scholarly journals Erratum to: Feature frequency effects in recognition memory

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1324-1324
Author(s):  
K. J. Malmberg ◽  
M. Steyvers ◽  
J. D. Stephens ◽  
R. M. Shiffrin
2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 607-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Malmberg ◽  
Mark Steyvers ◽  
Joseph D. Stephens ◽  
Richard M. Shiffrin

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra L. Jacobs ◽  
Gary S. Dell ◽  
Aaron S. Benjamin ◽  
Colin Bannard

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. E. Johns ◽  
D. J. K. Mewhort

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 258-286
Author(s):  
Ross W. May ◽  
Frank D. Fincham

This research systematically evaluates via prototype analysis how conceptualizations of Western adult's monotheistic God are structured. Over 4 studies, using U.S. student and community samples of predominantly Christians, features of God are identified, feature centrality is documented, and centrality influence on cognition is evaluated. Studies 1 and 2 produced considerable overlap in feature frequency and centrality ratings across the samples, with “God is love” being the most frequently listed central feature. In Studies 3 (choice latency) and 4 (recall and recognition memory), the centrality of features influenced cognitive processes: central features were more quickly identified as features of God than peripheral features; were correctly recognized more often; and central features were correctly recalled more often than peripheral features. Results indicated that participants meaningfully judged centrality and that centrality affected cognition. Thus, the two criteria necessary for demonstrating deity representations adhere to a prototype structure were met. Implications and future directions are discussed.


2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark. Steyvers ◽  
Ken Malmberg ◽  
Rich M. Shiffrin ◽  
Joseph Stephens

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olya Hakobyan ◽  
Sen Cheng

Abstract We fully support dissociating the subjective experience from the memory contents in recognition memory, as Bastin et al. posit in the target article. However, having two generic memory modules with qualitatively different functions is not mandatory and is in fact inconsistent with experimental evidence. We propose that quantitative differences in the properties of the memory modules can account for the apparent dissociation of recollection and familiarity along anatomical lines.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document