When item recognition and visual search functions are similar

Kristofferson, Marianne W.

doi:10.3758/bf03207225

Cited by 64 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in contrastto the varied-set procedure, in which subjects are given a new memory set on each trial before presentation of the probe. In the fixed-set procedure, memory set size is typicallyconfoundedwith the number of trials per item(e.g., Briggs & Johnsen, 1973;Burrows & Murdock, 1969;Graboi, 1971;Kristofferson, 1972;Lively, 1972;Logan, 1978;Neisser, Novick, & Lazar, 1963;Ross, 1970;Simpson, 1972). Becauseof this confounding, the probability of an immediate repetition decreases as set size increases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a search in fixed-set memory search?

Stadler

Logan

1989

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss the hypothesis that structural factors in the fixed-set memory-search task may contribute to the standard linear set-size effect typically observed in this task. We constructed a lexical decision task that contained the same structural factors as the memory-search task. Two structural factors are discussed: (1) the priming of the probe by the memory set, and (2) the confounding of repetitions per item with set size. Our experiment demonstrated that these structural factors playa role in the set-size effect. The implications of these effects for the memorysearch task and for models proposed to account for memory-search data are discussed.One of the most well-known tasks in modem psychology is the memory-search task popularized by Sternberg (1966Sternberg ( , 1967Sternberg ( , 1969Sternberg ( , 1975. In this task, a subject is asked to comparean item, or probe, againsta previously memorized list of items, called the memory set, and to decide whether or not the probe item is a memberof the memory set. A common finding is that reaction time for the decision on the probe item is a linear function of the number of items in the memory set, both for items that are members of the set (positive probes) and for items that are not (negative probes). Sternberg interpreted these data to indicate a serial and exhaustive comparison of the probe item to the items in the memory set: serial because the functions are linear, suggesting a one-by-one comparison process, and exhaustive because the positive and negative functions are parallel, suggestingthat, in both cases, the subject searches the entire memory set.Sincethe introduction of the memory-search task, it has been used widely and in many variations, and many alternatives to Sternberg's interpretations have followed (see Townsend & Ashby, 1983, for a thorough discussion of these). The central theme in this literature has been the idea that the increases seen in reaction time with the additionof itemsto the memoryset (theset-size effect) reflect the operationof some sort of comparison processin which the probe is compared to the items in the memory set.However, there are structural factors in the memorysearch procedure that may account, at least in part, for the set-size effect without assuming a comparison process. In the fixed-set version of the memory-search task, memory set size is manipulated between blocks; subjects This research was supported by Grant BNS 8510365 from the National Science Foundation to Gordon Logan. The authors would like to thank Michael Corballis, Alice F. Healy, James H. Neely, Henry L. Roediger ill, and anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Requests for reprints may beaddressed to Michael Stadler, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5501. use one memory set for several trials in succession. This is in contrastto the varied-set procedure, in which subjects are given a new memory set on each trial before presentation of the probe. In the fixed-set p...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a search in fixed-set memory search?

Stadler

Logan

1989

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here the experimental design included both com plete response consistency, where each item in the stimulus set always required only a positive or only a negative response, and nested positive sets, where each positive set contained all the items contained in smaller positive sets. Although the slopes of Kristofferson's (1972b) CRT curves never equalIed zero, they closely approximated flatness in the last 14 days of the 25-day experiment. The importance of this finding is that the effects of prolonged practice on item recognition could be made to simulate the effects of very brief practice on visual search (Neisser, Novick, & Lazar, 1963;Wattenbarger, 1968): parallel processing could be obtained in both paradigms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The monotonie function predieted by a serial search model has not been obtained in several character classification experiments (Clifton, 1973;Kristofferson, 1972b). Sometimes the serial search model has been invoked only because predictions based on a parallel search model were too difficult to derive (e.g., Snodgrass, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kristofferson (1972a) used a standard character classification procedure and obtained the same result as Mowbray and Rhoades (1959), though only the intercepts of the CRT function diminished with practice. Later, Kristofferson (1972b) obtained : diminished intercepts and slopes for response latencies of well-practiced Ss. Here the experimental design included both com plete response consistency, where each item in the stimulus set always required only a positive or only a negative response, and nested positive sets, where each positive set contained all the items contained in smaller positive sets.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rule use in character classification: Are serial and parallel processing discrete?

