Literature DB >> 21286974

Differences in encoding for free recall vs. recognition.

J W Hall1, L R Grossman, K D Elwood.   

Abstract

Three experiments examined effects of test expectancy on memory for relatively unrelated words. In Experiment I, where preliminary recall or recognition practice was given, both recall and recognition were superior when the subjects expected and had practiced for recall. Free study led to better recall and recognition than paced presentation, but did not interact with test expectancy. Experiment II demonstrated that recall was better for subjects expecting a recall vs. a recognition test in the absence of preliminary practice. In Experiment III all subjects practiced both recall and recognition prior to presentation of the critical list. Study time also was varied. With longer study, recall was better when a recall test was expected, with no test expectancy effect on recognition. There were no appreciable expectancy effects with the short study period. Self-reports and other data suggested that the critical encoding differences produced by test expectancy manipulation were quantitative in nature.

Entities:  

Year:  1976        PMID: 21286974     DOI: 10.3758/BF03213211

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


  3 in total

1.  Encoding differences in recognition and recall.

Authors:  S T Carey; R S Lockhart
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1973-09

2.  Recognition and recall by children and adults as a function of variations in memory encoding instructions.

Authors:  J W Hall; J W Pierce
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1974-05

3.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.

Authors:  A Paivio; J C Yuille; S A Madigan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1968-01
  3 in total
  7 in total

1.  Unannounced memory tests are not necessarily unexpected by participants: test expectation and its consequences in the repeated test paradigm.

Authors:  Aileen Oeberst; Isabel Lindner
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2015-06-19

2.  Updating metacognitive control in response to expected retention intervals.

Authors:  Joshua L Fiechter; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-04

3.  Perceptions of Response Burden Associated with Completion of Patient-Reported Outcome Assessments in Oncology.

Authors:  Thomas M Atkinson; Carolyn E Schwartz; Leah Goldstein; Iliana Garcia; Daniel F Storfer; Yuelin Li; Jie Zhang; Bernard H Bochner; Bruce D Rapkin
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Test expectancy and memory for important information.

Authors:  Catherine D Middlebrooks; Kou Murayama; Alan D Castel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Adaptive and qualitative changes in encoding strategy with experience: evidence from the test-expectancy paradigm.

Authors:  Jason R Finley; Aaron S Benjamin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Rate and frequency as determinants of learning with complete and discrete list presentation.

Authors:  J W Hall; T A Smith; S L Wegener; B J Underwood
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1981-07

7.  Anodal tDCS Enhances Verbal Episodic Memory in Initially Low Performers.

Authors:  Annegret Habich; Stefan Klöppel; Ahmed Abdulkadir; Elisa Scheller; Christoph Nissen; Jessica Peter
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 3.169

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.