Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selective attention effects on recognition: the roles of list context and perceptual difficulty

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

Abstract

Two recent studies reported superior recognition memory for items that were incongruent targets than for items that were congruent targets in a prior incidental study phase (Krebs et al. in Cereb Cortex (New York, NY) 25(3):833–843, 2015; Rosner et al. in Psychol Res 79(3):411–424, 2015). The present study examined this effect further by addressing two issues. First, we examined whether this effect is sensitive to the list context in which congruent and incongruent items are presented. In Experiment 1, this issue was addressed by manipulating the relative proportions of congruent and incongruent trials in the study phase. In Experiments 2A and 2B, the same issue was examined by contrasting randomly intermixed and blocked manipulations of congruency. The results of these experiments, as well as a trial-to-trial sequence analysis, demonstrate that the recognition advantage for incongruent over congruent items is robust and remarkably insensitive to list context. Second, we examined recognition of incongruent and congruent items relative to a single word baseline condition. Incongruent (Experiment 3A) and congruent (Experiment 3B) items were both better recognized than single word items, though this effect was substantially stronger for incongruent items. These results suggest that perceptual processing difficulty, rather than interference caused by different target and distractor identities on its own, contributes to the enhanced recognition of incongruent items. Together, the results demonstrate that processes that are sensitive to perceptual processing difficulty of items but largely insensitive to list context produce heightened recognition sensitivity for incongruent targets.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Preliminary analyses for both the study and test phases first examined whether the counterbalancing variable of block order for proportion congruent (high/low) impacted performance. For the study phase, there were no significant effects involving the counterbalancing factor in the analysis of naming RTs, but one higher order interaction involving the counterbalancing factor in the analysis of errors. This interaction appeared to be driven by a small shift in the magnitude of the trial type × block effect for the two block orders, but generally error rates were low in all conditions and higher for incongruent than congruent trials in all conditions. For d′ values in the test phase, there was one higher order interaction involving block order that appeared to be driven by a trend toward larger trial type effects in the second block of trials than the first block of trials, a trend that we have seen in several other studies.

  2. Preliminary analyses for both the study and test phases first examined whether the counterbalancing variable of block order impacted performance in the blocked condition. In Experiment 2A, no main effect of block order nor any interaction involving block order were significant in any of the analyses. In Experiment 2B, the only significant effect involving block order was a block order by trial type interaction in the analysis of d′ F(1, 22) = 5.291, p = 0.031, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.184. This interaction appeared to be driven simply by better memory for the item type that was presented first and was, therefore, treated as a spurious one for the present purposes. The data for all subsequent analyses for both Experiments 2A and 2B were collapsed across the block order factor.

  3. In addition, in Experiment 2A the stimuli were presented on a 20-in. HP LCD monitor rather than a 24-in. BENQ LED monitor.

References

  • Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2013). Easily perceived, easily remembered? Perceptual interference produces a double dissociation between metamemory and memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 41(6), 897–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2014). Perceptual fluency, auditory generation, and metamemory: Analyzing the perceptual fluency hypothesis in the auditory modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 429–440.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (1998). Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science, 280(5364), 747–749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, C. S., & Van Veen, V. (2007). Anterior cingulate cortex and conflict detection: An update of theory and data. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present… and future? Memory, 10(5–6), 305–318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H., Hashemi, A., Milliken, B., & Bennett, P. (2018). Perceptual blurring and recognition memory: A differential memory effect in pupil responses. Journal of Vision, 18(10), 834–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 114–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784–1790.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T. T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380–390.

    Article  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 & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 121(4), 480–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2000). Semantic informativeness mediates the detection of changes in natural scenes. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 213–235.

    Article  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 Psychologische Forschung, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, R. R., & Einstein, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual-learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 110(3), 306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Joordens, S., & Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1534–1555.

    PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1970). Models for free recall and recognition. In D. A. Normal (Ed.), Models of humanmemory (pp. 331–373). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, R. M., Boehler, C. N., De Belder, M., & Egner, T. (2015). Neural conflict-control mechanisms improve memory for target stimuli. Cerebral Cortex (New York, NY), 25(3), 833–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPointe, M. R., Lupianez, J., & Milliken, B. (2013). Context congruency effects in change detection: Opposing effects on detection and identification. Visual Cognition, 21(1), 99–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, G. R., & Mackworth, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(4), 565–572.

    PubMed  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 36(4), 684–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masson, M. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.

    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.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2009.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Bugg, J. M. (2008). Instability in memory phenomena: A common puzzle and a unifying explanation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61–64.

    Article  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.

