Retrieval dynamics of priming in recognition memory: Bias and discrimination analysis.

Dosher, Barbara Anne; McElree, Brian; Hood, Ronald; Rosedale, Glenda

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.868

Cited by 27 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SAT procedures have been effectively used in several domains to isolate the contributions of component processes with different underlying time courses (e.g., Dosher, 1984;Dosher, McElree, Hood, & Rosedale, 1989;Gronlund & Ratcliff, 1989;Hintzman & Curran, 1994;McElree & Griffith, 1995;Ratcliff & McKoon, 1982. The general research strategy has been similar to that of the Jacoby (1999) study in that differences in false-alarm rates have been used to track the time course of component processes.…”

Section: Satmentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolating the contributions of familiarity and source information to item recognition: A time course analysis.

McElree¹,

Dolan²,

Jacoby³

1999

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

126

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition memory may be mediated by the retrieval of distinct types of information, notably, a general assessment of familiarity and the recovery of specific source information. A responsesignal speed-accuracy trade-off variant of an exclusion procedure was used to isolate the retrieval time course for familiarity and source information. In 2 experiments, participants studied spoken and read lists (with various numbers of presentations) and then performed an exclusion task, judging an item as old only if it was in the heard list. Dual-process fits of the time course data indicated that familiarity information typically is retrieved before source information. The implications that these data have for models of recognition, including dual-process and global memory models, are discussed.Recognition memory may be based at times on a simple assessment of familiarity and at other times on the retrieval of a structured set of associative information that includes the source of the memory. Dual-process models make this argument explicit, positing that recognition can be mediated by a general assessment of familiarity and by recollection processes that recover specific source information (e

show abstract

Section: Satmentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolating the contributions of familiarity and source information to item recognition: A time course analysis.

McElree¹,

Dolan²,

Jacoby³

1999

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

126

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inspection of Table A1 shows that false-alarm rates for both conditions monotonically decreased across lag; however, the differences across lag in false-alarm rate for the two types of lures is nonmonotonic. The pattern can be highlighted by a type of d′ scaling, here referred to as scaling, in which the z score for the false-alarm rate for list lures is scaled against the false-alarm rate for the nonlist lures (Dosher, McElree, Hood, & Rosedale, 1989;McElree, Dolan, & Jacoby, 1999;. With this scaling, a denotes poorer performance as a result of a higher false-alarm rate for list lures, a denotes lower false-alarm rates for list lures, and a denotes equal false-alarm rates.…”

Section: Rejecting Lures Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A dual-process retrieval model can be used to examine whether the false-alarm rates observed here are consistent with this contention. Ratcliff (1980) derived a two-process SAT model from the diffusion (random walk) model (see Dosher et al, 1989, for an application to a priming paradigm), and in this approach was adapted to the exponential form:…”

Section: Rejecting Lures Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working memory and focal attention.

McElree¹

2001

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

340

385

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measures of retrieval speed indicated that only a small subset of representations in working memory falls within the focus of attention. An n-back task, which required tracking an item 1, 2, or 3 back in a sequentially presented list, was used to examine the representation and retrieval of recent events and how control processes can be used to maintain an item in focal attention while concurrently processing new information. A speed-accuracy trade-off procedure was used to derive measures of the availability and the speed with which recent events can be accessed. Results converge with other time course studies in demonstrating that attention can be concurrently allocated only to a small number of memory representations, perhaps just 1 item. Measures of retrieval speed further demonstrate that order information is retrieved by a slow search process when an item is not maintained within focal attention.Many core operations in complex cognitive tasks depend on the by-products of recent perceptual and cognitive processing. In language comprehension, for example, a reader/ listener is frequently required to resolve long-distance dependencies in which a constituent assigns a grammatical and semantic role to a representation of a phrase processed at a much earlier point in the sentence (e.g., McElree, 2000). Similarly, subgoals in reasoning and problem solving often require access to the products of operations applied in earlier subgoals (e.g., Anderson, 1983).The amount of information that can be processed at one time is limited, and, in many cases, it is unlikely that all the relevant by-products of recent processing can be actively maintained in the focus of attention. Whenever information exceeds the span of attention, successful execution of a cognitive operation requires shunting information between memory and focal attention. The span of attention places constraints on possible cognitive operations and the manner in which various mental computations must be performed. Determining the capacity of focal attention and how focal attention interfaces with different memory systems is an essential part of understanding complex cognitive tasks.The experiments reported here use the n-back task (Awh et al., 1996;Cohen et al., 1994Cohen et al., , 1997Dobbs & Rule, 1989;See & Ryan, 1995; to examine how much information can be maintained in focal attention while concurrently processing new information. Additionally, the task was used to examine the closely related issue of how information is shunted between memory and focal attention when attentional capacity is exceeded. The n-back task requires judging whether an item matches the nth-item back (e.g., 1-back, 2-back, 3-back) in a sequentially presented list of items. It challenges individuals to maintain the n-back item in focal attention while concurrently processing new items. Substantial demands are placed on control (executive) processes, because the response set NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript must be continually updat...

show abstract

“…For cases in which late-accruing information engenders differential dynamics, see, among others, Dosher, McElree, Hood, and Rosedale (1989), McElree, Dolan, and Jacoby (1999), McElree and Griffith (1995), and Ratcliff andMcKoon (1982, 1989 SI 180 181 207 299 268 240 245 265 S2 403 436 236 273 390 226 271 213 S3 1,111 909 94 372 222 289 254 231 S4 305 315 187 240 100 310 401 303 S5 233 293 340 252 641 1,219 246 215 S6 280 202 336 376 263 396 243 255 S7 240 292 49 104 1,123 751 54 148 S8 456 418 297 289 100 235 ...…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time

McElree

Nordlie

1999

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Self Cite

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The time courses for constructing literal and figurative interpretations of simple propositions were measured with the response signal, speed-accuracy tradeoff procedure. No differences were found in comprehension speed for literal and figurative strings in a task that required judging whether a string of words was meaningful. Likewise, no differences were found in processing speed for nonsense and figurative strings in a task that required judging whether a string of words was literally true. Figurative strings were less likely to be judged meaningful than were literal strings and less likely to be rejected as literally true than were nonsense strings. The absence of time-course differences is inconsistent with approaches to figurative processing that contend that a figurative interpretation is computed after an anomalous literal interpretation. The time-course profiles suggest that literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time but that the meaning of the latter is less constrained than that of the former.

show abstract

Retrieval dynamics of priming in recognition memory: Bias and discrimination analysis.

Cited by 27 publications

References 52 publications

Isolating the contributions of familiarity and source information to item recognition: A time course analysis.

Isolating the contributions of familiarity and source information to item recognition: A time course analysis.

Working memory and focal attention.

Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About