Novelty Recognition Models

  • Michał Ziembowicz
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)


In the following chapter a theoretical model of novelty recognition mechanism is described. In the first part the insights as well as shortcomings of classic approaches (e.g. mere exposure, feeling of knowing, tip of the tongue) are discussed. Those models are mostly descriptive and do not provide the explanatory mechanism for the observed effects. Such a mechanism is proposed in the second part of the chapter. First a metacognitive mechanism of fluency is described and identified as an empirical counterpart of a neural network measure of coherence. The application of a coherence/fluency-based feedback loop allows for building a precise and parsimonious model of novelty recognition process.


Recognition Process Affective Reaction Mere Exposure Volatility Index Perceptive Fluency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Berlyne, D.: Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Percept. Psychophys. 8, 279–286 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlyne, D.E.: Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  3. Berlyne, D.E. (ed.): Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Hemisphere, Washington (1974)Google Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, M.H., Mellers, B.A.: Stimulus recognition may mediate exposure effects. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(3), 391–394 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein, R.F.: Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychol. Bull. 106, 265–289 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, R.F., D’Agostino, P.R.: Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63, 545–552 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornstein, R.F., D’Agostino, P.R.: The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary TESTS of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Soc. Cogn. 12, 103–128 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bornstein, R.F., Leone, D.R., Galley, D.J.: The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 1070–1079 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drogosz, M., Nowak, A.: A neural model of mere exposure: The EXAC mechanism. Polish Psychol. Bull. 37(1) 7–15 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. Fazendeiro, T., Winkielman, P., Luo, C., Lorah, C.: False recognition across meaning, language, and stimulus format: conceptual relatedness and the feeling of familiarity. Mem. Cognit. 33, 249–260 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fechner, G.T.: Vorschule der Ästhetik. Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig (1876)Google Scholar
  12. Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J.A., Posner, M.I.: Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Conscious. Cogn. 9, 288–307 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Festinger, L.: Informal social communication. Psychol. Rev. 57, 271–282 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison, A.A.: Mere exposure. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10, pp. 39–83. Academic, San Diego, CA (1977)Google Scholar
  15. Hart, J.T.: Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience. J. Educ. Psychol. 56(4), 208–216 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hopfield, J.J.: Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational capabilities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 79(8), 2554–2558 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacoby, L.L.: Perceptual enhancements: persistent effects of an experience. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 9, 21–38 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacoby, L.L., Kelley, C.M., Dywan, J.: Memory attributions. In: Roediger, H.L., Craik, F.I.M. (eds.) Varieties of Memory and Consciousness. Essays in Honor of Endel Tulving, pp. 391–422. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1989)Google Scholar
  19. James, W.: The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1, Dover Publications, New York (1950). (Original work published 1890)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelley, C.M., Jacoby, L.L.: Subjective reports and process dissociation: fluency, knowing and feeling. Acta Psychol. 98, 127–140 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koriat, A.: The feeling of knowing: some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control. Conscious. Cogn. 9(149), 171 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. Koriat, A., Lieblich, I.: What does a person in a “TOT” state know that a person in a “don’t know” state doesn’t know? Mem. Cognit. 2, 647–655 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knust-Wilson, W.R., Zajonc, R.B.: Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science 207, 557–558 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LeDoux, J.E.: Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 155–184 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewenstein, M., Nowak, A.: Recognition with self-control in neural networks. Phys. Rev. A 40(8), 4652–4664 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mandler, G.: Recognizing: the judgment of prior occurrence. Psychol. Rev. 87, 252–271 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., Van Zandt, B.J.: Nonspecific effects of exposure on stimuli that cannot be recognized. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 13, 646–648 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mazzoni, G., Nelson, T.O.: Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 21, 1263–1274 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCulloch, W.S., Pitts, W.: A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in neural nets. Bull. Math. Biol. 5(8), 115–133 (1943)Google Scholar
  30. Metcalfe, J., Shimamura, A.P.: Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1994)Google Scholar
  31. Moreland, R.L., Zajonc, R.B.: Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 35, 191–199 (1977)Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, T.O., Gerler, D., Narens, L.: Accuracy of feeling-of-knowing judgments for predicting perceptual identification and relearning. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 113, 282–300 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reber, R., Schwarz, N.: Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Conscious. Cogn. 8, 338–342 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., Winkielman, P.: Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8, 364–382 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schachter, S.E., Singer, J.: Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychol. Rev. 69(5), 379–399 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarz, N.: Accessible content and accessibility experiences: the interplay of declarative and experiential information in judgment. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2, 87–99 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwarz, N., Clore, G.L.: Feelings and phenomenal experience. In: Higgins, E.T., Kruglanski, A.W. (eds.) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, pp. 433–465. Guilford, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  38. Seamon, J.G., Brody, N., Kauff, D.M.: Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: effects of shadowing, masking, and cerebral laterality. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 9(3), 544–555 (1983a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seamon, J.G., Brody, N., Kauff, D.M.: Affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized: II. Effect of delay between study and test. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 21(3), 187–189 (1983b)Google Scholar
  40. Seamon, J.G., Marsh, R.L., Brody, N.: Critical importance of exposure duration for affective discrimination of stimuli that are not recognized. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 10, 465–469 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seamon, J.G., McKenna, P.A., Binder, N.: The mere exposure effect is differentially sensitive to different judgment tasks. Conscious. Cogn. 7, 85–102 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sokolov, E.N.: Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. Pergamon, Oxford (1963)Google Scholar
  43. Thorndike, E.L., Lorge, I.: The Teacher’s Word Book of 30,000 Words. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York (1944)Google Scholar
  44. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1130 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whittlesea, B.W.A.: Illusions of familiarity. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 19, 1235–1253 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winkielman, P., Cacioppo, J.T.: Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation leads to positive affect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 989–1000 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., Reber, R.: The hedonic marking of processing fluency: implications for evaluative judgment. In: Musch, W.J., Klauer, K.C. (eds.) The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion, pp. 189–217. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (2002)Google Scholar
  48. Zajonc, R.B.: Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. (Monogr. Suppl.) 9(2), 1–27 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zajonc, R.B.: Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol. 35, 151–175 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zajonc, R.B.: On the primacy of affect. Am. Psychol. 39(2), 117–123 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Żochowski, M.R., Nowak, A., Lewenstein, M.: Memory that tentatively forgets. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 26(9), 2099–2112 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social StudiesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations