Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selective attention and recognition: effects of congruency on episodic learning

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research on cognitive control has focused on the learning consequences of high selective attention demands in selective attention tasks (e.g., Botvinick, Cognit Affect Behav Neurosci 7(4):356–366, 2007; Verguts and Notebaert, Psychol Rev 115(2):518–525, 2008). The current study extends these ideas by examining the influence of selective attention demands on remembering. In Experiment 1, participants read aloud the red word in a pair of red and green spatially interleaved words. Half of the items were congruent (the interleaved words had the same identity), and the other half were incongruent (the interleaved words had different identities). Following the naming phase, participants completed a surprise recognition memory test. In this test phase, recognition memory was better for incongruent than for congruent items. In Experiment 2, context was only partially reinstated at test, and again recognition memory was better for incongruent than for congruent items. In Experiment 3, all of the items contained two different words, but in one condition the words were presented close together and interleaved, while in the other condition the two words were spatially separated. Recognition memory was better for the interleaved than for the separated items. This result rules out an interpretation of the congruency effects on recognition in Experiments 1 and 2 that hinges on stronger relational encoding for items that have two different words. Together, the results support the view that selective attention demands for incongruent items lead to encoding that improves recognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114(4), 1076–1086. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.1076.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18189009.

  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.I08.3.624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402(6758), 179–181. doi:10.1038/46035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. C. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(367), 1–16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1484–1494. doi:10.3758/MC.36.8.1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cañadas, E., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Social categories as a context for the allocation of attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 934–943. doi:10.1037/a0029794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corballis, P. M., & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64(1–2), 191–209. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00109-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316–321. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893001.

  • Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374–380. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147–161. doi:10.1037/a0017598.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1431740.

  • Hirshman, E., & Mulligan, N. (1991). Perceptual interference improves explicit memory but does not enhance data-driven processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(3), 507–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshman, E., Trembath, D., & Mulligan, N. (1994). Theoretical implications of the mnemonic benefits of perceptual interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 608–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. H. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109(4), 679–709. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.4.679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1–17. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14620358.

  • Jacoby, L. L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(2), 126–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerns, J. G. (2006). Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an FMRI study of trial-to-trial adjustments on the Simon task. NeuroImage, 33(1), 399–405. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W. I., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303(5660), 1023–1026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2006). Evidence for task-specific resolution of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(5), 800–806. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17328376.

  • Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., De Belder, M., & Egner, T. (2013). Neural conflict-control mechanisms improve memory for target stimuli. Cerebral Cortex,. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2008). On-the-fly adaptation of selectivity in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 814–818. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.4.814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockhart, R. S., Craik, F. I. M., & Jacoby, L. (1976). Depth of processing, recognition and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 75–102). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174. doi:10.3758/BF03197535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 684–700. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7159848.

  • MacLeod, C. M., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 126–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452. doi:10.1038/nn1051.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. P., & Geraci, L. D. (2009). The influence of instructions and terminology on the accuracy of remember-know judgments. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 401–413. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, B., & Joordens, S. (1996). Negative priming without overt prime selection. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50(4), 333–346. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9025325.

  • Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, N. W. (1996). The effects of perceptual interference at encoding on implicit memory, explicit memory, and memory for source. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1067–1087.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, N. W. (1999). The effects of perceptual interference at encoding on organization and order: Investigating the roles of item-specific and relational information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 54–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nairne, J. S. (1988). The mnemonic value of perceptual identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 248–255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition, 106(2), 1071–1080. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means of access to the personal past. Memory & Cognition, 21(1), 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, F. R., & Yeung, N. (2012). Memory and cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1256–1263. doi:10.1177/0956797612444613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5812172.

  • Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1117–1121. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.6.1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10495845.

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(6), 1345–1363. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.28.6.1345.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 26(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 727–735. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435275.

  • Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(3), 631–650. doi:10.1080/14640749408401131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vietze, I., & Wendt, M. (2009). Context specificity of conflict frequency-dependent control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1391–1400. doi:10.1080/17470210802426908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2011). Conflict adaptation in time: Foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 910–916. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0119-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Vietze, I. (2008). Location-specific versus hemisphere-specific adaptation of processing selectivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 135–140. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441–517. doi:10.1006/jmla.2002.2864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (1995). The relation between remembering and knowing as bases for recognition: Effects of size congruency. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(5), 622–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant awarded to Bruce Milliken, and a doctoral NSERC Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded to Maria C. D’Angelo.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Maria C. D’Angelo

    Present address: Rotman Research Institute at Baycrest, Toronto, ON, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S4L8, Canada

    Tamara M. Rosner, Maria C. D’Angelo, Ellen MacLellan & Bruce Milliken

Authors
  1. Tamara M. Rosner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria C. D’Angelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen MacLellan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bruce Milliken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tamara M. Rosner.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Recollection and familiarity analyses

Separate contributions of recollection and familiarity to recognition were evaluated using the independence remember-know (IRK) procedure for each experiment (Yonelinas, 2002; Yonelinas & Jacoby, 1995). The IRK procedure estimates the contribution of recollection by the proportion of trials in which participants make “remember” (R) responses, and estimates the contribution of familiarity by the proportion of trials in which participants make “know” (K) responses on trials in which a remember response is not made (1-R). These estimates of recollection and familiarity were computed separately for hits and false alarms, and statistical analyses were conducted on the hit minus false alarm difference scores, which are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 Estimates of recollection and familiarity derived using the independence remember-know procedure
Full size table

Appendix 2

Word lists: Experiments 1 and 2

Word list 1:

BOARD, BRIEF, BROWN, BRUSH, CATCH, CHAIR, CHARM, CLAIM, CLEAN, CLOSE, COUNT, CROWD, DREAM, EARTH, EIGHT, FIELD, FRAME, FRONT, GLASS, GRANT, GREEN, HURRY, IDEAL, LEVEL, LIGHT, LUNCH, MAJOR, ORDER, OTHER, PAUSE, PEACE, PRINT, QUIET, RANGE, RIGHT, SERVE, SHAPE, SHARE, SHEET, SHOUT, SLEEP, SMALL, SPEED, SPORT, STAND, START, STONE, STORE, STUDY, STUFF, SUGAR, TABLE, THICK, THREE, TRADE, TREAT, TRUTH, WAGON, WORLD, YOUTH.

Word list 2:

ASIDE, BLOCK, BOUND, CAUSE, CHIEF, COURT, COVER, DANCE, DOUBT, DRESS, DRIVE, DROVE, EVENT, FLASH, FLOOD, FLOOR, FLOUR, FRUIT, GUARD, GUEST, HOTEL, ISSUE, JUICE, LEAST, LEAVE, LOCAL, MIGHT, MOTOR, MUSIC, NIGHT, NORTH, OFFER, PIECE, PLANK, POUND, QUEEN, RADIO, REACH, RIVER, SALAD, SCENE, SENSE, SHORT, SPACE, STAGE, STARE, STICK, STORY, SWEET, TASTE, TEETH, THING, THIRD, TRAIL, TRICK, VALUE, VISIT, WASTE, WATER, WHITE.

Word list 3:

BLIND, BRAIN, BREAD, BURST, CABIN, CHECK, CHEEK, CHILD, CLASS, CLIMB, CLOUD, DAILY, DOZEN, DRINK, EMPTY, EXTRA, GROUP, GUESS, HORSE, HOUSE, KNOCK, MARCH, MATCH, MONTH, MOUTH, PAINT, PAPER, PLAIN, PLANE, PLANT, POINT, PORCH, PRESS, QUICK, ROUND, SEVEN, SHARP, SHINE, SIGHT, SLICE, SMART, SOUND, SOUTH, SPOKE, STAIR, STATE, STILL, STOCK, STORM, THANK, THROW, TIMER, TRAIN, TRUST, UNCLE, UNDER, VOICE, WATCH, WHILE, WOMAN.

Word list 4:

ANKLE, BIRTH, BOAST, BRICK, BROOK, CHEER, CHILL, CLERK, CLOCK, CLOTH, COACH, COUCH, CRAWL, DRIFT, FEVER, FLAME, FLUSH, GLEAM, GRADE, GRATE, GROWL, INNER, KNIFE, LAYER, LEMON, MORAL, MOVIE, NOBLE, OCEAN, PEACH, PEARL, PILOT, PITCH, PRIZE, PRUNE, PUPIL, ROUGH, SAUCE, SCALE, SCORE, SCRUB, SHIFT, SHIRT, SHRUG, SIXTY, SKIRT, SLOPE, SMELL, SPOON, SPRIG, STAFF, STEAL, STEEP, STERN, STRAW, SWIFT, SWING, TRACE, TRIAL, WHEAT.