    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.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Tudela, J., Milliken, B., Botta, F., LaPointe, M., & Lupiañez, J. (2017). A cow on the prairie vs. a cow on the street: Long-term consequences of semantic conflict on episodic encoding. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 81(6), 1264–1275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-Tudela, J., Milliken, B., Jiménez, L., & Lupiáñez, J. (2018). Attentional influences on memory formation: A tale of a not-so-simple story. Memory and Cognition, 46, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy: Psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosner, T. M., D’Angelo, M. C., MacLellan, E., & Milliken, B. (2015). Selective attention and recognition: Effects of congruency on episodic learning. Psychological Research, 79(3), 411–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosner, T. M., Davis, H., & Milliken, B. (2015). Perceptual blurring and recognition memory: A desirable difficulty effect revealed. Acta Psychologica, 160, 11–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosner, T. M., López-Benitez, R., D’Angelo, M. C., Thomson, D., & Milliken, B. (2018). Remembering “primed” words: A counter-intuitive effect of repetition on recognition memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(1), 24–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schlaghecken, F., & Martini, P. (2012). Context, not conflict, drives cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 272–278.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher’s handbook of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (1973). Encoding processes in recognition and recall. Cognitive psychology, 5(3), 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and response conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 328–333.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    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 

  • Yue, C. L., Castel, A. D., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this study was provided in part by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant awarded to Bruce Milliken and an NSERC Doctoral Postgraduate Scholarship awarded to Hanae Davis.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tamara M. Rosner

    Present address: Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

  2. Maria C. D’Angelo

    Present address: Delphia, Toronto, ON, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

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

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

Authors
  1. Hanae Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tamara M. Rosner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria C. D’Angelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ellen MacLellan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bruce Milliken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanae Davis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Word lists used in Experiments 1 and 2.

(Experiment 3 used a different set of six lists comprising the same words).

Word List 1: ADULT, BLIND, BRIDE, BROOK, CABLE, CATCH, CHAIR, CHARM, CLEAN, CLIMB, COAST, CURVE, DAILY, DRIVE, DROVE, FANCY, FLASH, GLARE, GLOVE, GROUP, GUARD, GUIDE, IDEAL, JEWEL, JUICE, MAJOR, MONEY, MONTH, NOVEL, OLIVE, PILOT, PITCH, PURSE, RIVAL, SAUCE, SHEER, SHOCK, SHORT, SIGHT, SOLID, SPRAY, STAMP, START, STEEP, STERN, STORY, STRIP, SWIFT, TABLE, THROW, TITLE, TOTAL, TOWER, TRADE, TRUTH, UNCLE, WATCH, WATER, WHEEL, WORST.

Word List 2: AGENT, ANGLE, BASIS, BIRTH, BREAD, BREAK, BRICK, CABIN, CHILL, CHOKE, CIGAR, CLASS, CLERK, COUNT, CRASH, CREEK, EMPTY, EVENT, EXTRA, FLOOR, FRONT, FROWN, GLASS, GLEAM, KNOCK, LIGHT, MAGIC, MATCH, MOTOR, MOVIE, NOBLE, OFFER, PARTY, PEACH, PHONE, PIANO, PROOF, PUPIL, RADIO, RANCH, SCORE, SHAPE, SHIRT, SLIDE, SLOPE, SMART, SPEED, STAKE, STATE, STRAW, SWEAR, TODAY, TOUGH, TRACE, TRAIN, UPPER, VALUE, VOICE, WORLD, WOUND.

Word List 3: ANKLE, ASIDE, BATHE, BENCH, BLANK, BRAND, CANDY, CHAIN, CHASE, CHEER, CHEST, CHIEF, CLAIM, CLOUD, CRAWL, DELAY, DREAM, FAINT, FEVER, FLAME, GUESS, HEART, HONEY, HORSE, INNER, ISSUE, LAUGH, LEAST, LIMIT, LUNCH, MIGHT, MOUTH, MUSIC, NERVE, NURSE, OCEAN, ONION, OWNER, PAINT, PLANE, PLANK, POUND, PRESS, PRIZE, RANGE, ROUND, SCALE, SHAME, SLEEP, SPOON, STOOP, STUDY, STUFF, TASTE, TENSE, TOAST, TREAT, TRICK, TWIST, YIELD.

Word List 4: BLAZE, BLOCK, BLOOM, BRAIN, BRUSH, BUNCH, CHEEK, CHILD, CLIFF, COURT, CROWN, CRUMB, DRAIN, DRESS, EARTH, ELBOW, FLOUR, GLORY, GRASS, HURRY, JELLY, JUDGE, LINEN, ORDER, OTHER, PAUSE, PENNY, PLANT, PORCH, PRIDE, PRINT, QUOTE, REBEL, RIGHT, ROUGH, SCENE, SERVE, SHAKE, SHARE, SHARP, SHEET, SHELL, SKIRT, SPELL, SPOIL, SPOKE, STAGE, STALK, STEEL, STICK, STOLE, STONE, SUGAR, TEETH, TIMER, TRACK, TRAIL, TRUNK, WAGON, WHILE.

