Switching attention within and between categories: Evidence for intracategory inhibition

In a variation of the Posner and Snyder (1975b) paradigm, subjects made speeded “same” or “different” responses to pairs of digits or letters on the basis of name identity (Experiment 1) or physical identity (Experiment 2). Each target pair was preceded by an informative (letter or digit) or noninformative (plus-sign) warning signal. The letter or digit represented by an informative warning signal had a high probability of appearing in the subsequent target pair (expected condition). On trials in which the expected stimulus did not appear in the target pair, the target pair belonged with equal probability to either the same category (either letters or digits) as the expected stimulus or to the opposite category (unexpected-similar and unexpected-opposite conditions, respectively). The pattern of “benefits” and “costs” of attentional expectancy found by Posner and Snyder for “same” responses was replicated: Subjects were faster and more accurate in the expected condition than in the neutral (uninformative warning signal) condition, but slower and less accurate in the unexpected conditions. Present theoretical interest concerns “same” response times and accuracy for the two unexpected conditions. Under instructions emphasizing accuracy as well as speed (Experiments 1 and 2), performance was worse in the unexpected-similar condition than in the unexpected-opposite condition. Only when instructions deemphasized accuracy (Experiment 2) was performance better in the unexpected-similar condition than in the unexpected-opposite condition. The fact that subjects may have more difficulty switching attention within a category than between categories (at least when instructions emphasize accuracy as well as speed) contrasts sharply with current theoretical emphasis on intracategorical facilitation effects in the priming paradigm. The results are interpreted within the framework of a model of attention (Keele & Neill, 1978) in which the activation of associates to the focus of attention is actively and optionally suppressed so as to reduce present or potential interference with the focal information processing.     

Recognition of familiar and unfamiliar melodies in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease

We tested normal young and elderly adults and elderly Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients on recognition memory for tunes. In Experiment 1, AD patients and age-matched controls received a study list and an old/new recognition test of highly familiar, traditional tunes, followed by a study list and test of novel tunes. The controls performed better than did the AD patients. The controls showed the “mirror effect” of increased hits and reduced false alarms for traditional versus novel tunes, whereas the patients false-alarmed as often to traditional tunes as to novel tunes. Experiment 2 compared young adults and healthy elderly persons using a similar design. Performance was lower in the elderly group, but both younger and older subjects showed the mirror effect. Experiment 3 produced confusion between preexperimental familiarity and intraexperimental familiarity by mixing traditional and novel tunes in the study lists and tests. Here, the subjects in both age groups resembled the patients of Experiment 1 in failing to show the mirror effect. Older subjects again performed more poorly, and they differed qualitatively from younger subjects in setting stricter criteria for more nameable tunes. Distinguishing different sources of global familiarity is a factor in tune recognition, and the data suggest that this type of source monitoring is impaired in AD and involves different strategies in younger and older adults.     

Disruptive effects of prior information on tachistoscopic recognition

Smith, Haviland, Reder, Brownell, and Adams (1976) found tachistoscopic letter recognition to be disrupted by advance information about possible letter alternatives. An association of “before-disruption” with a bias to respond “same” in same-different judgment led Smith et al. to conclude that incidental mask features corresponding to a precued letter were erroneously incorporated into the target letter decision. Experiments 1 and 2 in the present study failed to replicate the before-disruption effect under conditions similar to those of Smith et al., although precuing produced a strong bias to respond “same.” Similarity between “same” and “different” alternatives was manipulated in Experiment 3 by selecting letter pairs differing in one critical feature (P-R, O-Q, C-G, F-E) for one group of subjects, and re-pairing the same letters (P-G, O-E, C-R, F-Q) for another group. Contrary to Smith et el., precuing interacted significantly with pair similarity, such that before-disruption occurred only with similar alternatives. In contrast, precuing produced equivalent “same-bias” in both groups. The dependence of before-disruption on pair similarity was extended to two-alternative forced-choice recognition in Experiment 4. Together with inconsistencies in the Smith et al. data and more detailed analysis of present recognition errors, the results suggest (1) the before-disruption and same-bias effects of precuing are mediated by separate mechanisms, and (2) before-disruption reflects loss of target letter information rather than direct incorporation of extraneous mask features.     