Word list 5:

AGENT, BASIS, BENCH, BLAST, BLOND, BRAND, BUNCH, CHEST, CHOSE, CLASP, COAST, CRACK, CROWN, CRUMB, CURVE, DEPTH, DOUGH, ELBOW, ELDER, EQUAL, FANCY, FENCE, FROCK, GIANT, GLORY, GLOVE, GRAIN, GRASP, GUIDE, HONEY, LIMIT, MAGIC, NERVE, NOISE, NOVEL, OWNER, PASTE, PENNY, PIANO, PLATE, PROOF, RANCH, ROAST, ROUTE, SCENT, SHORE, SLIDE, SOLID, SPRAY, STAMP, STOVE, THUMB, TOAST, TRACK, TRUNK, TWIST, WAIST, WHIRL, WRECK, WRIST.

Word list 6:

ACTOR, ALARM, APPLE, BLANK, BLOOM, CABLE, CANDY, CHAIN, CHASE, CIGAR, CLIFF, CORAL, CRAFT, CRASH, CREEK, CRIME, DELAY, DODGE, DRAIN, FAINT, FLOAT, GRACE, GRASS, GROAN, JELLY, JEWEL, LINEN, METAL, MIDST, MODEL, OLIVE, ONION, PHONE, PURSE, QUART, QUOTE, RIDGE, SCOUT, SHAKE, SHEER, SHELL, SHOOT, SKILL, SPELL, SPLIT, SPOIL, STEAM, STEEL, STOOP, STYLE, TIGER, TITLE, TOTAL, TOUGH, TOWER, TROOP, TRUCK, UPPER, WHEEL, YIELD.

Appendix 3

Word lists: Experiment 3

Word list 1:

APPLE, BLAST, BRAIN, BRAKE, BRICK, CANAL, CHIEF, CHILL, CLOCK, CLOSE, CLOTH, CRIME, CRUST, CURVE, DAISY, DRAFT, DREAM, EARTH, FEAST, FLOAT, GLOVE, GRAPE, HOUSE, JOINT, LEMON, LEVEL, LILAC, MIDST, MODEL, MUSIC, NERVE, NIECE, NOVEL, ONION, OWNER, PAUSE, PLANT, PRIZE, QUIET, QUOTE, REACH, SALAD, SCALE, SHARP, SHEER, SHELF, SHIRT, STATE, STICK, TABLE, THREE, THUMP, TORCH, TRAIT, TREND, TRUCK, VOICE, WHEAT, YIELD, YOUTH.

Word list 2:

AISLE, ANKLE, BLANK, BRUSH, CHECK, CLIMB, COURT, COVER, CRACK, CRAWL, DANCE, DODGE, DRAIN, DRINK, EAGLE, FENCE, FROCK, GLINT, GLOOM, GRAFT, GRASP, GUESS, HURRY, IDEAL, LOCAL, OFFER, OTHER, PEARL, PERCH, PHONE, PIECE, PRIME, PROOF, PRUNE, QUEEN, QUEST, QUICK, RANCH, ROUGH, SHAVE, SHELL, SHORT, SIXTY, SKATE, SLEEP, SMELL, SPOIL, SPOKE, STACK, STOOP, STOUT, STRAW, TASTE, TOPIC, TREAD, TREAT, TRICK, TROOP, UNCLE, VISIT.

Word list 3:

ALLEY, BAKER, BLOND, BOUND, CEDAR, CHEEK, CHEST, CIGAR, CLOUD, CORAL, CROWN, DITCH, DOZEN, DRILL, ELDER, EMPTY, EXTRA, FRUIT, GIANT, GRAIN, GRANT, GREEN, GROAN, GROUP, GUIDE, INNER, LUNCH, MERIT, METAL, MOTOR, NIGHT, NORTH, PORCH, QUART, ROUTE, SCREW, SERVE, SHIFT, SHOOT, SHRED, SHRUB, SLICE, SOUND, SPECK, SPORT, STEAM, SUITE, SWARM, SWEET, TITLE, TOOTH, TOTAL, TOWER, TRACK, TRAIL, TRUNK, WASTE, WHITE, WRECK, WRIST.

