Recognition vs. Recall: Storage or Retrieval Differences?

1969 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Freund ◽  
John W. Brelsford ◽  
Richard C. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Recall Performance ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Response Pair ◽  
Task Differences ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Storage Processes ◽  
Withholding Information

Differences between recognition and recall performance may be due to differences in storage processes, differences in retrieval processes, or some combination of both. An attempt was made to determine which process was critical by withholding information, at the time of study of a stimulus-response pair, about how that item was to be tested on its next presentation. It was found that differences between recognition and recall did not depend upon whether or not the subject knew, at time of study, the mode of test to be employed. These results were interpreted as support for the assertion that, in this particular task, differences in retrieval processes were sufficient to account for differences in recognition and recall. It was found that both the direction and magnitude of the recognition-recall difference depended upon the guessing correction employed.

The Brief Implicit Association Test

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Sriram ◽  
Anthony G. Greenwald
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Association Test ◽  
Association Test ◽  
Implicit Association ◽  
Implicit Measures ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Implicit Stereotypes ◽  
The Subject

The Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) consists of two blocks of trials with the same four categories and stimulus-response mappings as the standard IAT, but with 1/3 the number of trials. Unlike the standard IAT, the BIAT focuses the subject on just two of each block’s four categories. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that attitude BIATs had satisfactory validity when good (but not bad) was a focal category, and that identity IATs had satisfactory validity when self (but not other) was a focal category. Experiment 2 also showed that a good-focal attitude BIAT and a self-focal identity BIAT were psychometrically similar to standard IAT measures of the same constructs. Experiment 3 presented each of six BIATs twice, showing that procedural variables had no more than minor influences on the resulting implicit measures. Experiment 4 further demonstrated successful use of the BIAT to measure implicit stereotypes.

Mobilization of Cognitive Resources and the Generation Effect

1992 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Fiedler ◽  
Harald Lachnit ◽  
Doris Fay ◽  
Christine Krug
Keyword(s):  
Free Recall ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Generation Effect ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
Task Differences ◽  
Memory Advantage ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
Learning Trials ◽  
Generation Activity

The generation effect refers to the memory advantage of words that have been generated rather than read. Such a read-generate comparison confounds qualitative task differences and raises methodological problems. A revised methodology is proposed circumventing these problems in that the encoding task is held constant and all stimuli have to be generated, but the degree of generativeness (i.e. the amount of cueing) is varied. In Experiment 1, 1, the (refined version of the) generation effect is demonstrated in a within-subjects design; with increasing generation activity left to the subject, free recall performance increases. No effect is obtained for degree of target masking. The same finding is replicated and shown to be independent of self-paced study time when generative activity is manipulated between subjects (Experiment 2) or within subjects (Experiment 3). As all learning trials involve generation, encoding time is controlled statistically, and free recall is used as a measure of memory, this refined generation effect cannot be explained as an artifact of selective attention or elaboration. Rather, generative activity seems to increase the mobilization of cognitive resources. This motivational account is supported by Experiment 4 showing an enhanced generation effect for positive mood.

Interference in Immediate Spatial Memory: Shifts of Spatial Attention or Central executive Involvement?

1997 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Christoph Klauer ◽  
Ralf Stegmaier
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Memory ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Central Executive ◽  
Pitch Discrimination ◽  
Interference Condition ◽  
Memory Experiment ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Spatial Interference

Interference in serial spatial memory was investigated in six experiments. Experiment 1 replicated Experiment 2 by Smyth and Scholey (1994) in showing that listening to tones that originated from different directions interfered with spatial memory. Experiment 2 showed, however, that the effect of mere listening was not observed when this was the only interference condition experienced by the subject. In Experiment 3, a binary pitch discrimination task performed on spatially separated tones impaired recall performance to the same extent as did left-right decisions. The same disrupting effect was also observed when the tones were presented from the same direction in the pitch discrimination task (Experiment 4) as well as in a binary loudness discrimination task (Experiment 5). Finally, repeating heard words did not interfere, whereas a pitch discrimination performed on these same words disrupted recall (Experiment 6). It is argued that the disrupting effects reflect not a specifically spatial interference, but a central executive involvement in the rehearsal process in serial spatial memory.

scholarly journals All together now: Simultaneous feature integration and feature retrieval in action control

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birte Moeller ◽  
Christian Frings
Keyword(s):  
Human Action ◽  
Action Control ◽  
Feature Integration ◽  
Probe Design ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
The Past ◽  
Significant Stimulus ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Design Integration ◽  
Probe Response

AbstractAccounts of human action control assume integration of stimulus and response features at response execution and, upon repetition of some of those features, retrieval of other previously integrated features. Even though both processes contribute sequentially to observed binding effects in studies using a sequential prime-probe design, integration and retrieval processes theoretically affect human action simultaneously. That is, every action that we execute leads to bindings between features of stimuli and responses, while at the same time these features also trigger retrieval of other previously integrated features. Nevertheless, the paradigms used to measure binding effects in action control can only testify for integration of stimulus and response features at the first (R1, n-1, or prime) and retrieval of the past event via feature repetition at the second (R2, n, or probe) response. Here we combined two paradigms used in the action control literature to show that integration and retrieval do indeed function simultaneously. We found both significant stimulus-response and significant response-response binding effects, indicating that integration of responses must have occurred at the same time as response retrieval due to feature repetition and vice versa.