Representation of serial order in pigeons (Columba livia)

In Experiment 1, 2 groups of pigeons were trained to respond to either a 4-item (A→B→C→D) or 5-item (A→B→C→D→E) list. After learning their respective list, half of the subjects were trained on a positive pair with reinforcement provided when pairs were responded to in the order true to that of the original sequence (4-item: B→C; 5-item: B→D). The remaining subjects were trained on a negative pair with reinforcement provided for responding to the pairs in the order opposite to that learned in the original sequence (4-item: C→B; 5-item: D→B). Subjects in the positive pair condition learned their respective pair faster than did subjects in the negative pair condition. In Experiment 2, after reaching criterion on a 4-item list, subjects received 16 BC probe trials spread across 4 sessions of training. Subjects performed significantly above chance on the probe trials. The performance of our subjects in Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrates that, similar to monkeys, pigeons form a representation of the lists that they learn.     

Differential effects of familiarity on judgments of sameness and difference

Ss indicated whether pairs of simultaneously presented objects were “same” or “different.” In Experiments 1, 2, and 3 the stimuli were pairs of letters, and familiarity was manipulated by showing the letters in either an upright or an upside-down orientation. In Experiments 4 and 5 the stimuli were pairs of trigrams, and familiarity was manipulated either by rotation or by selection according to rated meaningfulness. Analysis of reaction times indicated that familiar pairs were responded to more quickly than were unfamiliar pairs; however, this was true only for “same” judgments, not for “different” judgments. In addition, Experiment 3 indicated that familiarity influenced discrimination accuracy under conditions of tachistoscopic exposure. Finally, in Experiment 6 an effort was made to disentangle the effects of meaningfulness from the effects of pronounceability. The present results stand in contrast to previous research using perceptual comparison tasks, since the earlier work failed to indicate any effect of familiarity.     

Testing enhances both encoding and retrieval for both tested and untested items

In forward testing effects, taking a test enhances memory for subsequently studied material. These effects have been observed for previously studied and tested items, a potentially item-specific testing effect, and newly studied untested items, a purely generalized testing effect. We directly compared item-specific and generalized forward testing effects using procedures to separate testing benefits due to encoding versus retrieval. Participants studied two lists of Swahili–English word pairs, with the second study list containing “new” pairs intermixed with the previously studied “old” pairs. Participants completed a review phase in which they took a cued-recall test on only the “old” pairs or restudied them. In Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2, the review phase was given either before or after the second study list. Testing benefited memory to the same degree for both “new” and “old” pairs, suggesting that there were no pair-specific benefits of testing. The larger benefit from testing when review was given before rather than after the second study list suggests that the memory enhancement was due to both testing-enhanced encoding and testing-enhanced retrieval. To better equate generalized testing effects for “new” and “old” pairs, Experiment 3 intermixed them in the review phase. A statistically significant pair-specific testing effect for “old” items was now observed. Overall, these results show that forward testing effects are due to both testing-enhanced encoding and retrieval effects and that direct, pair-specific forward testing benefits are considerably smaller than indirect, generalized forward testing benefits.     

A categorical recall strategy does not explain animacy effects in episodic memory

Animate stimuli are better remembered than matched inanimate stimuli in free recall. Three experiments tested the hypothesis that animacy advantages are due to a more efficient use of a categorical retrieval cue. Experiment 1 developed an “embedded list” procedure that was designed to disrupt participants’ ability to perceive category structure at encoding; a strong animacy effect remained. Experiments 2 and 3 employed animate and inanimate word lists consisting of tightly constrained categories (four-footed animals and furniture). Experiment 2 failed to find an animacy advantage when the categorical structure was readily apparent, but the advantage returned in Experiment 3 when the embedded list procedure was employed using the same target words. These results provide strong evidence against an organizational account of the animacy effect, indicating that the animacy effect in episodic memory is probably due to item-specific factors related to animacy.     