Word list 4:

ASIDE, BREAD, BURST, CANOE, CLAIM, COACH, CROWD, DRESS, DROVE, FANCY, FIELD, FLAME, FLEET, GOOSE, HONEY, HUNCH, JELLY, KNIFE, KNOCK, LEASE, LEAVE, MAJOR, MAPLE, PINCH, PLAIN, POUND, PRESS, PULSE, PUPIL, PUPPY, PURSE, RIGHT, SCENE, SCRUB, SHAKE, SHAPE, SHARE, SLIDE, SOLID, SPILL, SPLIT, STALL, STARE, STEAL, STONE, STORM, STOVE, STYLE, SURGE, SWEEP, THEME, THROW, THUMB, TIMER, TOUGH, TRACE, UNDER, WAIST, WHEEL, WIDTH.

Word list 5:

ACTOR, ATTIC, BIRTH, BLINK, BROWN, BUNCH, CABLE, CARGO, CHAIR, CHASE, CHILD, CLASP, CLOAK, COUNT, CROOK, CRUMB, DOUGH, EIGHT, FLOCK, FLOUR, FLUSH, FRAME, FRONT, GRACE, GRADE, GRILL, HEDGE, HOBBY, HOUND, INDEX, JUICE, LEAST, LIMIT, LINEN, MORAL, OCEAN, OLIVE, OUNCE, PEACH, PLANE, SAUCE, SHRUG, SMALL, SMART, SNORT, SOUTH, SPELL, SPOON, STAND, STEEL, STEEP, STEER, STORE, STRAY, SWORD, THING, TOAST, VALUE, WHILE, WHIRL.

Word list 6:

AGENT, ALARM, BARGE, BASIS, BLADE, BLEND, BLOCK, BLOOM, BOARD, BRAND, BRASS, BROOK, CATCH, CAUSE, CHANT, CHARM, CHEER, CHOSE, CLASS, CRASH, DEPTH, DRIFT, ELBOW, ENTRY, FERRY, GLASS, GRASS, IMAGE, LAYER, MARCH, MEDAL, MIGHT, NOBLE, PENNY, PHASE, PILOT, PITCH, PLANK, RANGE, SCENT, SCOUT, SCRAP, SHINE, SNIFF, SPEED, STAFF, STAGE, STAIR, START, STUFF, STUNT, THANK, THIRD, TIGER, TRAIN, TRUTH, TWIST, UPPER, WATER, WOMAN.

Word list 7:

AWARD, BLIND, BROIL, CABIN, CANDY, CHAIN, CLUMP, COUCH, COUGH, CRAFT, DOUBT, EQUAL, EVENT, FAINT, FEVER, FLAKE, FLOOD, FORUM, FROST, GLORY, GRATE, GRAVY, GROWL, GUARD, GUEST, HORSE, ISSUE, JEWEL, LIGHT, LOBBY, MAGIC, MATCH, MONTH, ORDER, PANEL, PAPER, PLATE, POINT, PRINT, RADIO, ROUND, SCARF, SCORE, SEVEN, SHEEP, SHORE, SHOUT, SKILL, SNAKE, SPRIG, STILL, STORY, STRAP, SWAMP, SWIFT, THICK, TRADE, TRIBE, TRUST, TULIP.

Word list 8:

APRON, BENCH, BERRY, BOAST, BOOTH, BRACE, BRIEF, CHART, CLEAN, CLERK, CLICK, CLIFF, COAST, CREEK, DAILY, DELAY, DRIVE, FETCH, FLASH, FLING, FLOOR, FOCUS, GLEAM, GROVE, HOTEL, LABEL, MOUTH, MOVIE, NOISE, PAINT, PASTE, PEACE, PHOTO, PIANO, RIDGE, RIVER, ROAST, SENSE, SHEET, SIGHT, SKIRT, SLOPE, SPACE, SPARK, SPICE, SPINE, SPRAY, STAMP, STERN, STOCK, STUDY, STUMP, SUGAR, SWING, TEETH, TRIAL, VERSE, WAGON, WATCH, WORLD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosner, T.M., D’Angelo, M.C., MacLellan, E. et al. Selective attention and recognition: effects of congruency on episodic learning. Psychological Research 79, 411–424 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0572-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0572-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation