2005
DOI: 10.1080/09658210344000242
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sharpening the echo: An iterative‐resonance model for short‐term recognition memory

Abstract: We present an iterative-resonance model for recognition memory. On successive iterations, the probe is compared against a feature-by-feature profile of the study set. Yes decisions depend on the similarity of the probe to the profile; No decisions depend on a count of elements in the probe that are not in the profile. Successive iterations sharpen the evidence, and response latency is a function of the number of iterations needed to obtain a sufficiently clear result. The model successfully simulates classic d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
47
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
4
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, more recent computational approaches to recognition do not just consider the information suggesting the item might be old but, rather, they often contrast the evidence of item ''oldness'' with the evidence of item ''newness'' (e.g., Glanzer, Adams, Iverson, & Kim, 1993;Hilford, Glanzer, & Kim, 1997;Mewhort & Johns, 2005;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997). Within this context, perhaps the reason why there are fewer false alarms to words than nonwords is really due to the ability of mismatching semantic information, when considered, to contribute to the evidence of ''newness'' for a new item.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…However, more recent computational approaches to recognition do not just consider the information suggesting the item might be old but, rather, they often contrast the evidence of item ''oldness'' with the evidence of item ''newness'' (e.g., Glanzer, Adams, Iverson, & Kim, 1993;Hilford, Glanzer, & Kim, 1997;Mewhort & Johns, 2005;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997). Within this context, perhaps the reason why there are fewer false alarms to words than nonwords is really due to the ability of mismatching semantic information, when considered, to contribute to the evidence of ''newness'' for a new item.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…There are already disparate suggestions in the literature that difference information may be utilized in recognition, identification, and categorization tasks. In recognition, Johns (e.g., Johns &Mewhort, 2002, 2003;Mewhort & Johns, 2000, 2005 have argued that, under some circumstances, correct rejections of test items may be made on the basis of the difference between a test item and list items, rather than on the basis of familiarity as traditional accounts assume (although cf. Dennis & Humphreys, 2001).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…The particular combinations that we do consider are ones that have received considerable support in past research on short-term memory search. Of course, we believe that our RT distribution data will also be valuable for helping to evaluate modern alternatives that are not members of these three classes, such as the iterative-resonance model of Mewhort and Johns (2005) or dual-process accounts of shortterm recognition (Oberauer, 2008). only a short interval between presentation of the memory set and presentation of the test probe.…”
Section: Overall Research Planmentioning
confidence: 99%