Secondhand information and social judgment

This research investigates how secondhand impressions of other people differ from those based on firsthand information. It was hypothesized that secondhand impressions are often more extreme because secondhand accounts of another person's actions frequently fail to convey adequately the role of mitigating circumstances and situational constraints in producing that person's behavior. Experiments 1 and 2 tested this hypothesis by exposing “first generation” subjects to information about a target person, having them rate the target on several trait and attribution scales, and having them describe the target person's actions to a group of “second generation” subjects. As predicted, second generation subjects made more extreme ratings of the target than their first generation counterparts. Content analyses of the accounts transmitted by first generation subjects indicated that they did indeed underemphasize various situational qualifications of the target persons' behavior. Experiment 3 extended these findings by demonstrating that people's impressions of someone they have often heard about from a friend (but never met) are more extreme than their friends' more informed impressions.     

Positional discriminability in linear orderings

Subjects were taught two eight-term linear orders of the form “A taller than B taller than C ….,” They were then asked to choose the “taller” term in all possible pairwise combinations within each series, and reaction time was measured for each pair. In addition, subjects performed a further task in which they judged whether or not two terms were adjacent in the ordering. In subsequent sessions, subjects were told that the “shortest” term on one list was taller than the “tallest” term on the other, so that the two lists were merged into a single 16-term series. They were then required to choose the “taller” term for both within-groups and between-groups pairs. Subjects did not appear to use the initial groupings in performing this task, even when given training on differential categorical codes (“tall” vs. “short”) for the two sublists. Rather, subjects in all tasks appeared to represent the items as ordered positions along an internal array, so that comparison times depended largely on the differential discriminability of the item positions. In each task decisions were made more quickly if the terms being compared were near the ends of the ordering, rather than near the middle.     

Coding strategies,perceptual grouping,and the “variability effect” in free recall

Three experiments examined the effects of constant vs. varied input of letter strings on recall, and then examined the effects of such training in the learning of new lists of letter strings. Letter strings were constructed from pairs of trigrams spatially grouped, and were presented either consistently or with different spatial groupings on successive presentations. In Experiments I and II, varied input produced substantially greater recall than constant input. When transferred to a new list of letter strings, containing either the same general structure or a new scrambled structure, recall of the second list was determined primarily by conditions of first-list input, and unaffected by second-list structure. Although the "variability effect" did not appear in the training phase of Experiment III, Varied input led subjects to regroup or integrate the letter sequences more frequently and produced similar transfer effects as in Experiments I and II.     

The effect of location on the discrimination of spatial vibrotactile patterns

The present study examined whether the locations of patterns on the skin affected the ability to process information about their shapes. In Experiment 1, pairs of spatial vibrotactile patterns, using the array from the Optacon, were presented sequentially to subjects’ left index fingerpads. The location of each pattern in a pair was varied randomly among four locations on the skin. The subjects responded “same” or “different” on the basis of the shapes of patterns, regardless of their locations. Discrimination accuracy was highest and response time fastest when patterns occupied identical locations (ILs), and performance suffered with increasing distance between patterns. In Experiment 2, pairs were presented to corresponding points or to noncorresponding points on separate fingerpads. When patterns occupied corresponding points on separate fingers, accuracy was lower than when patterns occupied ILs on a single finger, but higher than when patterns occupied noncorresponding points on separate fingers. The results suggested that discriminability declined partly because patterns did not occupy ILs, and partly because separate locations had different densities of innervation.     

Strength-based mirror effects in item and associative recognition: Evidence for within-list criterion changes

Strength-based mirror effects occur when the hit rate is higher and the false alarm rate is lower following strongly encoded study lists than when following more weakly encoded study lists. In Experiments 1A and 1B, strength-based mirror effects were observed in separate tests of single item and associative recognition for random word pairs. In Experiment 2, strength-based mirror effects were again seen when item and associative recognition were tested together. Finally, in Experiments 3 and 4, opposing strength-based mirror effects were observed for item and associative recognition when individual words and word pairs were presented at different rates in the same study lists. Strength-based mirror effects could result from participants' adopting a more conservative decision criterion following strong lists than following weak ones. If this is the case for both item and associative recognition, the present results demonstrate that subjects can adopt different response criteria for different recognition tasks and can alternate between them on a trial-by-trial basis.     

