Modality effects in false recall and false recognition

R. E. Smith and R. R. Hunt (1998) reported a dramatic reduction in false remembering in a list-learning paradigm by switching from auditory to visual presentation at study. The current authors replicated these modality effects using written recall and visual recognition tests but obtained smaller effects than those in R. E. Smith and R. R. Hunt's study. In contrast, no modality effect occurred on auditory recognition tests. Manipulating study and test modality within-subjects (Experiment 2) and between-subjects (Experiment 3) yielded similar results. It was also found that subjects frequently judged critical nonstudied words as having been presented in the modality of their corresponding study lists. The authors concluded that subjects could retrieve distinctive information about a study list's presentation modality to reduce false remembering but only did so under certain conditions. The modality effect on false remembering is a function of both encoding and retrieval factors.     

Temporal isolation effects in recognition and serial recall

Recent temporal distinctiveness models of memory predict that temporally isolated items will be recalled better than temporally crowded items. The effect has been found in some tasks (free recall, memory for serial order when report order is unconstrained, running memory span) but not in others (forward serial recall). Such results suggest that the attentional weighting given to a temporal dimension in memory may vary with task demands. Here, we find robust temporal isolation effects in recognition memory (Experiment 1) and a smaller isolation effect in forward serial recall when an open pool of items is used (Experiment 2). Analysis of 26 temporal isolation effects suggests that the phenomenon occurs in a range of tasks but is larger when it is useful to attend to a temporal dimension in memory. The overall pattern of results is taken to favor memory models that rely on multiple weighted dimensions in memory, one of which is temporal.     

Auditory and visual similarity effects in recognition and recall

The role of auditory and visual factors in short-term recall and recognition performance was evaluated. Auditory similarity, but not visual similarity, was found to be predictive of the probability of a correct response and response confidence for both types of tests. The results were interpreted as support for a single-trace model of recall and recognition performance.     

Word frequency and list composition effects in associative recognition and recall

The effects of list composition and word frequency on cued recall, associative recognition, and item recognition were examined in three experiments For pure-frequency lists, cued recall and associative recognition show better performance on common high-frequency (HF) words than on rare low-frequency (LF) words. Item recognition, however, shows an advantage for LF words. In mixed lists, consisting of half HF and half LF words, the HF advantage in cued recall disappeared; however, the word frequency effects in item and associative recognition were unchanged. These results are inconsistent with explanations based on differential attention or co-rehearsal of KF and LF words. However, the results are consistent with list strength results which show that recognition is insensitive to strength-based list composition, but that recall is sensitive to list composition.     

The effects of amount of processing on recall and recognition

Johnson-Laird, Gibbs and de Mowbray (1978) and Ross (1981) have argued that amount of processing, as indexed by the overall number of decisions a subject makes, provides a good predictor of incidental memory performance. Conversely, McClelland, Rawles and Sinclair (1981) have provided evidence that it is normally the number of positive decisions rather than the overall number of decisions per se that determines level of recall. The present study replicated and extended the findings of McClelland and his colleagues. In free recall (Experiment 1 and 3), cued recall (Experiment 3) and recognition in the presence or absence of context cues (Experiments 2 and 3), an account based on number of positive decisions provided by far the better explanation. Experiment 3 also revealed that the experimental manipulations had a somewhat greater effect on recall than recognition. This is explained in terms of Tulving and Pearlstone's (1966) distinction between availability and accessibility. It is suggested that words associated with negative decisions are not only less accessible in memory, there are also fewer of them available for recall and recognition.     

Encoding processes in recognition and recall

The present experiments demonstrate that picture-word stimuli are differentially encoded in anticipation of a recognition test than in anticipation of a free-recall test. Subjects perform better on the retention test of which they have been informed, and different information from the stimuli is used to pass each test. These findings cannot be attributed to stimulus selection nor to pure pictorial encoding in anticipation of recognition and pure verbal encoding in anticipation of recall. Recognition is enhanced by encoding which integrates the details within each item while recall is enhanced by encoding which interrelates the items of a list.     

Encoding differences in recognition and recall

After practice consisting of the free recall of five blocked categorized lists, Ss were presented a sixth list and then unexpectedly tested for recognition. After practice at recognition of the same five lists, Ss were unexpectedly tested for recall following presentation of the sixth test. Recognition performance was superior when items were encoded in anticipation of a recognition test. Intracategory serial position functions for Ss anticipating recall tests were different from those anticipating recognition tests regardless of the retention test employed. The role of control processes in recall and recognition testing is discussed     

Semantic cueing in recognition and recall

This study is concerned with the recognition and recall of semantically ambiguous words (homographs) presented in a semantic context. Changing the semantic context lowered test scores relative to test conditions both without context and with the same semantic context. This effect was found to obtain in both recognition and recall. The results are discussed in terms of the role of retrieval in recognition and recall.     

The effects of mediated word lists on false recall and recognition

False memory effects were explored using unrelated list items (e.g., slope, reindeer, corn) that were related to mediators (e.g., ski, sleigh, flake) that all converged upon a single nonpresented critical item (CI; e.g., snow). In Experiment 1, participants completed either an initial recall test or arithmetic problems after study, followed by a final recognition test. Participants did not falsely recall CIs on the initial test; however, false alarms to CIs did occur in recognition, but only following an initial recall test. In Experiment 2, participants were instructed to guess the CI, followed by a recognition test. The results replicated Experiment 1, with an increase in CI false alarms. Experiment 3 controlled for item effects by replacing unrelated recognition items from Experiment 1 with both CIs and list items from nonpresented lists. Once again, CI false alarms were found when controlling for lexical characteristics, demonstrating that mediated false memory is not due simply to item differences.     