Aging I

Remembering ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 169-188
Author(s):  
Fergus I. M. Craik
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Healthy Aging ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Environmental Support ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
Frontal Lobe Functions

Memory performance declines in the course of healthy aging, and this chapter discusses some reasons why this may be so. The author suggests that there is an age-related decline in both processing resources and in cognitive control, and that these deficiencies underlie less efficient encoding and retrieval processes. Age-related memory losses are greater in some tasks than in others, however, and the case is made that losses are relatively slight in situations that involve substantial amounts of environmental support and therefore require small amounts of self-initiated activity. In turn, the inefficiency of self-initiated activities is attributed to age-related deficiencies in frontal lobe functions. Age-related deficits in recall performance (which is heavily reliant on self-initiation) are reduced in a recognition test, which embodies greater environmental support. Deficits were also reduced by the use of pictures as materials, and there were no age differences in the ability to hold high-valued words in working memory. These effects are illustrated by experiments carried out by the author and collaborators.

Contexts and functions of retrieval

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Winograd
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Experiment ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Strong Claim

AbstractKoriat & Goldsmith provide an excellent analysis of the flexibility of retrieval processes and how they are situationally dependent. I agree with their emphasis on functional considerations and argue that the traditional laboratory experiment motivates the subject to be accurate. However, I disagree with their strong claim that the quantity–accuracy distinction implies an essential discontinuity between traditional and naturalistic approaches to the study of memory.

scholarly journals Reward Modulation of Hippocampal Subfield Activation during Successful Associative Encoding and Retrieval

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 1532-1547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sasha M. Wolosin ◽  
Dagmar Zeithamova ◽  
Alison R. Preston
Keyword(s):  
Dentate Gyrus ◽  
Medial Temporal Lobe ◽  
Recall Performance ◽  
Memory Formation ◽  
Cued Recall ◽  
Retrieval Task ◽  
Parahippocampal Cortex ◽  
Retrieval Processes ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Encoding And Retrieval

Emerging evidence suggests that motivation enhances episodic memory formation through interactions between medial-temporal lobe (MTL) structures and dopaminergic midbrain. In addition, recent theories propose that motivation specifically facilitates hippocampal associative binding processes, resulting in more detailed memories that are readily reinstated from partial input. Here, we used high-resolution fMRI to determine how motivation influences associative encoding and retrieval processes within human MTL subregions and dopaminergic midbrain. Participants intentionally encoded object associations under varying conditions of reward and performed a retrieval task during which studied associations were cued from partial input. Behaviorally, cued recall performance was superior for high-value relative to low-value associations; however, participants differed in the degree to which rewards influenced memory. The magnitude of behavioral reward modulation was associated with reward-related activation changes in dentate gyrus/CA2,3 during encoding and enhanced functional connectivity between dentate gyrus/CA2,3 and dopaminergic midbrain during both the encoding and retrieval phases of the task. These findings suggests that, within the hippocampus, reward-based motivation specifically enhances dentate gyrus/CA2,3 associative encoding mechanisms through interactions with dopaminergic midbrain. Furthermore, within parahippocampal cortex and dopaminergic midbrain regions, activation associated with successful memory formation was modulated by reward across the group. During the retrieval phase, we also observed enhanced activation in hippocampus and dopaminergic midbrain for high-value associations that occurred in the absence of any explicit cues to reward. Collectively, these findings shed light on fundamental mechanisms through which reward impacts associative memory formation and retrieval through facilitation of MTL and ventral tegmental area/substantia nigra processing.

How do partner reactions affect task set selection: Specific imitation or abstract tasks?

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (11) ◽  
pp. 2008-2025
Author(s):  
Romy Müller
Keyword(s):  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Stimulus Set ◽  
Selection Processes ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Task Features

Task set selection is facilitated when people expect a partner to perform the same task, suggesting that the features of the partner’s performance are represented. However, it is unclear how similar the partner’s reactions must be to promote compatibility effects: does a partner have to imitate subjects’ specific actions or is it enough to perform the same task while responding to different stimuli with different actions? This present study investigated this question in a joint picture–word interference paradigm. Subjects either named pictures or read words, and a partner responded by performing the same or the competing task. In Experiment 1, the partner used the same picture–word combinations as the subject and thus compatible trials implied a complete imitation. Compatibility benefits were observed. In Experiment 2, the partner performed the same or the competing task on different stimuli, producing different actions. Compatibility effects were absent. To test whether this indicates that an overlap in abstract task features is insufficient or resulted from excessive task difficulty, Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with a smaller stimulus set. Compatibility benefits were found. Taken together, the results suggest that a partner’s abstract task can be represented and affect task set selection processes even without an overlap in stimulus-response mappings.

Variations in Responding during a Double-Stimulation Task

1987 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-242
Author(s):  
Ian M. Franks ◽  
James Canil
Keyword(s):  
Parallel Processing ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Response Pair ◽  
Stimulation Paradigm ◽  
Double Stimulation

This study was done to investigate changes in reaction times to the first of two temporally spaced stimuli in a double stimulation paradigm. When a foot response was required to the first stimulus, increasing the complexity of the second stimulus-response pair significantly delayed the time to respond to the first stimulus. McLeod's 1977 model of parallel processing appears to offer the best explanation of the data although certain modifications to this model are suggested.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document