List discrimination in associative recognition and implications for representation

Four experiments tested the predictions made by the model outlined in A. H. Criss and R. M. Shiffrin (2004b). Participants studied 2 successive lists of pairs followed by a recognition memory test for the most recent list. Some items and some pairs were repeated across the 2 lists. Critically, a given item could be repeated in the same or different type of pair. For associative recognition, performance was only affected by repetitions in the same pair type. However, in single-item recognition confusions occurred for both types of repetitions. The results are as predicted and confirm the assumption that different associative representations were stored even when the same token repeated in different pair types, whereas similar item representations were used regardless of pair type.     

Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: II. Episodic memory

Three experiments asked whether subjects could retrieve information from a 2nd stimulus while they retrieved information from a 1st stimulus. Subjects performed recognition judgments on each of 2 words that followed each other by 0, 250, and 1,000 ms (Experiment 1) or 0 and 300 ms (Experiments 2 and 3). In each experiment, reaction time to both stimuli was faster when the 2 stimuli were both targets (on the study list) or both lures (not on the study list) than when 1 was a target and the other was a lure. Each experiment found priming from the 2nd stimulus to the 1st when both stimuli were targets. Reaction time to the 1st stimulus was faster when the 2 targets came from the same memory structure at study (columns in Experiment 1; pairs in Experiment 2; sentences in Experiment 3) than when they came from different structures. This priming is inconsistent with discrete serial retrieval and consistent with parallel retrieval.     

What it costs to implement a plan: Plan-level and task-level contributions to switch costs

Four experiments were conducted to identify the costs of implementing a plan in the task span procedure, which requires subjects to retrieve the task to perform on the current target from a list of planned tasks in memory. Experiment 1 compared switch costs in the task span procedure with switch costs in the explicit task-cuing procedure, which presented cues indicating the task to perform on each target. Switch costs were greater in the task span procedure. Experiments 2-4 were designed to identify the sources of this difference. Experiment 2 showed that the requirement of establishing a correspondence between the list of task names and the list of targets contributed to switch costs. Experiment 3 showed that retaining lists of similar task names produced greater switch costs than did retaining lists of dissimilar task names. Experiment 4 showed that memory load had no effect on switch costs. The results are discussed in terms of the interaction between plan-level and task-level processing in the implementation of plans.     

Expected endings and judged duration

In four experiments, the predictions of an expectancy/contrast model (Jones & Boltz, 1989) for judged duration were evaluated. In Experiments 1 and 2, listeners estimated the relative durations of auditory pattern pairs that varied in contextual phrasing and temporal contrast. The results showed that when the second pattern of a pair either seems to (Experiments 1 and 2) or actually does (Experiment 2) end earlier (later)than the first, subjects judge it as being relatively shorter (longer). In Experiment 3, listeners heard single patterns in which notes immediately preceding the final one were omitted. Timing of the final (target) tone was varied such that it was one beat early, on time, or one beat late. Listeners’ ratings of target tones revealed systematic effects of phrasing and target timing. In Experiment 4, listeners temporally completed (extrapolated) sequences of Experiment 3 that were modified to exclude the target tone. The results again showed that phrase context systematically influenced expectancies about “when” sequences should end. As a set, these studies demonstrate the effects of event structure and anticipatory attending upon experienced duration and are discussed in terms of the expectancy/contrast model.     

Stimulus and response factors in mirror-image discrimination

Two choice-reaction time studies assessed the influence of stimulus-response mapping, stimulus complexity, and stimulus alignment on adults’ discrimination of mirror-image and nonmirror-image stimulus pairs. Half the subjects in Experiment 1 were instructed to treat nonmiiTor pairs as “same” and mirror pairs as “different”; the other half responded in the opposite manner. The first group responded more quickly to nonmirror pairs, while the second group responded more quickly to mirror pairs. This result, which held for horizontal stimuli (side by side) as well as for vertical stimuli (one above the other), confirms the importance of experiential factors in mirror-image “confusions. “ In Experiment 2. stimuli were drawn from a population of patterns whose complexity could be objectively defined. In general, the more complex the pattern, the slower the response and complexity seemed to influence the qualitative nature of pattern processing. In both experiments, subjects responded more quickly to horizontal stimuli than to vertical stimuli.     