Retrieval operations in cued recall and recognition

The present study compared the effects of two classes of experimental manipulations on the recognition and cued recall of target words learned in the presence of list cues. One class of manipulations, learning instructions (repetition vs. meaningful rehearsal), had similar effects on recall and recognition, whereas the other, preexperimental association between target and cue words, had separable effects: Cue-to-target association affected only recall, while target-to-cue association affected only recognition performance. Recall and recognition were thus viewed as fundamentally similar processes, both of which require retrieval operations. Differences between the two were attributed to the differential abilities of the recall and recognition retrieval cues to access the original episodic event.     

More on recognition and recall in amnesics

Hirst et al. (1986) reported that amnesic forced-choice recognition was relatively preserved when compared with amnesic recall. They equated normal recognition and amnesic recognition by extending exposure time for the amnesics and then comparing amnesic recall and normal recall. Amnesic recall was worse than normal recall, despite equated recognition. We conducted two experiments to extend that result. Experiment 1 established that the findings of Hirst et al. are not paradigm specific and hold when amnesic recognition and normal recognition are equated by increasing the retention interval for normals. In Experiment 2 we further established the generality of the result by examining yes-no recognition. Findings further specify the selective nature of the direct memory deficit in amnesics.     

Retrieval processes in recognition and cued recall

The present studies used response time (RT) and accuracy to explore the processes and relation of recognition and cued recall. The studies used free-response and signal-to-respond techniques and varied list length and presentation rate. In Experiment 1, the free-RT distributions for recognition had much lower mean and variance than those for cued recall. Similarly, signal-to-respond curves showed fast rates of accumulation of information in recognition and slow rates in recall. (Quantitative models of the results are presented in the companion article by D. E. Diller, P. A. Nobel, and R. M. Shiffrin, 2001). To rule out the possibility that the slower responses in cued recall were due to a fast retrieval process followed by a slow process of cleaning up the retrieved trace for output, additional signal-to-respond tasks provided the relevant alternatives at test. Yet, these conditions showed slow growth rates, similar to those seen in recall. The results support the hypothesis that retrieval processes differ for single-item recognition and cued recall, with retrieval in cued recall (and associative recognition) due to a sequential search.     

Semantic organization of study materials has opposite effects on recognition and recall

It has been well established for several decades that semantic organization of study materials greatly enhances recall by facilitating access to information during retrieval. However, the effect of organization on recognition, and its relationship to the effect on recall, is in doubt. We report the first direct comparison of the effects of categorically organizing study lists on recognition, cued recall, and free recall. We found that whereas organization improved recall, it impaired recognition. Organization had a larger effect on free recall than on cued recall. Within the categorized lists, recall was superior for items highly associated with the category; the opposite was true of recognition. In recall, organization improved the proportion of categories recalled, but it lowered the proportion of items per category recalled. A simple framework for interpreting the dissociation is offered. Possible mechanisms underlying the detrimental effect of organization on memory and prospects for future research are briefly discussed.     

Modality effects in delayed free recall and recognition: Visual is better than auditory

During presentation of auditory and visual lists of words, different groups of subjects generated words that either rhymed with the presented words or that were associates. Immediately after list presentation, subjects recalled either the presented or the generated words. After presentation and test of all lists, a final free recall test and a recognition test were given. Visual presentation generally produced higher recall and recognition than did auditory presentation for both encoding conditions. The results are not consistent with explanations of modality effects in terms of echoic memory or greater temporal distinctiveness of auditory items. The results are more in line with the separate-streams hypothesis, which argues for different kinds of input processing for auditory and visual items.     

Evidence for recognition and recall schemata

Two experiments manipulated elements postulated to be crucial for the formation of recognition and recall schemata for discrete motor skills. Experiment 1 tested predictions for the formation of a schema to recognize novel and practiced positioning movements. Sensations of practiced locations, followed by knowledge of results, enabled accurate judgment of movement extent. The specification of distances before active practice movements did not help recognition performance. To test recall schema, Experiment 2 allowed practice with active movements over specified distances, or unspecified passive movements. The allowance of response specifications during practice provided clear superiority of recall-dependent performance. This aspect of recall memory should enable the construction of movements with extents and velocities different from those practiced.     

The effects of recall and recognition test expectancies on the retention of prose

The hypothesis that people expecting recall and recognition employ different encoding processes was tested in two experiments using prose materials. In Experiment 1, unrelated sentences were used, and in Experiment 2, a short essay was used. The results indicated that a recall test expectancy led to greater sentence recall than a recognition test expectancy. No evidence was found to support the hypothesis that people expecting recall and recognition retained different types of information contained in sentences. In Experiment 2, the effects of test expectancy were analyzed as a function of the structural importance and rated comprehensibility of sentences. A main effect of test expectancy was found in sentence recall, replicating the results of Experiment 1. Also, people expecting recall tended to remember greater detail than did people expecting recognition. The results suggested that encoding processes vary as a function of test expectancy and that the appropriateness of encoding depends on the type of test received.     

Eye fixations in prediction of recognition and recall

Eye fixations were recorded at viewing of picture-label stimuli presented under either recall or recognition instructions; both retention tests were administered. Ss performed substantially better on the retention test of which they were informed, indicating differential encoding of the same stimuli in anticipation of test type. There was no correlation between recognition and recall of items, evidence that different information from the encoded stimuli was utilized in performing each test. Encoding strategies had no effect on how Ss regarded the stimuli, but viewing patterns were related to memory performance: More word fixations was associated with better verbal recall, while fewer picture fixations was associated with better recall and with better picture recognition.