Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 187–189 | Cite as

Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: II. Effect of delay between study and test

  • John G. Seamon
  • Nathan Brody
  • David M. Kauff


This study found that repeated exposure to briefly presented stimuli increased positive affect through familiarity without enhancing recognition of the stimuli. Following exposure, subjects selected previously shown target stimuli on the basis of affect in the absence of stimulus recognition. Interpreted in terms of the manner in which information can be accessed in long-term storage, this study extends earlier research by showing that the ability to select target stimuli by affect can occur undiminished over a delay of 1 week between study and test. Repeated processing during study can produce a form of perceptual learning, called perceptual fluency, that can serve as the basis for stimulus discrimination in the absence of recognition at the time of test. The present results of familiar, but unrecognized, stimuli are analogous to the memory phenomenon of déjà vu.


Positive Affect Target Stimulus Perceptual Learning Target Selection Recognition Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. Factors influencing speed and accuracy of word recognition. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. Erdelyi, M. H., & Becker, J. Incremental memory for pictures: Hypermnesia for pictures but not for words in multiple recall trials. Cognitive Psychology, 1974, 6, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Glass, A. L., Holyoak, K. J., & Santa, J. L. Cognition. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. Hunter, I. M. L. Memory. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1957.Google Scholar
  5. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1981, 110, 306–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kolers, P. Memorial consequences of automatized encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975, 1, 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kolers, P. Reading a year later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1976, 2, 554–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 1980, 207, 557–558.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mandler, G. Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 1980, 87, 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mandler, G., Pearlstone, Z., & Koopmans, H. S. Effects of organization and semantic similarity on recall and recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 410–423.Google Scholar
  11. Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1967.Google Scholar
  12. Seamon, J. G., Brody, N., & Kauff, D. M. Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: Effects of shadowing, masking, and cerebral laterality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1983, 9, 544–555.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yarmey, A. D. Hypermnesia for pictures but not for concrete or abstract words. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976, 8, 115–117.Google Scholar
  14. Zajonc, R. B. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • John G. Seamon
    • 1
  • Nathan Brody
    • 1
  • David M. Kauff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWesleyan UniversityMiddletown

Personalised recommendations