Retrieval dynamics in recognition and list discrimination: Further evidence of separate processes of familiarity and recall

Abstract

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that the time course of retrieval from memory is different for familiarity and recall. The response-signal method was used to compare memory retrieval dynamics in yes-no recognition memory, as a measure of familiarity, with those of list discrimination, as a measure of contextual recall. Responses were always made with regard to membership in two previous study lists. In Experiment 1 an exclusion task requiring positive responses to words from one list and negative responses to new words and words from the nontarget list was used. In Experiment 2, recognition and list discrimination were separate tasks. Retrieval curves from both experiments were consistent, showing that the minimal retrieval time for recognition was about 100 msec faster than that for list discrimination. Repetition affected asymptotic performance but had no reliable effects on retrieval dynamics in either the recognition or the list-discrimination task.

References

  1. Aggleton, J. P., &Shaw, C. (1996). Amnesia and recognition memory: A reanalysis of psychometric data.Neuropsychologia,34, 51–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, J. R., &Bower, G. H. (1972). Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall.Psychological Review,79, 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, J. R., &Bower, G. H. (1974). Interference in memory for multiple contexts.Memory & Cognition,2, 509–514.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson, R. C., &Juola, J. F. (1973). Factors influencing speed and accuracy of word recognition. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance IV (pp. 583–612). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barnett, V., &Lewis, T. (1984).Outliers in statistical data (2nd ed.). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., Steffens, M. C., &Martensen, H. (1997). The nature of memory processes underlying recognition judgments in the process dissociation procedure.Memory & Cognition,25, 508–517.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Corbett, A. T., &Wickelgren, W. A. (1978). Semantic memory retrieval: Analysis by speed accuracy tradeoff functions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,30, 1–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Curran, T., &Hintzman, D. L. (1995). Violations of the independence assumption in process dissociation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 531–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Curran, T., &Hintzman, D. L. (1997). Consequences and causes of correlations in process dissociation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 496–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dosher, B. A. (1981). The effects of delay and interference: A speedaccuracy study.Cognitive Psychology,13, 551–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dosher, B. A. (1984a). Degree of learning and retrieval speed: Study time and multiple exposures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 541–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dosher, B. A. (1984b). Discriminating preexperimental (semantic) from learned (episodic) associations: A speed-accuracy study.Cognitive Psychology,16, 519–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dosher, B. A., &Rosedale, G. (1991). Judgments of semantic and episodic relatedness: Common time-course and failure of segregation.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 125–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eich, J. M. (1982). A composite holographic associative recall model.Psychological Review,89, 627–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eichenbaum, H., Otto, T., &Cohen, N. J. (1994). Two functional components of the hippocampal memory system.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,17, 449–518.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gillund, G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.Psychological Review,91, 1–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gronlund, S. D., Edwards, M. B., &Ohrt, D. D. (1997). Comparison of the retrieval of item versus spatial position information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1261–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gronlund, S. D., &Ratcliff, R. (1989). The time-course of item and associative information: Implications for global memory models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 846–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heil, M., Rösler, F., &Hennighausen, E. (1996). Topographically distinct cortical activation in episodic long-term memory: The retrieval of spatial versus verbal information.Memory & Cognition,24, 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,93, 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,95, 528–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hintzman, D. L., &Block, R. A. (1971). Repetition and memory: Evidence for a multiple-trace hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology,88, 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hintzman, D. L., Block, R. A., &Summers, J. J. (1973). Contextual associations and memory for serial position.Journal of Experimental Psychology,97, 220–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hintzman, D. L., &Caulton, D. A. (1997). Recognition memory and modality judgments: A comparison of retrieval dynamics.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hintzman, D. L., Caulton, D. A., &Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval constraints and the mirror effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1997a). Comparing retrieval dynamics in recognition memory and lexical decision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 228–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1997b). More than one way to violate independence: Reply to Jacoby and Shrout.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 511–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hintzman, D. L., &Waters, R. M. (1970). Recency and frequency as factors in list discrimination.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 218–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Humphreys, M. S., Bain, J. D., &Pike, R. (1989). Different ways to cue a coherent memory system: A theory for episodic, semantic, and procedural tasks.Psychological Review,96, 208–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jacoby, L. L., Begg, I. M., &Toth, J. P. (1997). In defense of functional independence: Violations of assumptions underlying the processdissociation procedure?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 484–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jacoby, L. L., &Shrout, P. E. (1997). Toward a psychometric analysis of violations of the independence assumption in process dissociation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 505–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jacoby, L. L., Toth, J. P., &Yonelinas, A. P. (1993). Separating conscious and unconscious influences of memory: Measuring recollection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Janowsky, J. S., Shimamura, A. P., &Squire, L. R. (1989). Source memory impairment in patients with frontal lobe lesions.Neuropsychologia,27, 1043–1056.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring.Psychological Bulletin,114, 3–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Libet, B. (1993).Neurophysiology of consciousness: Selected papers and new essays of Benjamin Libet. Boston: Birkhauser.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1996). Triangles in ROC space: History and theory of “nonparametric” measures of sensitivity and response bias.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 164–170.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Marr, D. (1971). Simple memory: A theory for archicortex.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London,262, 23–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McElree, B., &Dosher, B. A. (1993). Serial retrieval processes in the recovery of order information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,122, 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Milner, B., Corsi, P., &Leonard, G. (1991). Frontal-lobe contribution to recency judgments.Neuropsychologia,29, 601–618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Moscovitch, M. (1992). Memory and working-with-memory: A component process model based on modules and central systems.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,4, 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mulligan, N., &Hirshman, E. (1995). Speed-accuracy trade-offs and the dual process model of recognition memory.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information.Psychological Review,89, 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., &Davis, C. K. (1984).Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words (Progress Rep. No. 10). Bloomington: Indiana University, Department of Psychology, Speech Research Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1992). Models for recall and recognition.Annual Review of Psychology,43, 205–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ratcliff, R., &McKoon, G. (1989). Similarity information versus relational information: Differences in the time course of retrieval.Cognitive Psychology,21, 139–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Reed, A. V. (1973). Speed-accuracy tradeoff in recognition memory.Science,181, 574–576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Reed, A. V. (1976). List length and the time-course of recognition in immediate memory.Memory & Cognition,4, 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rensink, R. A. (1990). Toolbox-based routines for Macintosh timing and display.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,22, 105–107.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Snodgrass, J. G., &Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Application to dementia and amnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 34–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Treves, A., &Rolls, E. T. (1993). Computational analysis of the role of the hippocampus in memory.Hippocampus,4, 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wickelgren, W. A. (1977). Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics.Acta Psychologica,41, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wickelgren, W. A. (1981). Human learning and memory. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.),Annual review of psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 21–52). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wickelgren, W. A., &Corbett, A. T. (1977). Associative interference and retrieval dynamics in yes-no recall and recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,3, 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Winograd, E. (1968). List differentiation as a function of frequency and retention interval.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,76, (2, Pt. 2).

  59. Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual-process model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1341–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yonelinas, A. P., &Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Dissociations of processes in recognition memory: Effects of interference and of response speed.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,48, 516–534.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas L. Hintzman.

Additional information

This article is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant BNS-90-08909 and SBR-93-19265.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hintzman, D.L., Caulton, D.A. & Levitin, D.J. Retrieval dynamics in recognition and list discrimination: Further evidence of separate processes of familiarity and recall. Mem Cogn 26, 449–462 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201155

Download citation

Keywords

  • Journal ofExperimental Psychology
  • Study List
  • Test Word
  • Test List
  • Target List