Benjamin Allred벤자민 알레드

Contents

Questions to Think About Definitions Recognition Versus Recall Single Process Models Generate-Recognize Models Remember Versus Know The Mirror Effect Face Recognition

Questions to Think About

Which test is easier – a recognition test or a recall test? (What makes one test easier than another?)

How are remember and know judgments related to explicit and implicit memory?

Why is it easier to recognize faces of one’s own age-group?

Recall

Recognition Distractors/lures

In a recall test, the experimenter provides the context and the subject has to retrieve the target; in a recognition test, the experimenter provides the target and the subject has to retrieve the context. (Hollingworth (1913))

Definitions

Recognition Versus Recall Recognition experiment - Shepard

(1967) Subjects presented with lists of stimuli

Words, sentences, photographs At test, presented with two stimuli, one

from original list, one new Words: 88% Sentences: 89% Pictures: almost 100%

Recognition Versus Recall Recall experiment – Mäntylä (1986)

Subjects presented with lists of words, for which they had to generate three properties for each

At test, experimenter presented the properties Subjects recalled approximately 91% of

the words

Types of Recognition Tests Alternative Forced Choice (2AFC,

4AFC) Given multiple choices, choose the one

already seen

Yes-No Given one choice, indicate whether the

item is “old” or “new”

Yes-No Recognition Test

Possible Outcomes in a Yes-No Recognition Test

Subject’s Response

Yes No

Test ItemOld Hit Miss

New False Alarm Correct Rejection

Single Process Models

Early theories of recognition Tagging Model

When an item occurs, it is tagged with the relative time of occurrence

Strength Theory The more recent the item, the stronger or

more familiar it is Limitations

These models contain only a single process (Meaning that the same manipulation (word

frequency, intentionality, etc) should have the same effect on both recall and recognition)

Evidence of Limitations

Generate-Recognize Models Two-stage models

Recall is made up of two processes First, generate a set of plausible candidates

for recall (generation stage) Second, confirm whether each word is

worthy of being recalled (recognition stage – not the same as the recognition test)

Recognition is made up of only one process Because the experimenter provides a

candidate, recognition does not need the generation stage

Generate-Recognize Models Example: HAM (human associative

memory) (Anderson and Bower (1973)) Assumes words are stored in associative

network As words are presented, they are tagged with a

contextual marker Pathways to associated words are also tagged At recall:

Contextual markers are followed to generate a set of plausible candidates (generation stage)

After examining number of associations between target word and context, “old” or “new” is chosen depending on sufficient contextual evidence (recognition stage)

Generate-Recognize Models Solves limitations of single process model

The same manipulation does not have to have the same effect on both recall and recognition

Have problems of their own, however They require that if a word can be recalled, it

must also be recognized Because the second stage is common to both recall

and recognition, a successful outcome in one test should mean a successful outcome for the other

Recall failure is quite common and explainable, but recognition failure is contrary to the prediction of generate-recognize models

Recognition Failure

Experiment by Watkins & Tulving (1975) Proved that a word could be recalled,

even though it could not be recognizedStep Procedure Example

1a1b

List 1 presentedCued recall of List 1

badge-buttonbadge-button

2a2b

List 2 presentedCued recall of List 2

preach-rantpreach-rant

3 List 3 presented glue-chair

4a4b

Free association stimuli presentedFree association responses made

tabletable-chair, cloth, desk, dinner

5a5b

Recognition test sheets presentedRecognized items circled

desk top chairdesk top chair

6 Cued recall of List 3 glue-chair

Generate-Recognize Models Adding a search process during recognition

stage could allow a generate-recognize model to account for recognition failure Familiarity instantly computed to make

response If familiarity value is not decisive enough, a

search is performed In the previous experiment, the target word

(chair) is not “found” in the search because the retrieval phase (step 5) contained inappropriate cues

The recall test (step 6) provided appropriate cues, so the search process is successful

Remember Versus Know

Relatively recent change in recognition methodology (1985, 1988)

Does someone specifically remember or just somehow know?

Experiment (Tulving (1985)): Present subjects with category-member pairs Recall tests:

Free recall test Cued recall test (category) Cued recall test (category + first letter of target)

The proportion of remember judgments decreased over the three kinds of tests

Remember Versus Know

Gardiner (1990, 1993) gives an explanation: Remember judgments are influenced by

conceptual and attentional factors Know judgments are based on a procedural

memory system Like explicit and implicit memory

Data from remember/know experiments support the idea that recognition is a combination of two processes Recollection (remember judgments) and Familiarity (know judgments)

The Mirror Effect

Observed when “The type of stimulus that is accurately recognized as old when old is also accurately recognized as new when new. The type that is poorly recognized as old when old is also poorly recognized as new when new.” (Glanzer & Adams, 1985, p.8)

Pervasive in recognition tests High/low word frequency and hit/false alarm

rates, presentation rate, age of subject, ...

The Mirror Effect - Example

The Mirror Effect and the Word Frequency Effect

Word Frequency

High Low

Hits 27.84 31.00

False Alarms 10.20 7.63

Source: Human Memory, p. 214

The Mirror Effect

Significance: It eliminates all theories of recognition based on a unidimensional conception of strength or familiarity (single process models)

May be able to be explained by dual process models

Explanations for the mirror effect are still being formed

Face Recognition

Face recognition versus face identification

Other-race effect

Face inversion effect

Other-age effect

Face RecognitionOther-Race Effect

Face RecognitionFace Inversion Effect

Face RecognitionFace Inversion Effect

Face RecognitionOther-Age Effect

Adapted from: Human Memory, p. 220

Face Recognition

Face recognition is closely related to expertise with processing the stimuli Faces of people of the same race tend to be

recognized more accurately The probability of correctly identifying or

recognizing even a very familiar face decreases as it is rotated

Young people tend to interact with young people more and older people tend to interact with older people more

As with words and other stimuli, cues/priming can be important in face recognition

끝