Benjamin Allred HUMAN MEMORY CHAPTER 9 RECOGNITION Contents

Benjamin Allred 벤자민 알레드 HUMAN MEMORY CHAPTER 9: RECOGNITION

Contents Questions to Think About Definitions Recognition Versus Recall Single Process Models Generate-Recognize Models Remember Versus Know The Mirror Effect Face Recognition

Questions to Think About Which test is easier – a recognition test or a recall test? (What makes one test easier than another? ) How are remember and know judgments related to explicit and implicit memory? Why is it easier to recognize faces of one’s own age-group?

Definitions Recall Recognition Distractors/lures In a recall test, the experimenter provides the context and the subject has to retrieve the target; in a recognition test, the experimenter provides the target and the subject has to retrieve the context. (Hollingworth (1913))

Recognition Versus Recall Recognition experiment - Shepard (1967) Subjects presented with lists of stimuli �Words, sentences, photographs At test, presented with two stimuli, one from original list, one new �Words: 88% �Sentences: 89% �Pictures: almost 100%

Recognition Versus Recall experiment – Mäntylä (1986) Subjects presented with lists of words, for which they had to generate three properties for each At test, experimenter presented the properties �Subjects recalled approximately 91% of the words

Types of Recognition Tests Alternative Forced Choice (2 AFC, 4 AFC) Given multiple choices, choose the one already seen Yes-No Given one choice, indicate whether the item is “old” or “new”

Yes-No Recognition Test Possible Outcomes in a Yes-No Recognition Test Subject’s Response Test Item Yes No Old Hit Miss New False Alarm Correct Rejection

Single Process Models Early theories of recognition Tagging Model �When an item occurs, it is tagged with the relative time of occurrence Strength Theory �The more recent the item, the stronger or more familiar it is Limitations These models contain only a single process �(Meaning that the same manipulation (word frequency, intentionality, etc) should have the same effect on both recall and recognition)

Evidence of Limitations

Generate-Recognize Models Two-stage models Recall is made up of two processes �First, generate a set of plausible candidates for recall (generation stage) �Second, confirm whether each word is worthy of being recalled (recognition stage – not the same as the recognition test) Recognition is made up of only one process �Because the experimenter provides a candidate, recognition does not need the generation stage

Generate-Recognize Models Example: HAM (human associative memory) (Anderson and Bower (1973)) Assumes words are stored in associative network As words are presented, they are tagged with a contextual marker Pathways to associated words are also tagged At recall: �Contextual markers are followed to generate a set of plausible candidates (generation stage) �After examining number of associations between target word and context, “old” or “new” is chosen depending on sufficient contextual evidence (recognition stage)

Generate-Recognize Models Solves limitations of single process model The same manipulation does not have to have the same effect on both recall and recognition Have problems of their own, however They require that if a word can be recalled, it must also be recognized �Because the second stage is common to both recall and recognition, a successful outcome in one test should mean a successful outcome for the other �Recall failure is quite common and explainable, but recognition failure is contrary to the prediction of generate-recognize models

Recognition Failure Experiment by Watkins & Tulving (1975) Proved that a word could be recalled, even though it could not be recognized Step Procedure Example 1 a 1 b List 1 presented Cued recall of List 1 badge-button 2 a 2 b List 2 presented Cued recall of List 2 preach-rant 3 List 3 presented glue-chair 4 a 4 b Free association stimuli presented Free association responses made table-chair, cloth, desk, dinner 5 a 5 b Recognition test sheets presented Recognized items circled desk top chair 6 Cued recall of List 3 glue-chair

Generate-Recognize Models Adding a search process during recognition stage could allow a generate-recognize model to account for recognition failure Familiarity instantly computed to make response If familiarity value is not decisive enough, a search is performed �In the previous experiment, the target word (chair) is not “found” in the search because the retrieval phase (step 5) contained inappropriate cues �The recall test (step 6) provided appropriate cues, so the search process is successful

Remember Versus Know Relatively recent change in recognition methodology (1985, 1988) Does someone specifically remember or just somehow know? Experiment (Tulving (1985)): Present subjects with category-member pairs Recall tests: �Free recall test �Cued recall test (category) �Cued recall test (category + first letter of target) The proportion of remember judgments decreased over the three kinds of tests

Remember Versus Know Gardiner (1990, 1993) gives an explanation: Remember judgments are influenced by conceptual and attentional factors Know judgments are based on a procedural memory system Like explicit and implicit memory Data from remember/know experiments support the idea that recognition is a combination of two processes Recollection (remember judgments) and Familiarity (know judgments)

The Mirror Effect Observed when “The type of stimulus that is accurately recognized as old when old is also accurately recognized as new when new. The type that is poorly recognized as old when old is also poorly recognized as new when new. ” (Glanzer & Adams, 1985, p. 8) Pervasive in recognition tests High/low word frequency and hit/false alarm rates, presentation rate, age of subject, . . .

The Mirror Effect - Example The Mirror Effect and the Word Frequency Effect Word Frequency High Low Hits 27. 84 31. 00 False Alarms 10. 20 7. 63 Source: Human Memory, p. 214

The Mirror Effect Significance: It eliminates all theories of recognition based on a unidimensional conception of strength or familiarity (single process models) May be able to be explained by dual process models Explanations for the mirror effect are still being formed

Face Recognition Face recognition versus face identification Other-race effect Face inversion effect Other-age effect

Face Recognition Other-Race Effect

Face Recognition Face Inversion Effect

Face Recognition Face Inversion Effect

Face Recognition Other-Age Effect Adapted from: Human Memory, p. 220

Face Recognition Face recognition is closely related to expertise with processing the stimuli Faces of people of the same race tend to be recognized more accurately The probability of correctly identifying or recognizing even a very familiar face decreases as it is rotated Young people tend to interact with young people more and older people tend to interact with older people more As with words and other stimuli, cues/priming can be important in face recognition