Is knowledge base development a necessary and sufficient condition for memory development?

The hypothesis that knowledge base development is an important condition for memory development was tested in two experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects from grades K, 6, and college participated in an incidental learning task where they analyzed words according to one of four featural systems: physical, acoustic, semantic, and imagery. Large developmental differences in recall were found in the imagery and semantic conditions, small differences were observed in the acoustic conditions, and no developmental differences were found in the physical condition. Experiment 2 involved presenting college students and third graders words either from categories highly salient to third graders, e.g., cartoons, games, etc., or from corresponding Battig and Montague categories generated by college students. Free recall and clustering performances showed significant interactions, with third graders superior on the third-grade salient items, and college students superior on Battig and Montague items.     

On the nonautomaticity of “automatic” activation: Evidence of selective seeing

Early perceptual selection refers to a sequence of perceptual processing in which attentional selection of stimuli occurs before perceptual processing is complete. By contrast, late perceptual selection refers to a sequence in which all stimuli receive complete perceptual processing before selection takes place. An attempt was made to determine if early selection is possible. Three experiments were conducted in which subjects were presented with arrays containing a variable number of red items and a variable number of black items; all array items were randomly positioned around the circumference of an imaginary circle. The subjects task was to report the number of red items. Response time increased with the number of red items, but was essentially independent of the number of black items. The nature of the red and black items was also varied. When the to-be-attended red items were given “Stroop-like” quality (the symbols that were used were directly inconsistent with the correct response for that trial), mean reaction time was increased compared to a baseline condition; when the to-be-ignored black items were given “Stroop-like” quality, mean reaction time was unaffected. These results imply that the relevant (red) and irrelevant (black) items were processed differentially. We conclude that early selection is possible; late-selection models are not supported.     

Selective attention in the speeded classification and comparison of multidimensional stimuli

Selective attention was studied when subjects were required to make either speeded classifications of single stimuli or comparisons of pairs of multidimensional stimuli. Experiment 1 established that subjects were able to attend selectively to form when the irrelevant dimension of size or shading varied in a speeded-classification (card-sorting) task. Experiment 2 confirmed this finding in a discrete-trials task. However, subjects werenot able to filter out irrelevant dimensional disparity in a comparably designed simultaneous-comparison (i.e., “same”-“different”) task. Mean “same” reaction time increased monotonically with increases in disparity between the two stimuli on the irrelevant dimension. Experiment 3 also revealed a monotonie increase in “same” RT as a function of irrelevant disparity in a successive-comparison task. These results were discussed in terms of a normalization model proposed by Dixon and Just (1978) in which it is assumed that a subject equates the two stimuli on the irrelevant dimension before deciding that they are the same along the relevant dimension. It was concluded that: (1) although subjects can efficiently filter out irrelevant disparity in a speeded-classification task, interference due to irrelevant disparity is obtained in the comparison tasks, (2) a common process such as normalization does not necessarily underlie performance in the speeded-classification and comparison tasks, (3) the ability to attend selectively to a stimulus dimension may be task determined as well as stimulus determined, and (4) contrary to the Dixon and Just proposal, normalization of irrelevant disparity occurs in a comparison task, even when the relevant dimension is represented as a separate encoding feature.     

Contextual effects in vowel perception II: Evidence for two processing mechanisms

Recent experiments have indicated that contrast effects can be obtained with vowels by anchoring a test series with one of the endpoint vowels. These contextual effects cannot be attributed to feature detector fatigue or to the induction of an overt response bias. In the present studies, anchored ABX discrimination functions and signal detection analyses of identification data (before and after anchoring) for an [i]-[I] vowel series were used to demonstrate that [i] and [I] anchoring produce contrast effects by affecting different perceptual mechanisms. The effects of [i] anchoring were to increase within-[i] category sensitivity, while [I] anchoring shifted criterion placements. When vowels were placed in CVC syllables to reduce available auditory memory, there was a significant decrease in the size of the [I]-anchor contrast effects. The magnitude of the [i]-anchor effect was unaffected by the reduction in vowel information available in auditory memory. These results suggest that [i] and [I] anchors affect mechanisms at different levels of processing. The [i] anchoring results may reflect normalization processes in speech perception that operate at an early level of perceptual processing, while the [I] anchoring results represent changes in response criterion mediated by auditory memory for vowel information.     

Robust estimation of ability in the Rasch model

Estimating ability parameters in latent trait models in general, and in the Rasch model in particular is almost always hampered by noise in the data. This noise can be caused by guessing, inattention to easy questions, and other factors which are unrelated to ability. In this study several alternative formulations which attempt to deal with these problems without a reparameterization are tested through a Monte Carlo simulation. It was found that although no one of the tested schemes is uniformly superior to all others, a modified jackknife stood out as the best one in general, it was also super efficient (more efficient than the asymptotically optimal estimator) for tests with forty or fewer items. It is proposed that this sort of jackknifing scheme for estimating ability be considered for practical work.This research was funded through a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (78-NI-AX-0047) to the Bureau of Social Science Research, Howard Wainer, Principal Investigator. We would like to thank Ronald Mead, Anne Morgan and James Ramsay for kind, generous, and invaluable help at various stages of the project.     

Effective random seeding of random number generators

To obtain different sequences of values from a random number generating algorithm, we must start with different seed values or discard a variable number of initial samples. For maximum independence among sequences, differences must include the lowest order seed bits, and some generators require one to wait many samples for differences to propagate to the significant bits. While it is straightforward to generate two statistically independent sequences, it is surprisingly difficult to generate three or more such sequences.     

Saccade latency and warning signals: Effects of auditory and visual stimulus onset and offset

Previous studies have found that a nonspecific visual event occurring at the fovea 50–150 msec after the onset of a peripheral target delayed the initiation of the saccade to that target. The present studies replicated and extended this finding by studying the effects of both visual and auditory warning signals, by examining the effects of onset and offset warning on manual response latency, and by investigating the effects of presenting the warning events in the periphery of the visual field. The results indicated that the interfering effects occur with visual but not auditory stimuli, with saccades but not motor responses, and when the visual warning event occurs either foveally or in the subject’s periphery. Implications for the processes involved are discussed.