Recognition Judgments Introduction Time course of retrieval in infants Model of recognition Types of Recognition Judgments Human Recognition Abilities

The Time Course Of Retrieval In 3-month-old Infants Train 3-month-old infant to kick at a mobile. Remind infant of mobile 13 days later. Wait, then bring back mobile: 15 minutes: Nothing. 1 hour: Again nothing. 8 hours: Still nothing. 24 hours: A little kicking. 72 hours: Same amount of kicking as in training!

Reminding

Learning & Reminding

The Time Course Of Retrieval In Infants Time to retrieve the memory after a reminder. 3 month-old:72 hours 6 month-old: 4 hours 12 month- old: < 1 second

Stages for a Recognition Judgment Feature Analysis Stage. Comparison Stage. Response Stage. Decision (Selection) Stage. VisionHearing Occipital CortexTemporal Cortex Medial temporal Cortex: Limbic system + thalamus + surrounding cortex Temporal Cortex Prefrontal cortex

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Types of Judgments Judgment Under Uncertainty – Signal Detection theory Remember/Know Model of Recognition Human Recognition Abilities

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Types of Judgments Identification/categorization Contextual Temporal Judgment Under Uncertainty – Signal Detection theory Remember/Know Model of Recognition Human Recognition Abilities

Decision Stage: Judgment Types The word “ recognition ” can refer to: Identification / categorization. Contextual judgment. A sense that a being, object, or event occurred at a particular place. Temporal judgment (having to do with time). Have you seen this before? Recency: Have you seen this within the last 24 hours? Frequency: How many times have you seen this?

Identification / Categorization Judgment Recall discussion of categorization: Categorization of an input occurs after multiple comparisons have been made in parallel with memory representations. Nosofsky, et. al.: Accounted for typicality effects on the proposal that an instance is compared with many category members and similarities computed. Even when identifying a friend, you compare input to multiple representations.

Contextual Judgment A part-whole match between the probe and a representation of the study context containing it is required. The more similar the test context is to the study context, the more likely that matching details that distinguish the study context will be found. Example: Order of questions on an exam.

Temporal Judgment Recency: Did this happen recently? For example, did you just see this item in the list presented a little while ago? Frequency: Which is more frequent: A or B? How frequently did you see X between 1998 and 1999?

Experiences Informing Temporal Judgments Semantic association Knowledge of target’s identity and/or context Perceptual Feeling of familiarity or novelty

Summary of Recognition More than inference may be drawn, hence more than one kind of judgment made, from a single piece of information. e. g., familiarity and frequency Inferences are often drawn from incomplete information and hence are made under uncertainty.

Familiarity and Frequency Deciding how many times you’ve seen something may be determined by a feeling of familiarity. A heuristic that is easier than trying to remember all the individual instances and counting them up. The information that results in feeling of familiarity is automatically encoded: Hasher and Chromiak (1977): Telling students that the memory task would be specifically about frequency did not improve performance. Subjects must be able to attend to the input (otherwise poor frequency judgments), but they do not specifically need to count the instances.

Overlap Of Judgment Types Sometimes: Categorization judgment = Contextual judgment. Novel pictures in study set. Categorize: Things seen before vs. things never seen. Sometimes: Familiarity judgment = Contextual judgment. Immediate recognition could be either: Recency judgment based on working memory match. Contextual judgment based on matching contextual details in LTM.

Summary of Recognition More than inference may be drawn, hence more than one kind of judgment made, from a single piece of information. Inferences are often drawn from incomplete information and hence are made under uncertainty. Hence, decision criteria must be established for distinguishing targets from distracters.

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Types of Judgments Judgment Under Uncertainty – Signal Detection theory Remember/Know Model of Recognition Human Recognition Abilities

Signal Detection Theory

Who can discriminate?

Anne can discriminate better than...

Receiver Operating Characteristics Familiarity Probability Of Detection 0% 100% Absolute Threshold Continuous Sensitivity

The brain is a continuously sensitive receiver Familiarity distributions overlap for poorly- learned targets and distracters A criterion (beta) value of familiarity must be used to discriminate targets from from distracters Both hits and false alarms must be measured to determine discriminability (d’). People differ in their sensitivity and criteria

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Types of Judgments Judgment Under Uncertainty – Signal Detection theory Remember/Know Model of Recognition Human Recognition Abilities

Two-Factor Theory Contextual, temporal and frequency Judgments may be based on either the retrieval of a semantic association or a familiarity judgment. Atkinson Juola (1974) Model Mandler (1980) Model Tulving Model

Atkinson-Juola Model Stage 1: Check if input is very familiar or unfamiliar. If a probe is judged to be very familiar then it is accepted as a target. If a probe is judged to be very unfamiliar then it is judged to be a distracter. Stage 2: Input is not at high or low extreme of familiarity. If a probe has intermediate familiarity then it must be compared feature-by-feature with the presentation of the study item.

