Verbal description benefits for faces when description conditions are unknown a priori

Is "memory-for-when" universal? Group and individual variability in temporal position memory for words, faces, and classrooms

Many contemporary theories of memory assume that everyone automatically stores temporal contextual information about all types of encountered information, yet most studies on this topic have used words and ignored individual differences. Five experiments accumulated evidence that explicit storage of temporal context information does not appear to occur automatically for all people and types of memoranda. We collected judgments of temporal position (memory-for-when) for words (Experiments 1 & 3), faces (Experiments 2A, 3, 4, and 5), and classrooms (Experiments 2B & 3). At the group level, for each of these memoranda memory-for-when was sensitive to the original input position and showed a temporal primacy effect reflecting better memory for position for items near the beginning of the list, indicating some automatic storage of temporal context information. However, memory-for-when was significantly better for words than classrooms, with faces in the middle. Moreover, individuals varied dramatically in their ability to indicate memory-for-when, especially for classrooms where many people performed at or near chance. Taken together, the data suggest that explicit memory-for-when may be dissociable from the more implicit use of temporal contextual information that is theorised to occur during free recall.

Learning facilitates dual-process face recognition regardless of holistic processing

Much evidence suggests that faces are recognized based on their global familiarity in a signal-detection manner. However, experiments drawing this conclusion typically present study lists of faces only once or twice, and the nature of face recognition at higher levels of learning remains unclear. Here, three experiments are reported in which participants studied some faces eight times and others twice and then took a recognition test containing previously viewed faces, entirely new faces, and faces which recombined the parts of previously viewed faces. Three measures converged to suggest that study list repetition increased the likelihood of participants rejecting recombined faces as new by recollecting that their parts were studied but in a different combination, and that manipulating holistic or Gestalt-like processing-a hallmark of face perception-qualitatively preserved its effect on how memory judgments are made. This suggests that face learning causes a shift from the use of a signal-detection strategy to the use of a dual-process strategy of face recognition regardless of holistic processing.

Never forget a face: Verbalization facilitates recollection as evidenced by flexible responding to contrasting recognition memory tests

Verbal facilitation occurs when describing a face improves its subsequent recognition; but there are several theoretical explanations debated in the literature. The results of the present studies support a relatively unrestricted, parsimonious theory that verbal facilitation occurs because describing a face supports recollection of several different facets of the face-viewing experience. This recollection is then demonstrated by flexibly responding to two competing types of recognition task demands. Participants studied a list of faces and, following each face, performed a nonverbalization task (Experiment 1) or described its features or traits (Experiment 2). Two subsequent recognition tests included intact faces, new faces, and conjunctions (each of which recombined features of two studied faces). Inclusion test instructions emphasized featural information: respond "yes" to both intact and conjunction faces (both of which contained studied features), but "no" to new faces. Exclusion test instructions emphasized configural information: respond "yes" only to intact faces (which were the only test items that matched studied configurations), and "no" to both conjunctions and new faces. Both yes/no responses and confidence ratings supported our hypothesis that verbalization improved discrimination between (a) conjunctions and new faces in the inclusion test, and (b) intact faces and conjunctions in the exclusion test. Additional secondary responses about face type elucidated that verbalization at study improves the ability to recollect either featural or configural information, depending on which type of response the recognition test required. We discuss these findings about practical applications of improved face memory in real-world contexts.

Description Benefits, Production Benefits, and Context Retrieval for Recognition of Unfamiliar Faces

Several studies have shown that giving brief descriptions for unfamiliar faces can lead to better episodic recognition memory relative to faces in a view-only (control) condition. More broadly, this finding is consistent with the benefits of elaboration during study on later recognition. Two articles have reported description benefits when participants did not know the study condition (control or description) for a trial until after a face was removed from view (Jones, Armstrong, Casey, Burson, & Memon, 2013; Jones, Robinson, & Steel, 2018). We conducted 3 experiments to shed additional light on the basis for this benefit, and the measures we used were old–new recognition and recognition confidence for the face and the proportion of test faces with recall for descriptive information. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants were explicitly instructed to describe each study face and to type the description or not (control condition). There was a numerical advantage for “old” responses, with the difference being significant in Experiment 1. A significant advantage for the typed condition occurred for “very sure old” and recall responses for both experiments. The advantage occurred across study repetition conditions in Experiment 1 and when participants were given plenty of time to generate a description in Experiment 2. Overall, these findings indicate that physically typing the description leads to a small advantage in recollection relative to a condition without physical production (i.e., a type of physical production effect). However, the production advantage was not obtained on any measure in Experiment 3 when the control condition required participants to type the number of words in the description.

Why Verbalization of Non-Verbal Memory Reduces Recognition Accuracy: A Computational Approach to Verbal Overshadowing

Verbal overshadowing refers to a phenomenon whereby verbalization of non-verbal stimuli (e.g., facial features) during the maintenance phase (after the target information is no longer available from the sensory inputs) impairs subsequent non-verbal recognition accuracy. Two primary mechanisms have been proposed for verbal overshadowing, namely the recoding interference hypothesis, and the transfer-inappropriate processing shift. The former assumes that verbalization renders non-verbal representations less accurate. In contrast, the latter assumes that verbalization shifts processing operations to a verbal mode and increases the chance of failing to return to non-verbal, face-specific processing operations (i.e., intact, yet inaccessible non-verbal representations). To date, certain psychological phenomena have been advocated as inconsistent with the recoding-interference hypothesis. These include a decline in non-verbal memory performance following verbalization of non-target faces, and occasional failures to detect a significant correlation between the accuracy of verbal descriptions and the non-verbal memory performance. Contrary to these arguments against the recoding interference hypothesis, however, the present computational model instantiated core processing principles of the recoding interference hypothesis to simulate face recognition, and nonetheless successfully reproduced these behavioral phenomena, as well as the standard verbal overshadowing. These results demonstrate the plausibility of the recoding interference hypothesis to account for verbal overshadowing, and suggest there is no need to implement separable mechanisms (e.g., operation-specific representations, different processing principles, etc.). In addition, detailed inspections of the internal processing of the model clarified how verbalization rendered internal representations less accurate and how such representations led to reduced recognition accuracy, thereby offering a computationally grounded explanation. Finally, the model also provided an explanation as to why some studies have failed to report verbal overshadowing. Thus, the present study suggests it is not constructive to discuss whether verbal overshadowing exists or not in an all-or-none manner, and instead suggests a better experimental paradigm to further explore this phenomenon.