Item-specific effects in recognition failure: reasons for rejection of the Tulving-Wiseman function

The present paper addresses the problems of whether recognition failure of recallable words is a function of both recognition and recall, and whether recognition failure is restricted to a small and specifiable subset of study items. A meta-analysis of the Nilsson-Gardiner database (Nilsson & Gardiner, 1993) showed that recognition given recall was positively correlated with recognition and negatively correlated with recall. Two new experiments are reported, the first one using 48 word pairs for which recognition failure was found in previous studies. An item analysis of the data demonstrated that recognition failure occurred primarily with noun-adjective pairs. The second experiment compared Norwegian-American and American-Norwegian name pairs. Wide deviation from the Tulving-Wiseman function (Tulving & Wiseman, 1975) was observed for the latter condition. In both conditions, recognition failure occurred with only the items for which the beginnings of names shared three or more letters. It is concluded that recognition failure occurs when there exists a relationship between the members of an A-B pairs that is independent of their pairing in the study context. The Tulving-Wiseman function is the result of collapsing across items in the analysis of previous studies.

The effect of associations and expectations on lexical decision making in normals, alcoholics, and alcoholic Korsakoff patients

This study examined whether patients with Korsakoff's disease suffer from increased PI during encoding. The ability of the name of one category, e.g., BIRD, to prime the processing of members of another category, e.g., BODY PARTS, in a lexical decision task was used to assess the amount of PI during encoding. This task required a subject to inhibit the normal associations to BIRD. Young normals (25 years), older normals (48 years), alcoholics (45 years), and alcoholic Korsakoff patients (59 years) performed two lexical decision tasks. In the first experiment, the appearance of the neutral prime XXX 750 msec before the probe signaled that if the probe was a word, there was a 75% chance that it was from a particular category (e.g., BODY PARTS). The prime facilitated reaction time for words from the expected category for all four groups. The prime slowed reaction time for words that were not from the expected category for the young normals but did not influence reaction time for unexpected words for the three older groups. The second experiment was identical to the first except that a category word was used as the prime. The category word used as the prime was unrelated to the category of the words that were likely to follow it. For example, BIRD might be used to signal the likelihood that the word would be from the category, BODY PARTS. Again, young normals were slower to respond to unexpected probe words, but the three older groups were not. Again, the prime facilitated reaction time for expected words for the young normals, older normals, and alcoholics. However, the word prime did not facilitate reaction time for expected words for the alcoholic Korsakoff patients. That the word prime did not facilitate reaction time for the Korsakoff patients was viewed as evidence that they were unable to inhibit its normal associations and were more sensitive to PI from these associations than the other subjects.

Structural units and the redintegrative power of picture fragments

We suppose that line drawings are perceived and represented in memory as a hierarchy of related parts and subparts, as dictated by Gestalt laws like common direction and spatial proximity. Therefore, a figure fragment comprising a natural part of an orginally studied pattern should serve as a strong retrieval cue for redintegrating memory for the pattern, whereas an equally large fragment suggesting either no units of misleading units should lead to poorer recall. This was confirmed in an experiment in which subjects studied 33 nonsense line drawings; recall of each was tested with good, mediocre, or bad (misleading) fragments of the original patterns. Good cues had about five time more redintegrative power than bad cues. A second experiment testing multiple-choice recognition memory showed that subjects confused an originally studied pattern about four times as often with a structurally similar distractor as with a structurally dissimilar distractor (which had an equal-sized change). Thus, memory cuing by fragments and memory confusions with slightly altered distractors indicate the significant constitutents of a figure.