Transformation processes upon the visual code

Seven experiments investigated whether orientation-dependent latency functions for the visual code resemble those observed in studies of mental rotations of visual images. The subjects were required to perform “same-different” classifications of two simultaneously presented letters. The dependent variables considered were reaction time IRT and accuracy. Experiments 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 showed that subjects could correctly classify two different letters on the basis of the visual code without preceding transformations. Experiments 1, 2, and 7 showed orientationdependent effects for “same“ responses. It appeared, however, that orientation functions for the visual cede were clearly different from those previously observed for visual images. In addition, the findings of Experiments 4, 5, and 6 indicated that a frame that jointly rotated with the disoriented letters could eliminate the orientation-dependent effects for “same” responses. Experiment 7 showed that the results of Experiments 4, 5, and 6 must be attributed to the structural characteristics of the frame and not to a directional cue. The results of Experiment 3 seemed to demonstrate that transformations did not occur when the subjects used the phonetic code to classify the letters. Overall, the results of the seven experiments were considered to provide a demonstration of the importance of the distinction between the operations on visual images and those on the visual code.     

The role of detection and recollection of change in list discrimination

In two experiments, we examined the importance of the detection and recollection of change for list discrimination. Two lists of pairs were presented, with the right-hand member being changed between lists for some pairs. Participants in Experiment 1 were instructed to explicitly indicate when they detected a change between pairs during the presentation of List 2, whereas participants in Experiment 2 were not instructed to do so. At the time of test, participants in both experiments were presented with a pair and asked whether it had been presented in List 2. Next, recollection of change was measured by asking whether the right-hand member of the pair was changed between the lists. The results from Experiment 1 revealed high correspondence between the detection of change during the presentation of List 2 and the recollection of change at the time of test. Consequently, change recollection at test can serve as a measure of earlier change detection, in combination with access to memory for change at the time of test. In both experiments, as compared to control conditions, proactive facilitation in list discrimination was observed when change was recollected, whereas proactive interference was observed when change was not recollected. These results were interpreted as showing that recursive reminding—bringing a List 1 pair to mind during the presentation of its changed List 2 pair—embeds memory for the earlier event into memory for the later event, and doing so preserves information about list membership.     

Mechanisms of inferential order judgments in humans (Homo sapiens) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta)

If A > B, and B > C, it follows logically that A > C. The process of reaching that conclusion is called transitive inference (TI). Several mechanisms have been offered to explain transitive performance. Scanning models claim that the list is scanned from the ends of the list inward until a match is found. Positional discrimination models claim that positional uncertainty accounts for accuracy and reaction time patterns. In Experiment 1, we trained rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and humans (Homo sapiens) on adjacent pairs (e.g., AB, BC, CD, DE, EF) and tested them with previously untrained nonadjacent pairs (e.g., BD). In Experiment 2, we trained a second list and tested with nonadjacent pairs selected between lists (e.g., B from List 1, D from List 2). We then introduced associative competition between adjacent items in Experiment 3 by training 2 items per position (e.g., B?C?, B?C?) before testing with untrained nonadjacent items. In all 3 experiments, humans and monkeys showed distance effects in which accuracy increased, and reaction time decreased, as the distance between items in each pair increased (e.g., BD vs. BE). In Experiment 4, we trained adjacent pairs with separate 9- and 5-item lists. We then tested with nonadjacent pairs selected between lists to determine whether list items were chosen according to their absolute position (e.g., D, 5-item list > E, 9-item list), or their relative position (e.g., D, 5-item list < E, 9-item list). Both monkeys' and humans' choices were most consistent with a relative positional organization.