Literature DB >> 11504003

Similarity, global matching, and judgments of frequency.

D L Hintzman1.   

Abstract

In the test-pair similarity effect, forced-choice recognition is more accurate for similar test pairs, such as leopard-cheetah, than it is for unrelated test pairs, such as leopard-turnip. According to global matching models, this occurs because the retrieved familiarities of similar items are correlated. In the Minerva 2 model, global matching underlies frequency judgments as well as recognition memory. One implication of this model is that judged frequencies of similar items should be correlated. Another implication is that judgments of summed frequency for pairs of words (how many presentations were there of word1 and word2 combined?) should have higher variance when word1 and word2 are similar than when they are unrelated. These predictions were tested and confirmed in two experiments. A review of these and other results suggests that theories of recognition memory should also be applicable to frequency-judgment tasks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11504003     DOI: 10.3758/bf03200456

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  10 in total

1.  Spacing effects in picture memory.

Authors:  D L Hintzman; M K Rogers
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1973-12

2.  Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data.

Authors:  S E Clark; S D Gronlund
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1996-03

3.  Familiarity breeds differentiation: a subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory.

Authors:  J L McClelland; M Chappell
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  A model for recognition memory: REM-retrieving effectively from memory.

Authors:  R M Shiffrin; M Steyvers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1997-06

5.  List-strength effect: II. Theoretical mechanisms.

Authors:  R M Shiffrin; R Ratcliff; S E Clark
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Comparison of the retrieval of item versus spatial position information.

Authors:  S D Gronlund; M B Edwards; D D Ohrt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  A retrieval theory of priming in memory.

Authors:  R Ratcliff; G McKoon
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Mirror effect in frequency discrimination.

Authors:  R L Greene; A Thapar
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Memory as a function of attention, level of processing, and automatization.

Authors:  A D Fisk; W Schneider
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.

Authors:  G Gillund; R M Shiffrin
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 8.934

  10 in total
  7 in total

1.  Likelihood judgment based on previously observed outcomes: the alternative-outcomes effect in a learning paradigm.

Authors:  Paul D Windschitl; Michael E Young; Mary E Jenson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-04

2.  Judgment of frequency versus recognition confidence: repetition and recursive reminding.

Authors:  Douglas L Hintzman
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-03

3.  Generalization through the recurrent interaction of episodic memories: a model of the hippocampal system.

Authors:  Dharshan Kumaran; James L McClelland
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Recursive reminding: effects of repetition, printed frequency, connectivity, and set size on recognition and judgments of frequency.

Authors:  Serena L Fisher; Douglas L Nelson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-03

5.  Age-related impairment on a forced-choice version of the Mnemonic Similarity Task.

Authors:  Derek J Huffman; Craig E L Stark
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 1.912

6.  Double dissociation between hippocampal and parahippocampal responses to object-background context and scene novelty.

Authors:  Lorelei R Howard; Dharshan Kumaran; Hauður F Ólafsdóttir; Hugo J Spiers
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-04-06       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Match mismatch processes underlie human hippocampal responses to associative novelty.

Authors:  Dharshan Kumaran; Eleanor A Maguire
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 6.167

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.