The Cognitive Psychology of Proper Names

Valentine, Tim; Brennen, Tim; Brédart, Serge

doi:10.4324/9780203285763

Cited by 143 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was chosen for a number ofreasons. First, there is a highly successful informationprocessing model of face identification by Bruce and Young (1986) in which there are sequential but distinct functional subcomponents or stages, with failure at any one ofthem resulting in failure to produce a person's name (see Valentine, Brennen, & Bredart, 1996, for a summary of more recent support for the model). Each face that a person knows is represented by a separate face recognition unit (FRU).…”

Section: Maylormentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieving names in old age: Short- and (very) long-term effects of repetition

Maylor

1998

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments are reported that examine the effects of repetition on name retrieval in younger adults (in their 50s and 60s) and older adults (in their 70s and 80s). In Experiment 1,the subjects were asked to name a set of famous faces four times over the course of a L-h session. Younger subjects produced significantly more correct responses than did older subjects. There was significant improvement with repeated attempts at naming, with younger and older subjects benefiting equally in terms of increasing numbers of correct responses across the session. In contrast, there was a highly significant age deficit in picture recognition over a similar retention interval. A qualitative analysis of naming responses (full name vs. part of the name) provided support for the view that aging and nonrecent use have equivalent effects on retrieval. In Experiment 2, younger subjects (but not older subjects) were significantly more likely to correctly name famous faces that they had seen 22 months previously than to correctly name new famous faces. In contrast, older subjects (but not younger subjects) were significantly more likely to produce erroneous names to famous faces that they had seen 22 months previously than to new famous faces. It is concluded that repetition priming may be relatively unaffected by aging over short retention intervals (Experiment 1) but not over a very long retention interval (Experiment 2).Memory tasks such as free recall and recognition are examples of explicit memory; that is, performance on the task requires conscious recollection of a previous experience. In contrast, implicit memory is revealed when performance on a task is influenced by a previous experience but in the absence of conscious or intentional recollection of that experience (Graf & Schacter, 1985). Recent evidence on implicit memory comes largely from studies ofrepetition priming, which refers to the facilitation in the processing ofa stimulus (either improved accuracy or reduced latency) as a function ofa recent encounter with the same stimulus (see Schacter, 1987, for a review).Implicit memory can be dissociated from explicit memory in a number ofways. First, performance on implicit and explicit memory tasks is affected differentially by various experimental manipulations. One such factor that is relevant to the present study is retention interval. For exThis research was reported at a meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society, Cambridge, England, April 1995. This article was written while the author was employed at the Medical Research Council's Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge, UK. I am grateful to Patrick Rabbitt for access to volunteers at North East Age Research (University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne) and to Catherine Brennard, Joyce Hunter, Lynn Mcinnes, and Louise Turner for their assistance in the recruiting and testing of subjects, I also thank Andy Calder for some of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 and Hilary Green for assistance with data analysis. David Mitchell and an anonymous reviewer provided helpful commen...

show abstract

Section: Maylormentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrieving names in old age: Short- and (very) long-term effects of repetition

Maylor

1998

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, there may be some characteristic of people's names that makes them particularly difficult to retrieve (e.g., Burke et al, 1991;Griffin, 2010;Valentine et al, 1996). According to Burke et al's (1991) "node structure theory," an additional stage is required for retrieval of people's names that is not involved in the recall of common names.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why are names of people associated with so many phonological retrieval failures?

Hanley

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments are reported that revisit the issue of why people's names are more difficult to recall than common names such as the names of objects. In Experiment 1, retrieval of the names of a set of object pictures was compared with recall of a set of names of famous faces. The object and face sets were matched for preexperimental familiarity. The results showed significantly more tip-of-the tongue (TOT) states and significantly poorer name recall for faces than for objects. Although the overall numbers of incorrect answers for the two sets of items did not differ, the incorrect answers in the face condition were mostly "don't know" responses, whereas incorrect answers for objects were mostly alternative names. In Experiment 2, written definitions were used instead of pictures, and target items were selected so as to keep the number of alternatives to a minimum. Under these circumstances, there were no differences in either the number of items correctly named or the number of TOTs for common and people's names. These findings are consistent with the views of Brédart (Memory, 1, 351-366, 1993), who argued that there are fewer documented TOTs for common names because a semantically related alternative often comes to mind when a participant is experiencing, or is about to experience, a retrieval failure.

show abstract

“…This review (Gainotti, 2007) has been conducted making reference, on one hand to the cognitive model of face recognition, proposed by Bruce & Young (1986), and, on the other hand, to the Interaction Activation and Competition (IAC) model of people recognition proposed by Burton, Bruce & Johnston (1990) and developed by Bredart, Valentine, Caldor & Gassi (1995), Valentine, Brennen & Bredart (1996) and Burton, Bruce & Hancock (1999), because these models make different predictions with respect to the locus of generation of familiarity feelings and to the module where personal semantic knowledge is stored. In the Bruce & Young (1986), model (a) familiarity feelings are generated in the Recognition Units and (b) personal semantic is stored in PINs, considered as specific semantic archives, whereas in the IAC model, familiarity feelings are linked to the PINs, considered as a modality-free gateway, allowing access to a unitary semantic system, where person-specific semantic information is stored in an abstract and amodal format.…”

Section: A Review Of the Patterns Of Familiar People Recognition Disomentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neuropsychology of Familiar Person Recognition from Face and Voice

2014

Psychologica Belgica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Cognitive Psychology of Proper Names

Cited by 143 publications

References 0 publications

Retrieving names in old age: Short- and (very) long-term effects of repetition

Retrieving names in old age: Short- and (very) long-term effects of repetition

Why are names of people associated with so many phonological retrieval failures?

The Neuropsychology of Familiar Person Recognition from Face and Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About