The differential effects of syntactical pairings on cued recall and recognition

Olson, Andrew Manfred

doi:10.3758/bf03333456

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…So noun-adjective pairs consistently produce more recognition failure of recallable words than is predicted by the TW function. These results are undoubtedly related to the earlier finding that, in the recognition-failure paradigm, noun-adjective pairs produced both lower levels of recognition and higher levels of recall than for either verb-noun or noun-noun pairs (Olson, 1974). In fact, Olson found that the level ofcued recall for the adjective was higher than the level of recognition, thus guaranteeing a nonzero level of recognition failure.…”

Section: P(rn Irc) = 50 + 58 P(rn) -49 P(rc) (4)supporting

confidence: 59%

Item-specific effects in recognition failure: Reasons for rejection of the Tulving-Wiseman function

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper addresses the problems of whether recognition failure of recallable words is a function of both recognition and recall, and whether recognition failure is restricted to a small and specifiable subset of study items. A meta-analysis of the Nilsson-Gardiner database showed that recognition given recall was positively correlated with recognition and negatively correlated with recall. Two new experiments are reported, the first one using 48 word pairs for which recognition failure was found in previous studies. An item analysis of the data demonstrated that recognition failure occurred primarily with noun-adjective pairs. The second experiment compared Norwegian-American and American-Norwegian name pairs. Widedeviation from the Tulving-Wiseman function (Tulving & Wiseman, 1975)was observed for the latter condition. In both conditions, recognition failure occurred with only the items for which the beginnings of names shared three or more letters. It is concluded that recognition failure occurs when there exists a relationship between the members of an A-B pair that is independent of their pairing in the study context. The Tulving-Wiseman function is the result of collapsing across items in the analysis of previous studies.Both remembering and forgetting are imperfect phenomena. A list item that is forgotten on one occasion may be remembered on a later occasion. Tulving and his colleagues (Tulving, 1983) have contributed many studies ofsuch fluctuations in retrieval that make use ofa common experimental paradigm, a procedure that has been called the recognition-failure paradigm. In this paradigm, subjects study a list of paired, A-B, items (e.g., cabbageround). After a certain retention interval, they are given a recognition test for the B words (e.g., round) in the absence ofthe A words. This is followed by a cued recall test in which they are given A (e.g., cabbage) and asked to retrieve B. Tulving found that a certain proportion of the B words that were not recognized when used as targets on the recognition test were nevertheless recalled in response to their corresponding A word in the cued recall test. This finding is commonly referred to as recognition failure of recallable words, or just recognition failure. -Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus Tulving (1983) organized the results of experiments using the recognition-failure paradigm in 2 X 2 contingency tables categorized according to success and failure in recognition (RN) and success and failure in recall (RC). Such tables give 4 unconditional and 8 conditional probabilities. The relation between recognition and recall is generally expressed by the conditional probability of recognition given recall, P(RN IRC). This measure, which is also called recognition success, is of course the complement of P(nRN IRC) (i.e., recognition failure of recallable words). Tulving and Wiseman (1975) reported that recognition success was related to the unconditional probability of recognition, P(RN). On the basis of a metaanalysis of the results o...

show abstract

Section: P(rn Irc) = 50 + 58 P(rn) -49 P(rc) (4)supporting

confidence: 59%

Item-specific effects in recognition failure: Reasons for rejection of the Tulving-Wiseman function

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Olson (1974) showed that the superiority of cued recal1 over recognition performance, found by Tulving and Thomson (1973) only holds for items that could be categorized as noun-adjective pairs. Further examination of the noun-adjective pairs used suggests that they are all concrete-concrete items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study was prompted by an attempt to investigate further the notions of encoding specificity (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) and integration of concrete word pairs (Begg, 1972). Olson (1974) showed that the superiority of cued recal1 over recognition performance, found by Tulving and Thomson (1973) only holds for items that could be categorized as noun-adjective pairs. Further examination of the noun-adjective pairs used suggests that they are all concrete-concrete items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Encoding specificity and integration of word pairs

Vito

1975

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word concreteness was shown to have a differential effect on recognition-cued recall differences for noun-adjective pairs in a variant of the Tulving and Thomson (1973) paradigm. Consistent with the notion of integration of concrete word pairs, cued recall was superior to recognition for concrete-concrete pairs, but not for other pair types. For abstract-concrete and abstract-abstract pairs the data suggested that recognition was superior to recall. For concrete-abstract pairs there was no difference between recognition and recall. This study was prompted by an attempt to investigate further the notions of encoding specificity (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) and integration of concrete word pairs (Begg, 1972). Olson (1974) showed that the superiority of cued recal1 over recognition performance, found by Tulving and Thomson (1973) only holds for items that could be categorized as noun-adjective pairs. Further examination of the noun-adjective pairs used suggests that they are all concrete-concrete items. Begg (1972) has shown that concrete-concrete adjective-noun pairs lead to better performance on a cued recall task as compared with a free recal1 task for the adjective members of the pairs. Begg argued that this is due to integrated memory structures aroused by concrete-concrete pairs.This study investigates the hypothesis that one factor that affects recall-recognition differences is the degree of integration of a given pair of words. It is proposed that a pair of concrete words is more likely to be encoded as an integrated unit and performance on a cued recall task would be relatively better in the Tulving and Thomson paradigm. On the other hand, word pairs other than concrete-concrete tend not be encoded as integrated units and recognition would be expected to be better than recall. METHOD SubjectsThe subjects were IS volunteers from the introductory psychology course at Brooklyn College. MaterialsThree lists of noun-adjective pairs were constructed . One of the lists, the crit ical list, was used to test the experimental hypothesis while the other two were "priming" lists. Th e critical list was composed of both "high" and " low concreteness' nouns from the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms, and "high" and "low concreteness' adjectives used by Begg (1972). Stimulus and response concreteness were varied factorially, yielding six pairs each of concrete-concrete (CC), concre te-abstract (CA), abstract-concrete (AC), and abstract-abstract (AA) words . An independent judge with experi ence in the verbal learning area selected pairs so that they were approximately equal in

show abstract

A test of confusion theory of encoding specificity

Wiseman¹,

Tulving²

1975

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The differential effects of syntactical pairings on cued recall and recognition

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Item-specific effects in recognition failure: Reasons for rejection of the Tulving-Wiseman function

Item-specific effects in recognition failure: Reasons for rejection of the Tulving-Wiseman function

Encoding specificity and integration of word pairs

A test of confusion theory of encoding specificity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About