The recognition without cued recall phenomenon: Support for a feature-matching theory over a partial recollection account

Ryals, Anthony J.; Cleary, Anne M.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.01.002

Cited by 28 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many researchers of recognition memory have long argued that recognition can occur solely on the basis of a general sense of familiarity (e.g., Diana, Reder, Arndt, & Park, 2006;Mandler, 1991Mandler, , 2008Ryals & Cleary, 2012;Yonelinas, 2002), and some have argued that familiarity detection itself may have an emotional component, possibly involving arousal (e.g., Goldinger & Hansen, 2005;Morris et al, 2008). Future research should examine whether the effects reported here involve an emotional component.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Intuitively detecting what is hidden within a visual mask: Familiar–novel discrimination and threat detection for unidentified stimuli

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition without identification is the finding that, among recognition test items that go unidentified (as when a word is unidentified from a fragment), participants can discriminate those that were studied from those that were unstudied. In the present study, we extended this phenomenon to the more life-like situation of discriminating known from novel stimuli. Pictures of famous and nonfamous faces (Exp. 1), famous and nonfamous scenes (Exp. 2), and threatening and nonthreatening images (Exp. 3) were filtered in order to impede identification. As in list-learning recognition-without-identification paradigms, participants attempted to identify each image (e.g., whose face it was, what scene it was, or what was in the picture) and rated how familiar the image seemed on a scale of 0 (very unfamiliar) to 10 (very familiar). Among the unidentified stimuli, higher familiarity ratings were given to famous than to nonfamous faces (Exp. 1) and scenes (Exp. 2), and to threatening than to nonthreatening living/animate (but not to nonliving/nonanimate) images (Exp. 3). These findings suggest that even when a stimulus is too occluded to allow for conscious identification, enough information can be processed to allow a sense of familiarity or novelty with it, which appears also to be related to the sense of whether or not a living creature is a threat. That the sense of familiarity for unidentified stimuli may be related to threat detection for living or animate things suggests that it may be an adaptive aspect of human memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Intuitively detecting what is hidden within a visual mask: Familiar–novel discrimination and threat detection for unidentified stimuli

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ryals and Cleary (2012) suggested that cue familiarity when target retrieval fails (e.g., Cleary, 2004;Cleary, Ryals, & Nomi, 2009) can be brought on by the type of feature-matching process described by global-matching models (e.g., Clark & Gronlund, 1996). Ryals and Cleary's cues were nonwords (e.g., foneheed) that potentially resembled studied words (e.g., forehead) graphemically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments for inaccessible targets: Comparing recognition without identification and the feeling of knowing

Nomi

Cleary

2012

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both the recognition-without-identification (RWI) and feeling-of-knowing (FOK) paradigms attempt to tap participants' sense about a target that is inaccessible. In the case of RWI, participants judge the likelihood that the inaccessible target was studied. In the case of FOKs, participants judge the likelihood that the inaccessible target will be recognized at a later point in time. The present study compared the two using a hybrid paradigm. The patterns of responding differed depending on whether the judgment was of the RWI type or the FOK type. For the former, ratings were significantly higher for studied than for unstudied inaccessible targets (the typical RWI effect). For the latter, ratings were significantly lower for studied than for unstudied inaccessible targets (a reversal of the usual RWI effect). Similarity of the targets and distractors diminished the usual RWI effect, but not its reversal in the FOK situation, suggesting that the bases of the two effects differ. A potential explanation is that when participants judge whether an inaccessible target was presented earlier, they are oriented toward relying on cue familiarity, which should be greater for cues of studied targets, whereas when they judge whether they will recognize an inaccessible target later on, they are oriented toward relying on the accessibility of information, which is greater in the unstudied condition, due to the lack of priming of the targets.

show abstract

“…In support of the feature-matching hypothesis, graphemic cues that resembled four studied words (but for which none of those studied words was recalled in response to the cue) received higher familiarity ratings than graphemic cues for which recall failed but that resembled only one studied word (which in turn received higher ratings than graphemic cues that did not resemble any studied words). In short, Ryals and Cleary (2012) found support for a featurematching account of RWCR when the cue resemblance to studied items is graphemic in nature.The present study is concerned with whether the featurematching approach can plausibly account for RWCR that is found when cue resemblance to studied items is semantic in nature. Cleary (2004) demonstrated that when participants studied words (e.g., cheetah) and were tested with semantically related cues (e.g., jaguar), participants gave higher ratings to those cues that semantically resembled studied words than to those that did not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