Rosenbaum

1974

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrary to predictions of a stochastic self-terrninating search model, choice reaction times were lower for rulebound positive sets than for nonrulebound positive sets when memory set sizes were varied and stimulus probabilities were held constant. The result suggests that rule use and chunking, as opposed to probability alone, facilitate character classification. As a corollary, it is proposed that serial and parallel processing differ in degree rather than in kind. The extent to which the memory set has been chunked is the critical variable affecting Ss' scanning practices.In a character classifieation experiment, the S learns a list and then decides as quickly as possible whether single items presented later belong in the list. Generally , the time required to make the decision increases monotonically with the length of the list (Sternberg, 1966). This fact suggests that Ss compare the test item with each item in the memorized list in aserial fashion. One of the surprising discoveries made with the character classification procedure is that an equal amount of time is taken to indieate whether an item is a member of the list or not. Intuitively, one would expect judgments of membership to take much less time than judgments of nonmernbership, since the memory search would be expected to stop when a positive match is made between a test and list item. But because choice reaction times (CRTs) for judgments of membership and norimembership are roughly equal and can be represented by curves of equal slope, it seems that judgments are made after an exhaustive search through the memory set (Atkinson, Holmgren, & Juola, 1969;Briggs & Blaha, 1969;Sternberg, 1966).Objections have been raised against the claims that a serial and exhaustive search is used in character classification. The monotonie function predieted by a serial search model has not been obtained in several character classification experiments (Clifton, 1973;Kristofferson, 1972b). Sometimes the serial search model has been invoked only because predictions based on a parallel search model were too difficult to derive (e.g., Snodgrass, 1973). Many experiments using tasks other than character classification have yielded results which only a parallel search model could predict (Egeth, Jonidas, & Wall, 1972;Leonard, 1961; Morin, Koniek, Troxell, & McPherson, 1965;Neisser, 1963;Neisser, Novick, & Lazar, 1963; Travers, 1973 Tisseyre, 1966; Biederman & Zachary, 1970;Falmagne, 1965;Hawkins, Thomas, & Drury, 1970;Hyman, 1953;Orenstein, 1970) and sequential effects on reaction time (Bertelson, 1963(Bertelson, , 1965Falmagne, 1965; Leonard, Newman, & Carpenter, 1969;Remington, 1969;Schvaneveldt & Chase, 1969). Opponents of the exhaustive search model have proposed that scanning is carried out in a self-terminating manner: all items are stored with their respective positive or negative choiee responses; these paired associates are stochastically ordered in memory stacks according to their recency and frequency.In the present paper, the stochastic self-terminatin...

show abstract

“…There is some evidence that the slope of the set size function (Le., the function relating mean reaction time and set size) decreases over trials (Kristofferson, 1972;Ross, 1970). However, the decrease in slope may have been produced not by repeated scanning, but by repeated presentations (including tests) of items in the memory set.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A search for scanning residue in recognition memory

Muter

Murdock

1977

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An attempt was made to find evidence for scanning residue in a modified Sternberg U9661 procedure. Lists of two. three. or four words drawn from a large pool were presented to four subjects in a completely within-subjects design. Trials were in pairs such that the list was the same for both trials within a pair. The test item on Trial 1 was either a word. which cued the subject to perform a recognition memory task. or a digit. which cued the subject to perform an irrelevant task. The test item on Trial 2 was always a word. No scanning residue was found: The slope of the reaction time/set size function on Trial 2 was not affected by the type of test on Triall.Several models of recognition memory have postulated a scan of the memorized items. To varying extents, these models are consistent with data. However, direct evidence of scanning-for example, evidence of aftereffects of scanning, or scanning residue-has not been provided. An earlier experiment yielded no scanning residue in recognition memory for items from long lists (Murdock, Hockley, & Muter, in press, Experiment 3). The purpose of the present study was to look for scanning residue in the recognition of items from short lists.The scanning models under consideration were proposed to explain the results of an experiment by Sternberg (I 966), who asked subjects to indicate whether a test item was a member of a previously memorized set of one to six items. Mean reaction time was a linear function of set size, and the slope of the function for positive items (test items which were members of the list) was equal to the slope for negative items (test items which were not members of the list).

show abstract

When item recognition and visual search functions are similar

Cited by 64 publications

References 6 publications

Is there a search in fixed-set memory search?

Is there a search in fixed-set memory search?

Rule use in character classification: Are serial and parallel processing discrete?

A search for scanning residue in recognition memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About