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

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Anne M. Cleary ; Anthony J. Ryals ; Samantha R. Wagner
• 关键词：Familiarity in recognition memory ; Semantic memory ; Recognition
• 刊名：Memory & Cognition
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：January 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：44
• 期：1
• 页码：50-62
• 全文大小：500 KB
• 参考文献：Campbell, D. T. (1988). Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science. (E.S. Overman, Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  Chang, K. K., Mitchell, T., & Just, M. A. (2011). Quantitative modeling of the neural representation of objects: How semantic feature norms can account for fMRI activation. Neuroimage, 56, 716–727.CrossRef PubMed
  Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 37–60.CrossRef
  Cleary, A. M. (2004). Orthography, phonology, and meaning: Word features that give rise to feelings of familiarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 446–451.CrossRef
  Cleary, A. M. (2006). Relating familiarity-based recognition and the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon: Detecting a word’s receny in the absence of access to the word. Memory & Cognition, 34, 804–816.CrossRef
  Cleary, A. M., Morris, A. L., & Langley, M. M. (2007). Recognition memory for novel stimuli: The structural regularity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 379–393.PubMed
  Cleary, A. M., Brown, A. S., Sawyer, B. D., Nomi, J. S., Ajoku, A. C., & Ryals, A. J. (2012). Familiarity from the configuration of objects in 3-dimensional space and its relation to déjà vu: A virtual reality investigation. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 969–975.CrossRef PubMed
  Cleary, A. M., & Reyes, N. L. (2009). Scene recognition without identification. Acta Psychologica, 131, 53–62.
  Cleary, A.M., Staley, S.R., & Klein, K.R. (2014). The effect of tip-of-the-tongue states on other cognitive judgments. In B.L. Schwartz & A.S. Brown’s Tip-of-the-tongue States and Related Phenomena. 264–280.
  Dennis, S., & Humphreys, M. S. (2001). A context noise model of episodic word recognition. Psychological Review, 108, 452–477.CrossRef PubMed
  Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.CrossRef
  Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 2–18.CrossRef
  Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114, 211–244.CrossRef PubMed
  Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528–551.CrossRef
  Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(863), 1–12.
  Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRef
  Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.CrossRef
  McRae, K., & Jones, M.N. (2013). Semantic Memory. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology. Oxford. 206–219.
  McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547–559.CrossRef
  Nomi, J. S., & Cleary, A. M. (2012). Judgments for inaccessible targets: Comparing recognition without identification and the feeling of knowing. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1178–1188.CrossRef
  Pexman, P. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Yap, M. J. (2013). Introduction to the research topic meaning in mind: Semantic richness effects in language processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 723.PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  Plaut, D. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 37–42). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  Rhodes, M. R., & Anastasi, J. S. (2012). The own-age bias in face recognition: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 146–174.CrossRef PubMed
  Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Newburty Park: SAGE Publications, Inc.CrossRef
  Ryals, A. J., & Cleary, A. M. (2012). The Recognition without cued recall phenomenon: Support for a feature-matching theory over a partial recollection account. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 747–762.CrossRef
  Ryals, A. J., Yadon, C. A., Nomi, J. S., & Cleary, A. M. (2011). When word identification fails: ERP correlates of recognition without identification and of word identification failure. Neuropsychologia, 12, 3224–3237.CrossRef
  Seidenberg, M. S. (2007). Connectionist models of reading. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 235–250). New York: Oxford University Press.
  Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A feature model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214–241.CrossRef
  Van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2004). Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 289–335.CrossRef
  Voss, J. L., & Paller, K. A. (2009). An electrophysiological signature of unconscious recognition memory. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 349–355.PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 72.PubMedCentral CrossRef PubMed
  Yee, E., Overton, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Looking for meaning: Eye movements are sensitive to overlapping semantic features, not association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 869–874.CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Anne M. Cleary (1)
  Anthony J. Ryals (2)
  Samantha R. Wagner (3)
  
  1. Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, 1876 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, USA
  2. Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
  3. Department of Psychology, Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI, USA
  
• 刊物主题：Cognitive Psychology;
• 出版者：Springer US
• ISSN：1532-5946

文摘

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).