Abstract
This study argues for the importance of physical word features in recognition memory by investigating the influence of orthographic distinctiveness. Experiment 1 demonstrated a mirror effect in ayes/no recognition test by manipulating orthographic neighborhood size. Words with small neighborhoods showed more hits and fewer false alarms than did words with larger neighborhoods. Experiment 2 replicated the neighborhood size mirror effect using null pairs in a forced choice recognition test. Experiment 3 requiredremember/know judgments in ayes/no recognition task. Experiment 4 used the sameyes/no test as did Experiment 1, adding a study task that drew attention away from orthographic information in the study list. The mirror pattern disappeared with the addition of the study task.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Atkinson, R. C., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 90–195). New York: Academic Press.
Cary, M., &Reder, L. M. (2003). A dual-process account of the list-length and strength-based mirror effects in recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 231–248.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cortese, M. J., Watson, J. M., Wang, J., &Fugett, A. (2004). Relating distinctive orthographic and phonological processes to episodic memory performance.Memory & Cognition,32, 632–639.
Craik, F. I. M., &Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,11, 671–684.
Criss, A. H., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). Interactions between study task, study time, and the low-frequency hit rate advantage in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 778–786.
Diana, R. A., Peterson, M. J., &Reder, L. M. (2004). The role of spurious feature familiarity in recognition memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 150–156.
Donaldson, W. (1996). The role of decision processes in remembering and knowing.Memory & Cognition,24, 523–533.
Dunn, J. C. (2004). Remember-know: A matter of confidence.Psychological Review,111, 524–542.
Gardiner, J. M., &Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2000). Remembering and knowing. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 229–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,13, 8–20.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 5–16.
Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G. J., &Kim, K. (1993). The regularities of recognition memory.Psychological Review,100, 546–567.
Glanzer, M., &Bowles, N. (1976). Analysis of the word-frequency effect in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 21–31.
Guttentag, R. E., &Carroll, D. (1994). Identifying the basis for the word frequency effect in recognition memory.Memory,2, 255–273.
Hilford, A., Glanzer, M., &Kim, K. (1997). Encoding, repetition, and the mirror effect in recognition memory: Symmetry in motion.Memory & Cognition,25, 593–605.
Hirshman, E., &Arndt, J. (1997). Discriminating alternative concepts of false recognition: The cases of word concreteness and word frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1306–1323.
Hirshman, E., &Jackson, E. (1997). Distinctive perceptual processing and memory.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 2–12.
Hunt, R. R., &Elliott, J. M. (1980). The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 49–74.
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, & Cognition,26, 1534–1555.
Kim, K., &Glanzer, M. (1993). Speed versus accuracy instructions, study time, and the mirror effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 638–652.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Malmberg, K. J., Steyvers, M., Stephens, J. D., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2002). Feature frequency effects in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,30, 607–613.
Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., &Hiraki, K. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember—know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 294–320.
Waugh, N. C., &Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory.Psychological Review,72, 89–104.
Zechmeister, E. B. (1972). Orthographic distinctiveness as a variable in word recognition.American Journal of Psychology,85, 425–430.
Ziegler, J. C., &Perry, C. (1998). No more problems in Coltheart’s neighborhood: Resolving neighborhood conflicts in the lexical decision task.Cognition,68, B53-B62.
Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., &Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,29, 600–618.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glanc, G.A., Greene, R.L. Orthographic neighborhood size effects in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition 35, 365–371 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193457
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193457