Word List 5: ACTOR, BOAST, CLOCK, CORAL, COVER, CRACK, CROSS, DEPTH, DOUBT, ELECT, FENCE, FLOAT, FLUSH, FRAME, FRUIT, GRADE, GRAIN, GRASP, GRIEF, GUEST, KNIFE, LEMON, LEVEL, MIDST, NOISE, OPERA, ORGAN, PASTE, PEARL, PIECE, POINT, PRICE, QUICK, QUIET, REACH, RIVER, ROUTE, SALAD, SATIN, SCARE, SCENT, SHIFT, SHINE, SHORE, SLICE, SMALL, SMELL, SPACE, SPLIT, STAND, STEAL, STILL, STOCK, STORE, SWEET, SWING, THING, TROOP, TRUCK, WHIRL.

Word List 6: ALARM, APPLE, BOARD, BOUND, BRIEF, BURST, CHECK, CLOTH, COACH, CROWD, CRUSH, DANCE, DRIFT, DRINK, EQUAL, FIELD, FORCE, GRANT, GROAN, HOTEL, HOUSE, LAYER, LEAVE, LOCAL, METAL, MODEL, MORAL, NIGHT, PAPER, PLAIN, PLATE, POISE, ROAST, SAINT, SENSE, SHADE, SHOUT, SHRUG, SMILE, SMOKE, SOUND, SPORT, STAFF, STARE, STEAM, STORM, STOVE, STYLE, SWEAT, THUMB, TOUCH, TRUST, UNDER, VISIT, WASTE, WHEAT, WOMAN, WRECK, WRIST, YOUTH.

Appendix B

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, given that 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 Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6 Estimates for recollection and familiarity based on the independence remember–know procedure for Experiment 1
Full size table
Table 7 Estimates of recollection and familiarity for Experiments 2A and 2B
Full size table

Experiment 1

To evaluate differences in recollection and familiarity, the hits minus false alarm difference scores were submitted to two separate two-tailed paired sample t tests, comparing across trial types. The analysis on the estimates of recollection revealed a significant effect of trial type, t(47) = 4.384, p < 0.001, d = 0.633, with higher estimates for incongruent (0.305) than congruent trials (0.240). The analysis on the estimates of familiarity revealed a marginal effect of trial type, t(47) = 1.761, p = 0.085, d = 0.254, with a numerical trend toward higher estimates for incongruent (0.321) than congruent trials (0.286) (Table 8).

Table 8 Estimates of recollection and familiarity for Experiments 3A and 3B
Full size table

Experiment 2

To evaluate differences in recollection and familiarity, the hits minus false alarm difference scores were submitted to two separate mixed-factor ANOVAs, with list type as a between-subjects factor and trial type as a within-subject factor.

Experiment 2A

The analysis on the estimates of recollection revealed a significant main effect of trial type, F(1, 46) = 11.329, p = 0.001, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.198, reflecting higher recollection estimates for targets on incongruent (0.323) than congruent (0.278) trials. Neither the main effect of list type nor its interaction with trial type reached significance. The analysis on the familiarity estimates revealed a main effect of trial type, F(1, 46) = 4.44, p = 0.041, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.088, reflecting higher familiarity estimates for targets on incongruent (0.290) than congruent (0.252) trials. A main effect of list type was also observed, F(1, 46) = 6.411, p = 0.015, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.122, indicating familiarity estimates were higher in the mixed (0.318) than blocked (0.223) condition. The interaction between trial type and list type was not significant.

Experiment 2B

The analysis on recollection estimates revealed an effect of trial type that approached significance, F(1, 46) = 3.32, p = 0.075, \(\eta _{{\text{p}}}^{2}\) = 0.067, with numerically higher estimates for incongruent (0.380) than congruent trials (0.344). No other analyses on the recollection or familiarity estimates yielded significant effects, all p’s > 0.10.

Experiment 3

To evaluate differences in recollection and familiarity, the hits minus false alarm difference scores were submitted to two separate two-tailed paired sample t tests, comparing across trial types.

Experiment 3A

The two analyses revealed higher estimates for incongruent than for single word trials both for recollection, t(47) = 3.913, p < 0.001, d = 0.565 (0.348 vs. 0.274), and familiarity, t(47) = 3.058, p = 0.004, d = 0.441 (0.288 vs. 0.217).

Experiment 3B

The analysis on recollection estimates was not significant, t(47) < 1. The analysis on familiarity estimates revealed an effect of trial type, t(47) = 3.617, p < 0.001, d = 0.522, with higher familiarity estimates for congruent (0.303) than for single word trials (0.241).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, H., Rosner, T.M., D’Angelo, M.C. et al. Selective attention effects on recognition: the roles of list context and perceptual difficulty. Psychological Research 84, 1249–1268 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01153-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01153-x

Search

Navigation