Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Benjamin Allred 벤자민 알레드 Contents  Questions to Think About  Definitions  Recognition Versus Recall  Single Process Models  Generate-Recognize Models.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Benjamin Allred 벤자민 알레드 Contents  Questions to Think About  Definitions  Recognition Versus Recall  Single Process Models  Generate-Recognize Models."— Presentation transcript:

1

2 Benjamin Allred 벤자민 알레드

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

4 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?

5  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)) Definitions

6 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%

7 Recognition Versus Recall  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

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

9 Yes-No Recognition Test Possible Outcomes in a Yes-No Recognition Test Subject’s Response YesNo Test Item OldHitMiss NewFalse AlarmCorrect Rejection

10 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)

11 Evidence of Limitations

12 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

13 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)

14 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

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

16 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

17 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

18 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)

19 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,...

20 The Mirror Effect - Example The Mirror Effect and the Word Frequency Effect Word Frequency HighLow Hits False Alarms Source: Human Memory, p. 214

21 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

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

23 Face Recognition Other-Race Effect

24 Face Recognition Face Inversion Effect

25

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

27 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

28


Download ppt "Benjamin Allred 벤자민 알레드 Contents  Questions to Think About  Definitions  Recognition Versus Recall  Single Process Models  Generate-Recognize Models."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google