Remember-Know Model (Tulving) Stage 1 If a semantic association is retrieved between the probe and a representation of the study context (part-whole match) a remember judgment is made and it is classified as a target. Stage 2 If the probe is familiar a know judgment is made and it is classified as a target. If the probe is unfamiliar it is classified as a distracter.

Names for Recognition Experiences Semantic Response Identification List Search Remember Familiarity Know

What is familiarity? Working Memory Recency Judgment Association with temporal list tag Long-term Memory Faster retrieval Higher level of activation Association with many contexts

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Types of Judgments Judgment Under Uncertainty – Signal Detection theory Remember/Know Model of Recognition Mirror Effect Independence of part-whole word recognition Human Recognition Abilities

Mirror Effect High frequency words have both lower hits and higher false alarms than lower frequency words. Can be explained by assuming more know judgments for high frequency words because of higher familiarity but more remember judgments for low frequency words. Prediction: Retrieving a contextual association takes longer than making a familiarity judgment Limiting time for a recognition judgment will affect remember judgments but not know judgments.

Joordens & Hockley (2000) High FrequencyLow Frequency Test Time HitsF.A.sHitsF.A.s unlimit ed ms

Why should lower frequency words be better remembered? Study (Learning hypothesis) Greater novelty during study encourages more rehearsals (Von Restorff effect). Test (Retrieval hypothesis) More discriminable because fewer contexts other than study context are retrieved.

Part-Whole Recognition (Glass, et al., 2003) Procedure 48 study items presented whistle-BALL 3-alternative forced-choice test for second word RACKET NET BALL 3-alternative forced-choice test for pair whistle-BALL pretty-WET cave-BLUE Results Recognition of single word independent of pair Conclusion Single-word recognition is know judgment; pair recognition is remember judgment.

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Human Recognition Abilities Overview Role of Familiarity Role of Judgment

Recognition Abilities People are extremely good at performing exact matches on: Visual input. Sounds. Words. Not so good at recognizing smells. But smells are not forgotten as easily. People good at recognizing pictures are not superior at recognizing words.

Picture Recognition At least 5 second presentation rate

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Human Recognition Abilities Overview Role of Familiarity Role of Judgment

Picture Recognition versus Face Recognition Vicki Bruce (1982): Observers see 12 pictures of friends and 12 of strangers. Recognition is of the same picture or different picture of same face in different profile with different expression.

Summary High accuracy for the same picture Similarly, high accuracy for same picture of novel face and different picture of familiar face However, much lower accuracy for different picture of novel face Conclusion: visual memory is very specific but capable of generalization through learning

Face Recognition Faces of familiar individuals better recognized than faces of unfamiliar individuals Faces of familiar races better recognized than faces of unfamiliar races Conclusion: familiarity influences the number of features encoded, hence, ultimately, the specificity of recognition

Recognition Judgments Introduction Types of Recognition Judgments Human Recognition Abilities Overview Role of Familiarity Role of Judgment

Malpass & Devine (1981) Perpetrator disrupted lecture Witnesses saw line-up with 5 individuals The perpetrator was present in half the line-ups Instructions were biased or unbiased

Biased Instructions We believe that the person … is present in the lineup. Look carefully at each of the five individuals in the lineup. Which of these is the person you …? Circle the number of his position in the lineup below.

Unbiased Instructions The person… may be one of the five individuals in the lineup. It is also possible that he is not in the lineup. Look carefully at each of the five individuals in the lineup. If the person…is not in the lineup, circle 0. If the person is present in the lineup, circle the number of his position.

Percentage of Identifications for Lineups with Perpetrator Present and Absent under Biased and Unbiased Instructions Perpetrator PresentAbsent Instructions BiasedUnbiasedBiasedUnbiased Perpetrator 75%83% Other lineup member 25%078%33% No choice 017%22%67%

Eyewitness Testimony In a line-up selection, presence or absence of perpetrator is most significant factor determining accuracy Clothing and location in photographs also affect recognition

Probe Presentation Suspect Lindsay & Wells (1985) found that sequential presentation of mug shots resulted in less false alarms and no difference in hits when compared with simultaneous presentation. Similar results in 15 other studies. No Suspect Stewart & McAllister (2001) found that simultaneous presentation of pages of mug shots resulted in less false alarms and no difference in hits when compared with sequential presentation.