Abstract
Data from a recognition version of the classic Brown-Peterson short-term memory paradigm was analyzed using a modified version of the conjoint recognition model (Brainerd, Reyna, & Mojardin, 1999), which assumes that recognition is based on either a verbatim comparison of the recognition probe and the target item or a gist comparison of the items. Separate groups of participants were instructed to judge whether the recognition probe was an item from the current trial (exclusion condition), a previous trial (prior-only condition), or either the current or the previous trial (inclusion condition). The concept of gist is commonly thought of as meaning based. Our interpretation of the results suggests that the concept of gist need also emphasize similarity of environmental context. In addition, the results show that priming the recognition probe affects a participant’s decision bias but does not enhance or impair the memory traces on which the recognition judgments are based. An additional analysis using Batchelder and Riefer’s (1990) source-monitoring model supports the observation that priming affects only decision bias.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefer, D. M. (1990). Multinomial processing models of source monitoring.Psychological Review,97, 548–564.
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empiri cal review of multinomial process tree modeling.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 57–86.
Bennett, R. W. (1975). Proactive interference in short-term memory: Fundamental forgetting processes.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 123–144.
Bernstein, I. H., &Welch, K. (1991). Awareness, false recognition, and the Jacoby/Whitehouse effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,120, 324–328.
Bowers, J. S. (1999). Priming is not all bias: Commentary on Ratcliff and McKoon (1997).Psychological Review,106, 582–596.
Brainerd, C. J., Payne, D. G., Wright, R., &Reyna, V. F. (2003). Phantom recall.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 445–467.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., &Kneer, R. (1995). False-recognition reversal: When similarity is distinctive.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 157–185.
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., &Mojardin, A. H. (1999). Conjoint recognition.Psychological Review,106, 160–179.
Brown, J. A. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,10, 12–21.
Brown, V. (1998). Comparing parallel and sequential multinomial models of letter identification. In C. Dowling, F. Roberts, & P. Theuns (Eds.),Recent progress in mathematical psychology (pp. 253–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, S. E., &Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 37–60.
Crowder, R. G., &Greene, R. L. (1987). The context of remembering: Comments on the chapters by Glenberg, Gorfein, and Wickens. In D. S. Gorfein & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp. 191–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Estes, W. K. (1950). Toward a statistical theory of learning.Psychological Review,57, 94–107.
Fisher, D. F., Jarombek, J. J., &Karsh, R. (1974).Short-term memory (1958–1973): An annotated bibliography. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Human Engineering Laboratory.
Glenberg, A. M. (1987). Temporal context and recency. In D. S. Gorfein & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp. 173–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gorfein, D. S. (1987). Explaining context effects on short-term memory. In D. S. Gorfein & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.),Memory and learning: The Ebbinghaus centennial conference (pp. 153–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gorfein, D. S., &Jacobson, D. E. (1972). Proactive effects in shortterm recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,95, 211–214.
Gorfein, D. S., &Jacobson, D. E. (1973). Memory search in a Brown-Peterson short-term memory paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology,99, 82–87.
Hu, X., &Batchelder, W. H. (1994). The statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm.Psychometrika,59, 21–47.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.
Jacoby, L. L., &Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 126–135.
Johnson, M. K., &Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring.Psychological Review,88, 67–85.
Loess, H. (1967). Short-term memory: Word class and sequence of items.Journal of Experimental Psychology,118, 126–135.
Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: the judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review,87, 252–271.
Peterson, L. R., &Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual items.Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 193–198.
Ratcliff, R., &McKoon, G. (1997). A counter model for implicit priming in perceptual word identification.Psychological Review,104, 319–343.
Reyna, V. F., &Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis.Learning & Individual Differences,7, 1–75.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes.Psychological Review,95, 318–339.
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM-PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.
Wickens, D. D., Born, D. G., &Allen, C. K. (1963). Proactive inhibition and item similarity in short-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,2, 440–445.
Zeelenberg, R., Wagenmakers, E. M., &Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2002). Priming in implicit memory tasks: Prior study causes enhanced discriminality, not only bias.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,131, 38–47.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, V.R., Gorfein, D.S. A new look at recognition in the Brown-Peterson distractor paradigm: Toward the application of new methodology to unsolved problems of recognition memory. Memory & Cognition 32, 674–685 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195858
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195858