Abstract
What is the source of interference on a memory test following study of a list containing different types of pairs? Many current models predict that pairs and singles of all types will jointly interfere and therefore harm memory. Such list length effects have often been observed for lists of a single-item type (e.g., a list of words). Here, we examine interference for lists containing multiple types of pairs (e.g., word-word, face-face, word-face). In three experiments, we manipulate the number of each type on the study list. In associative recognition, discrimination fell as the number of pairs of the same type rose, but the number of pairs of other types had little effect. That is, we found a list length effect within, but not between, classes of stimuli. We highlight the importance of representation and propose alternatives to current model representations that can predict such findings.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R., &Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: New results and new theories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,128, 186–197.
Anderson, M. C., &Neely, J. H. (Eds.) (1996).Interference and inhibition in memory retrieval. San Diego: Academic Press.
AT&T Laboratories Cambridge (1994).The Olivetti research database of faces [Electronic database]. Available from www.uk. research.att.com/facedatabase/html.
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.
Clark, S. E., &Hori, A. (1995). List length and overlap effects in forced-choice associative recognition.Memory & Cognition,23, 456–461.
Clark, S. E., Hori, A., &Callan, D. E. (1993). Forced-choice associative recognition: Implications for global-memory models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 871–881.
Clark, S. E., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1992). Cuing effects and associative information in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,20, 580–598.
Criss, A., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2004a). Context noise and item noise jointly determine recognition memory: A comment on Dennis and Humphreys (2001).Psychological Review,111, 800–807.
Criss, A., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2004b). 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.
Dennis, S., &Humphreys, M. S. (2001). A context noise model of episodic word recognition.Psychological Review,108, 452–478.
Diller, D. E., Nobel, P. A., &Shiffrin, R. (2001). An ARC-REM model for accuracy and response time in recognition and recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 414–435.
Dosher, B. A., &Rosedale, G. S. (1997). Configural processing in memory retrieval: Multiple cues and ensemble representations.Cognitive Psychology,33, 209–265.
Dyne, A. M., Humphreys, M. S., Bain, J. D., &Pike, R. (1990). Associative interference effects in recognition and recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 813–824.
Gillund, G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Free recall of complex pictures and abstract words.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 575–592.
Gillund, G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.Psychological Review,19, 1–67.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A. (1966).Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford: Wiley.
Griffiths, T. L., &Steyvers, M. (2003). Prediction and semantic association. In S. Becker, S. Thrun, & K. O. Ghahramani (Eds.),Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 11–18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gronlund, S. D., &Ratcliff, R. (1989). Time course of item and associative information: Implications for global memory models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 846–858.
Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,94, 528–551.
Hockley, W. E. (1992). Item versus associative information: Further comparisons of forgetting rates.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1321–1330.
Hockley, W. E., &Consoli, A. (1999). Familiarity and recollection in item and associative recognition.Memory & Cognition,27, 657–664.
Hockley, W. E., &Cristi, C. (1996a). Tests of encoding tradeoffs between item and associative information.Memory & Cognition,24, 202–216.
Hockley, W. E., &Cristi, C. (1996b). Tests of the separate retrieval of item and associative information using a frequency-judgment task.Memory & Cognition,24, 796–811.
Humphreys, M. S. (1976). Relational information and the context effect in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,4, 221–232.
Humphreys, M. S. (1978). Item and relational information: A case for context-independent retrieval.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 175–187.
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.
Kelley, R., &Wixted, J. T. (2001). On the nature of associative information in recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 701–722.
Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Landauer, T. K., &Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge.Psychological Review,102, 211–240.
Light, L. L., &Carter-Sobell, L. (1970). Effects of changed semantic context on recognition memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,9, 1–11.
Macho, S. (2004). Modeling associative recognition: A comparison of two-high-threshold, two-high-threshold signal detection, and mixture distribution models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 83–97.
Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Malmberg, K. J. (2002). On the form of ROCs constructed from confidence ratings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 380–387.
McClelland, J. L., &Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory.Psychological Review,105, 724–760.
McCloskey, M., &Bigler, K. (1980). Focused memory search in fact retrieval.Memory & Cognition,8, 253–264.
McGee, R. (1980). Imagery and recognition memory: The effects of relational organization.Memory & Cognition,8, 394–399.
Metcalfe-Eich, J. M. (1985). Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration, and CHARM.Psychological Review,92, 1–38.
Murdock, B. B. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information.Psychological Review,89, 609–626.
Murdock, B. B. (1997). Context and mediators in a theory of distributed associative memory (TODAM2).Psychological Review,104, 839–862.
Murdock, B. B., &Kahana, M. J. (1993). Analysis of the list-strength effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,19, 689–697.
Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions.Psychological Bulletin,95, 109–133.
Nobel, P. A., &Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Retrieval processes in recognition and cued recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 384–413.
Paivio, A. (1971).Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Pollack, I., &Norman, D. A. (1964). A non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments.Psychonomic Science,1, 125–126.
Raaijmakers, J. G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1980). SAM: A theory of probabilistic search of associative memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 14, pp. 207–262). New York: Academic Press.
Ratcliff, R., Clark, S. E., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1990). List-strength effect: I. Data and discussion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 163–178.
Reder, L. M., &Anderson, J. R. (1980). A partial resolution of the paradox of interference: The role of integrating knowledge.Cognitive Psychology,12, 447–472.
Rotello, C. M., &Heit, E. (2000). Associative recognition: A case of recall-to-reject processing.Memory & Cognition,28, 907–922.
Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., &Van Tassel, G. (2000). Recallto-reject in recognition: Evidence from ROC curves.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 67–88.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., &Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 763–797.
Shiffrin, R. M., Huber, D. E., &Marinelli, K. (1995). Effects of category length and strength on familiarity in recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,21, 267–287.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 145–166.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Steyvers, M. (1998). The effectiveness of retrieval from memory. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.),Rational models of cognition (pp. 73–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sohn, M.-H., &Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 762–778.
Sommers, M. S., &Lewis, B. P. (1999). Who really lives next door: Creating false memories with phonological neighbors.Journal of Memory & Language,40, 83–108.
Small, S. A., Nava, A. S., Perera, G. M., DeLaPaz, R., Mayeux, R., &Stern, Y. (2001). Circuit mechanisms underlying memory encoding and retrieval in the long axis of the hippocampal formation.Nature Neuroscience,4, 442–449.
Steyvers, M. (2001). Modeling semantic and orthographic similarity effects on memory for individual words (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 11B.
Tulving, E., &Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,5, 381–391.
Tulving, E., &Thompson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory.Psychological Review,80, 352–373.
Underwood, B. J. (1969). Attributes of memory.Psychological Review,76, 559–573.
Weber, E. U. (1988). Expectation and variance of item resemblance distributions in a convolution-correlation model of distributed memory.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,32, 1–43.
Yonelinas, A. P. (1997). Recognition memory ROCs for item and associative information: The contribution of recollection and familiarity.Memory & Cognition,25, 747–763.
Yonelinas, A. P., Kroll, N. E. A., Dobbins, I. G., &Soltani, M. (1999). Recognition memory of faces: When familiarity supports associative recognition judgments.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 654–661.
Zeineh, M. M., Engel, S. A., Thompson, P. M., &Bookheimer, S. Y. (2003). Dynamics of the hippocampus during encoding and retrieval of face-name pairs.Science,299, 577–580.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grant 12717 to R.M.S. and a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship to A.H.C.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Criss, A.H., Shiffrin, R.M. Pairs do not suffer interference from other types of pairs or single items in associative recognition. Memory & Cognition 32, 1284–1297 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206319
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206319