“…Ryals and Cleary (2012) suggest that at least one basis for this experience may be a feature-matching process, whereby features (i.e., attributes) of the current situation are compared with those of representations stored in memory to produce a sense of familiarity that varies according to the degree of match. Ryals and Cleary (2012) used the example of recognizing the street sign for "Marston" as familiar because of its high degree of featurematch to a recently-seen street sign, "Morton." Despite failing to trigger recall of having recently passed a street sign for "Morton," the new sign "Marston" may still seem familiar because of its high degree of feature-overlap with the recently-encountered sign "Morton."…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A similar finding was obtained with study word emotionality: Though emotional words were better later recalled in response to the non-word cues than neutral words, the familiarity ratings to the non-word cues that graphemically resembled unrecalled studied words were unaffected by study word emotionality. In short, as is consistent with the feature-matching hypothesis, the magnitude of the RWCR effect for graphemic cues was unaffected by study word concreteness or emotionality.Second, Ryals and Cleary (2012) reasoned that increasing the overlap between studied features and features in the test cue itself should increase the RWCR effect, since the degree of feature-match between the cue and the memory representations should matter to any global feature-matching process. To examine this, they carried out an experiment in which the nonword test cues (e.g., potchbork) graphemically resembled either four studied words (e.g., pitchfork, patchwork, pocketbook, pullcork), one studied word (e.g., pitchfork) or zero studied words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recognition during recall failure: Semantic feature matching as a mechanism for recognition of semantic cues when recall fails

Cleary

Ryals²,

Wagner

2015

Mem Cogn

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research suggests that a feature-matching process underlies cue familiarity-detection when cued recall with graphemic cues fails. When a test cue (e.g., potchbork) overlaps in graphemic features with multiple unrecalled studied items (e.g., patchwork, pitchfork, pocketbook, pullcork), higher cue familiarity ratings are given during recall failure of all of the targets than when the cue overlaps in graphemic features with only one studied target and that target fails to be recalled (e.g., patchwork). The present study used semantic feature production norms (McRae et al., Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547-559, 2005) to examine whether the same holds true when the cues are semantic in nature (e.g., jaguar is used to cue cheetah). Indeed, test cues (e.g., cedar) that overlapped in semantic features (e.g., a_tree, has_bark, etc.) with four unretrieved studied items (e.g., birch, oak, pine, willow) received higher cue familiarity ratings during recall failure than test cues that overlapped in semantic features with only two (also unretrieved) studied items (e.g., birch, oak), which in turn received higher familiarity ratings during recall failure than cues that did not overlap in semantic features with any studied items. These findings suggest that the featurematching theory of recognition during recall failure can accommodate recognition of semantic cues during recall failure, providing a potential mechanism for conceptually-based forms of cue recognition during target retrieval failure. They also provide converging evidence for the existence of the semantic features envisaged in feature-based models of semantic knowledge representation and for those more concretely specified by the production norms of McRae et al. (Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547-559, 2005). Keywords Familiarity in recognition memory . Semantic memory . RecognitionWhat leads something to seem familiar despite a failure to recall any specific prior experience with it? Ryals and Cleary (2012) suggest that at least one basis for this experience may be a feature-matching process, whereby features (i.e., attributes) of the current situation are compared with those of representations stored in memory to produce a sense of familiarity that varies according to the degree of match. Ryals and Cleary (2012) used the example of recognizing the street sign for "Marston" as familiar because of its high degree of featurematch to a recently-seen street sign, "Morton." Despite failing to trigger recall of having recently passed a street sign for "Morton," the new sign "Marston" may still seem familiar because of its high degree of feature-overlap with the recently-encountered sign "Morton." The letter and sound features shared between the cue "Marston" and the memory for "Morton" may participate in the aforementioned featurematching process such that a detectable familiarity signal emerges upon encountering Marston -a familiarity signal that exceeds some internal criterion for discriminating signals ...

show abstract

The recognition without cued recall phenomenon: Support for a feature-matching theory over a partial recollection account

Cited by 28 publications

References 53 publications

Intuitively detecting what is hidden within a visual mask: Familiar–novel discrimination and threat detection for unidentified stimuli

Intuitively detecting what is hidden within a visual mask: Familiar–novel discrimination and threat detection for unidentified stimuli

Judgments for inaccessible targets: Comparing recognition without identification and the feeling of knowing

Recognition during recall failure: Semantic feature matching as a mechanism for recognition of semantic cues when recall fails

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About