Where does the confusion lief: Comments on the Wiseman and Tulving paper

Santa, John L.; Lamwers, Linda L.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(76)90006-2

Cited by 37 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, participants in Thomson and TulvingÕs (1970) study may still have been unsure as to the appropriate retrieval space (weak associates or strong associates of the cue) in which the target could be found, despite the mixed-list design. This uncertainty may have resulted in poor target production with strong test cues (see also Santa & Lamwers, 1976).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generation failure: Estimating metacognition in cued recall

Higham¹,

Tam²

2005

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generation failure: Estimating metacognition in cued recall

Higham¹,

Tam²

2005

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to Anderson and Bower (1972) the search process is obviated when subjects are given a copy cue of a tobe-remembered item and, thus, only the de-•cision process remains to be executed. Recent research and theorizing in the memory literature have seriously questioned whether recall and recognition can be separated in this fashion (e.g., Tulving & Thomson, 1973), but the issue is far from settled (e.g., Santa & Lamwers, 1976). However, if we assume for the moment that this model is viable, then it can be predicted that highly responsive subjects, who are presumably experiencing a disruption in search, will show a greater increase in retention on recognition testing above their initial recall level than will low responsive subjects who are not experiencing difficulties in search.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recall and recognition memory during posthypnotic amnesia: A failure to confirm the disrupted-search hypothesis and the memory disorganization hypothesis.

Jean¹,

Coe²

1981

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has led some investigators to hypothesize that posthypnotic amnesia is characterized by a disruption in the memory search process and, more generally, by disorganization in memory retrieval. Data to test these hypotheses were provided by 141 male and female undergraduates administered the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scales, Forms B and C. Amnesia was assessed by the usual recall criterion and by a batch recognition-testing procedure. The disruptedsearch hypothesis, tested by comparing the effects of the amnesia suggestion on recall and recognition, was not supported. The use of recognition items, rank ordered by subjects according to their judgment of order of administration, furnished data to test the memory disorganization hypothesis. In support of this hypothesis, analyses of the temporal rankings of recognized items revealed greater disorganization in the memory of subjects who were initially amnesic by recall criteria than those who were partially amnesic or nonamnesic. Nevertheless, a number of other findings, including the fact that fewer than 50% of the initially amnesic subjects showed disorganized recognition and that the disorganization effect during recall was weak and inconsistent, call into question the explanatory power of this hypothesis. Recent research in posthypnotic amnesia has sought to identify its underlying processes. Much of this work has been done by Kihlstrom and Evans (Evans & Kihlstrom, 1973; Kihlstrom, 1977; Kihlstrom, 1978; Kihlstrom & Evans, 1979), who have come to view posthypnotic amnesia as a disruption in the retrieval functions of memory. According to Anderson and Bower's (1972) two-stage theory of memory, retrieval involves (a) a search for critical material, and

show abstract

“…The significance of the recognitionfailure phenomenon has been challenged previously. Santa and Lamwers (1976) criticized, among other things, the lack of appropriate control comparisons for deciding what constituted a "large" or "significant" proportion of recognition failures of recallable words, Wiseman and Tulving (1976) responded that any amount of recognition failure has important theoretical implications. The purpose of the experiments reported here was to demonstrate that the cuing context critically influences recognition-failure phenomena.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition failure of recallable words and recognizable words.

Wallace¹

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments are reported introducing variations in testing mode and cuing context into the general procedures used to demonstrate recognition failure of recallable words. Recognition failure of recognizable words can be demonstrated when a cued recognition test replaces the cued recall test in these general procedures. Also, recall failure of recallable words can be demonstrated if an uncued recall test replaces the initial uncued recognition test. If the initial recognition test involves cued recognition, then both the recognition failure of recallable words and the recognition failure of recognizable words are attenuated. Recognition failure of recognizable words was also present when distractors were not used in recognition testing. It was concluded that recognition-failure phenomena represent a special class of context effects; that is, they simply result from removing original study cues from one testing context and restoring them in a second testing context. It was suggested that theories of memory that recognize that memory performance may be sensitive to testing context are not contraindicated by the demonstration of recognition failure of recallable words.

show abstract

Where does the confusion lief: Comments on the Wiseman and Tulving paper

Cited by 37 publications

References 11 publications

Generation failure: Estimating metacognition in cued recall

Generation failure: Estimating metacognition in cued recall

Recall and recognition memory during posthypnotic amnesia: A failure to confirm the disrupted-search hypothesis and the memory disorganization hypothesis.

Recognition failure of recallable words and recognizable words.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About