Literature DB >> 31898291

Modeling list-strength and spacing effects using version 3 of the retrieving effectively from memory (REM.3) model and its superimposition-of-similar-images assumption.

Tyler M Ensor1,2, Aimée M Surprenant3, Ian Neath3.   

Abstract

Shiffrin and Steyvers (1997) introduced a model of recognition memory called retrieving effectively from memory (REM) and successfully applied it to a number of basic memory phenomena. REM incorporates differentiation, wherein item repetitions are accumulated in a single mnemonic trace rather than separate traces. This allows REM to account for several benchmark findings, including the null list-strength effect in recognition (Ratcliff, Clark, & Shiffrin, 1990). The original REM treated massed and spaced repetitions identically, which prevents it from predicting a mnemonic advantage for spaced over massed repetitions (i.e., the spacing effect). However, Shiffrin and Steyvers discussed the possibility that repetitions might be represented in a single trace only if the subject identifies that the repeated item was previously studied. It is quite plausible that subjects would notice repetitions more for massed than for spaced items. Here we show that incorporating this idea allows REM to predict three important findings in the recognition memory literature: (1) the spacing effect, (2) the finding of slightly positive list-strength effects with spaced repetitions, as opposed to massed repetitions or increased study time, and (3) list-strength effects that have been observed using very large strong-to-weak ratios (see Norman, 2002).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Differentiation; Item strengthening; Memory models; Recognition; Retrieving effectively from memory

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 31898291     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01324-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  30 in total

1.  List composition and the word-frequency effect for recognition memory.

Authors:  Kenneth J Malmberg; Kevin Murnane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Perceptual learning; differentiation or enrichment?

Authors:  J J GIBSON; E J GIBSON
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1955-01       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Recognition memory for nouns as a function of abstractness and frequency.

Authors:  A M GORMAN
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1961-01

Review 4.  Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.

Authors:  Nicholas J Cepeda; Harold Pashler; Edward Vul; John T Wixted; Doug Rohrer
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 17.737

5.  The mirror effect in recognition memory: data and theory.

Authors:  M Glanzer; J K Adams
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Models that allow us to perceive the world more accurately also allow us to remember past events more accurately via differentiation.

Authors:  Aslı Kılıç; Amy H Criss; Kenneth J Malmberg; Richard M Shiffrin
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration, and CHARM.

Authors:  J M Eich
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Decision processes in recognition memory: criterion shifts and the list-strength paradigm.

Authors:  E Hirshman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  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.  A context noise model of episodic word recognition.

Authors:  S Dennis; M S Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 8.934

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.