Abstract
The recognition-failure paradigm has received much theoretical consideration, especially the Tulving-Wiseman function and its exceptions. We show that the Tulving-Wiseman function does a poor job of accounting for the data, both when its fit is measured with a model-based, goodness-of-fit statistic and when a logically equivalent reformulation of the function is compared with data. We then present a simple multinomial model based on retrieval-independence theory that is capable of measuring storage and retrieval processes in recognition failure. The model is used to conduct a meta-analysis of the recognition-failure paradigm, and shows that violations of the Tulving-Wiseman function occur under conditions in which weak storage is coupled with strong retrieval. In addition, if storage and retrieval are assumed to be positively correlated across conditions, the model produces a theoretically motivated, alternative equation to the Tulving-Wiseman function that provides a virtually identical fit to the data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Arlemalm, T., &Nilsson, L.-G. (1992). Recognition failure of recallable words: Exception due to poor integration.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,33, 266–276.
Bahrick, H. P. (1970). A two-phase model for prompted recall.Psychological Review,77, 215–222.
Batchelder, W. H. (1975). Individual differences and the all-or-none vs. incremental learning controversy.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,12, 53–73.
Batchelder, W. H. (1993, November).Parameter variation in retrievalindependence theories of memory. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, DC.
Batchelder, W. H., &Riefer, D. M. (1980). Separation of storage and retrieval factors in free recall of clusterable pairs.Psychological Review,87, 375–397.
Batchelder, W. H., Riefer, D. M., &Hu, X. (1994). Measuring memory factors in source monitoring: Reply to Kinchla.Psychological Review,101, 172–176.
Begg, I. (1979). Trace loss and the recognition failure of unrecalled words.Memory & Cognition,7, 113–123.
Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., &Holland, P. W. (1975).Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bryant, D. J. (1991). Exceptions to recognition failure as a function of the encoded association between cue and target.Memory & Cognition,19, 210–219.
Donnelly, R. E. (1988). Priming effects in successive episodic tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 256–265.
Erdfelder, E., &Bayen, U. J. (1991). Episodisches gedachtnis im Alter: Methodologische und empirische Argumente für einen Zugang über mathematische Modelle [Episodic memory in old age: Methodological and empirical arguments for a mathematical modeling approach]. In D. Frey (Ed.),Bericht über den 37. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Kiel 1990 [Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the German Society for Psychology in Kiel 1990] (Vol. 2, pp. 172–180). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Fisher, R. P. (1979). Retrieval operations in cued recall and recognition.Memory & Cognition,7, 224–231.
Flexser, A. J., &Tulving, E. (1978). Retrieval independence in recognition and recall.Psychological Review,85, 153–171.
Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Recognition failures and free-recall failures: Implications for the relation between recall and recognition.Memory & Cognition,16, 446–451.
Gardiner, J. M., &Tulving, E. (1980). Exceptions to recognition failure of recallable words.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 194–209.
Greeno, J. G., James, C. T., DaPolito, F., &Polson, P. G. (1978).Associate learning: A cognitive analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hintzman, D. L. (1980). Simpson’s paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval.Psychological Review,87, 398–410.
Hintzman, D. L. (1987). Recognition and recall in MINERVA 2: Analysis of the “recognition-failure” paradigm. In P. Morris (Ed.),Modelling cognition (pp. 215–229). London: Wiley.
Hintzman, D. L. (1991). Contingency analysis, hypotheses, and artifacts: Reply to Flexser and to Gardiner.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 341–345.
Hintzman, D. L. (1992). Mathematical constraints and the “Tulving-Wiseman Law.”Psychological Review,99, 536–542.
Hintzman, D. L. (1993). On variability, Simpson’s paradox, and the relation between recognition and recall: Reply to Tulving and Flexser.Psychological Review,100, 143–148.
Hu, X., &Batchelder, W. H. (1994). Statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the EM algorithm.Psychometrika,59, 21–47.
Humphreys, M. S., &Bowyer, P. A. (1980). Sequential testing effects and the relationship between recognition and recognition failure.Memory & Cognition,8, 271–277.
Jones, G. V. (1978). Recognition failure and dual mechanisms in recall.Psychological Review,85, 464–469.
Jones, G. V., &Gardiner, J. M. (1990). Recognition failure when recognition targets and recall cues are identical.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,28, 105–108.
Kinchla, R. A. (1994). Comments on Batchelder and Riefer’s multinomial model for source monitoring.Psychological Review,101, 166–171.
Kintsch, W. (1978). More on recognition failure of recallable words: Implications for generation-recognition models.Psychological Review,85, 270–281.
Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, E. (1971). Verbal learning theory and independent retrieval phenomena.Psychological Review,75, 421–441.
Metcalfe, J. (1992). Recognition failure and the composite memory trace in CHARM.Psychological Review,98, 529–553.
Murdock, B. B. (1993). TODAM2: A model for the storage and retrieval of item, associative, and serial-order information.Psychological Review,100, 183–203.
Muter, P. (1984). Recognition and recall of words with a single meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 198–202.
Neely, J. H., &Payne, D. G. (1983). A direct comparison of recognition failure rates for recallable names in episodic and semantic memory tests.Memory & Cognition,11, 161–171.
Nilsson, L.-G., &Gardiner, J. M. (1991). Memory theory and the boundary conditions of the Tulving-Wiseman law. In W. E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.),Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory (pp. 57–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nilsson, L.-G., &Gardiner, J. M. (1993). Identifying exceptions in a database of recognition failure studies from 1973 to 1992.Memory & Cognition,21, 397–410.
Nilsson, L.-G., Law, J., &Tulving, E. (1988). Recognition failure of recallable unique names: Evidence for an empirical law of memory and learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 266–277.
Nilsson, L.-G., &Shaps, L. P. (1980). A functional view of memory. In F. Klix & J. Hoffmann (Eds.),Cognition and memory: Interdisciplinary research of human memory activities (pp. 40–46). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Raaijmakers, J. G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory.Psychological Review,88, 93–134.
Rabinowitz, J. C. (1984). Aging and recognition failure.Journal of Gerontology,39, 65–71.
Ratcliff, R., &McKoon, G. (1989). Memory models, text-processing, and cue-dependent retrieval. In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.),Varieties of memory and consciousness (pp. 73–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reder, L. M., Anderson, J. R., &Bjork, R. A. (1974). A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity.Journal of Experimental Psychology,102, 648–656.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes.Psychological Review,95, 318–339.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1991a). Age differences in storage and retrieval: A multinomial modeling analysis.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 415–418.
Riefer, D. M., &Batchelder, W. H. (1991b). Statistical inference for multinomial processing tree models. In J.-P. Doignon & J.-C. Falmagne (Eds.),Mathematical psychology: Current developments (pp. 213–336). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ronnberg, J., Lyxell, B., Samuelsson, S., Erngrund, K., &Nilsson, L.-G. (1991). Recognition failure of prose-embedded words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 288–301.
Sandberg, K. (1990). Integration and cue overlap in recognition failure of recallable words.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,31, 302–314.
Schonfield, D., &Robertson, B. A. (1966). Memory storage and aging.Canadian Journal of Psychology,20, 228–236.
Shaps, L. P., &Nilsson, L.-G. (1980). Encoding and retrieval operations in relation to age.Developmental Psychology,16, 636–643.
Tajika, H. (1977). Features of recognition tasks in encoding specificity: Types of frequency associates in extralist cue words and types of recognition tasks.Psychologia,20, 151–158.
Tajika, H. (1978). Features of recognition tasks in encoding specificity: The function of context in recognition tasks.Japanese Psychological Research,20, 93–100.
Tajika, H. (1979). Memory processes in recall and recognition.Psychologia,22, 146–154.
Tulving, E., &Flexser, A. J. (1992). On the nature of the Tulving-Wiseman function.Psychological Review,99, 543–546.
Tulving, E., &Flexser, A. J. (1993). Recognition-failure constraints and the average maximum.Psychological Review,100, 149–153.
Tulving, E., &Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 352–373.
Tulving, E., &Watkins, O. C. (1977). Recognition failure of words with a single meaning.Memory & Cognition,5, 513–522.
Tulving, E., &Wiseman, S. (1975). Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,6, 79–82.
Vining, S. K., &Nelson, T. O. (1979). Some constraints on the generality and interpretation of the recognition failure of recallable words.American Journal of Psychology,92, 257–276.
Watkins, M. J., &Tulving, E. (1975). Episodic memory: When recognition fails.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,104, 5–29.
Wickens, T. D. (1982).Models for behavior: Stochastic processes in psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Wiseman, S., &Tulving, E. (1975). A test of confusion theory of encoding specificity.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14, 370–381.
Wiseman, S., &Tulving, E. (1976). Encoding specificity: Relation between recall superiority and recognition failure.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 349–361.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9309667.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riefer, D.M., Batchelder, W.H. A multinomial modeling analysis of the recognition-failure paradigm. Memory & Cognition 23, 611–630 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197263
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197263