the verbal stimuli, inconsistent hemispheric effects have been obtained (Juola, 1973;Klatzky & Atkinson, 1971), possibly because the outline forms have readily available labels (e.g., "tree," "house," etc.) which could affect hemispheric differences for stimulus identification.…”

Neurophysiological Manifestations of Recollective Experience during Recognition Memory Judgments

“…It is also worth noting that although left temporal lobe lesions eliminate the MES, recognition increases across multiple study episodes (of the same "old" stimulus items) at an equal rate for these patients and for normal control subjects (Smith & Halgren, 1989). Such repetition priming has traditionally been thought to mainly benefit the familiarity component of recognition (e.g., Atkinson & Juola, 1973;Juola, 1973), and has recently been reported to selectively increase the proportion of K responses on the modified recognition test (Macken & Hampson, 1991;Rajaram, 1992).…”

Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.

“…(p. 490; cf. also Juola, 1973). It seems to be both intuitively and theoretically reasonable to assign the psychological processes underlying the experience of familiarity to a perceptual process.…”