Literature DB >> 26282623

Recognition during recall failure: Semantic feature matching as a mechanism for recognition of semantic cues when recall fails.

Anne M Cleary1, Anthony J Ryals2, Samantha R Wagner3.   

Abstract

Research suggests that a feature-matching process underlies cue familiarity-detection when cued recall with graphemic cues fails. When a test cue (e.g., potchbork) overlaps in graphemic features with multiple unrecalled studied items (e.g., patchwork, pitchfork, pocketbook, pullcork), higher cue familiarity ratings are given during recall failure of all of the targets than when the cue overlaps in graphemic features with only one studied target and that target fails to be recalled (e.g., patchwork). The present study used semantic feature production norms (McRae et al., Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547-559, 2005) to examine whether the same holds true when the cues are semantic in nature (e.g., jaguar is used to cue cheetah). Indeed, test cues (e.g., cedar) that overlapped in semantic features (e.g., a_tree, has_bark, etc.) with four unretrieved studied items (e.g., birch, oak, pine, willow) received higher cue familiarity ratings during recall failure than test cues that overlapped in semantic features with only two (also unretrieved) studied items (e.g., birch, oak), which in turn received higher familiarity ratings during recall failure than cues that did not overlap in semantic features with any studied items. These findings suggest that the feature-matching theory of recognition during recall failure can accommodate recognition of semantic cues during recall failure, providing a potential mechanism for conceptually-based forms of cue recognition during target retrieval failure. They also provide converging evidence for the existence of the semantic features envisaged in feature-based models of semantic knowledge representation and for those more concretely specified by the production norms of McRae et al. (Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547-559, 2005).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Familiarity in recognition memory; Recognition; Semantic memory

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26282623     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-015-0545-z

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  The own-age bias in face recognition: a meta-analytic and theoretical review.

Authors:  Matthew G Rhodes; Jeffrey S Anastasi
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Relating familiarity-based recognition and the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon: detecting a word's recency in the absence of access to the word.

Authors:  Anne M Cleary
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-06

3.  Recognition memory for novel stimuli: the structural regularity hypothesis.

Authors:  Anne M Cleary; Alison L Morris; Moses M Langley
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.

Authors:  G R Loftus; M E Masson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-12

5.  Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation.

Authors:  Catherine O Fritz; Peter E Morris; Jennifer J Richler
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2011-08-08

6.  Familiarity from the configuration of objects in 3-dimensional space and its relation to déjà vu: a virtual reality investigation.

Authors:  Anne M Cleary; Alan S Brown; Benjamin D Sawyer; Jason S Nomi; Adaeze C Ajoku; Anthony J Ryals
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2012-02-08

7.  Looking for meaning: eye movements are sensitive to overlapping semantic features, not association.

Authors:  Eiling Yee; Eve Overton; Sharon L Thompson-Schill
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-10

8.  Introduction to the research topic meaning in mind: semantic richness effects in language processing.

Authors:  Penny M Pexman; Paul D Siakaluk; Melvin J Yap
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  An electrophysiological signature of unconscious recognition memory.

Authors:  Joel L Voss; Ken A Paller
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2009-02-08       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 10.  Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs.

Authors:  Daniël Lakens
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-11-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.