WHEN THE PROBE IS WILLING BUT THE MIND IS WEAKWHEN THE PROBE IS WILLING BUT THE MIND IS WEAK

This research was supported by an NSERC operating grant

For additional information please contact Marty Niewiadomski at martin@psych.utoronto.ca

Marty Niewiadomski University of Toronto

at Scarborough

Marty Niewiadomski University of Toronto

at Scarborough

Steve Joordens University of Toronto

at Scarborough

Steve Joordens University of Toronto

at Scarborough

Bill Hockley Wilfrid Laurier

University

Bill Hockley Wilfrid Laurier

University

A New Recognition Paradigm:

THE WHAT• Partial-item recognitionTHE HOW

•Study List– Present a list of words one at a time.

•Partial Item Recognition Test– 48 “old” and 48 “new” test probes were

presented one at a time.– All of the items had two letters removed.– All partial items could only be completed with

one solution.– Subjects were asked to first generate the

missing letters to complete the word, and then make a new/remember/know recognition decision for the completion

THE WHY• Reason # 1 – The paradoxical frequency effect

in recall and recognition.• In a recognition test, participants typically

make more hits and fewer false alarms to low-frequency words compared to high frequency words (mirror effect). In a recall test, however, a general memory advantage favours high frequency items, as they tend to be recalled more often relative to low frequency words.

• Experiment 1 deals directly with this paradox.• Reason # 2 – Beyond good encoding and

environmental support – the role of context in recognition memory.

• Experiments 2-5 explore the roles of environmental support and context within the mirror effect.

• In all the Experiments, the partial-item recognition task helps to disambiguate the issues.

A New Recognition Paradigm:

THE WHAT• Partial-item recognitionTHE HOW

•Study List– Present a list of words one at a time.

•Partial Item Recognition Test– 48 “old” and 48 “new” test probes were

presented one at a time.– All of the items had two letters removed.– All partial items could only be completed with

one solution.– Subjects were asked to first generate the

missing letters to complete the word, and then make a new/remember/know recognition decision for the completion

THE WHY• Reason # 1 – The paradoxical frequency effect

in recall and recognition.• In a recognition test, participants typically

make more hits and fewer false alarms to low-frequency words compared to high frequency words (mirror effect). In a recall test, however, a general memory advantage favours high frequency items, as they tend to be recalled more often relative to low frequency words.

• Experiment 1 deals directly with this paradox.• Reason # 2 – Beyond good encoding and

environmental support – the role of context in recognition memory.

• Experiments 2-5 explore the roles of environmental support and context within the mirror effect.

• In all the Experiments, the partial-item recognition task helps to disambiguate the issues.

– If subjects could not generate the appropriate letters, or made a mistake, the computer would fill in the blanks or correct them.

– If subjects could not generate the appropriate letters, or made a mistake, the computer would fill in the blanks or correct them.

ME__RY

MEM_RY

MEMORY

MEMORY

1=Remember OLD 2=Think OLD 3=NEW

TEST LISTPARTIAL ITEM RECOGNITION

EXPERIMENT 1 – FREQUENCY PARADOX

METHOD• Study list

– 60 words were presented one at a time.– Words were high frequency (mean = 143) or

low frequency (mean = 6.9), blocked by frequency (blocks were counterbalanced and no block effect was observed in any experiments).

– Half of the old and the new items were high frequency and half were low frequency. Presentation of old/new probes as well as word frequency was randomized at test.

RESULTSGeneration• A generation advantage was observed for

high-frequency items relative to low frequency items

• This advantage was present for both “old” and “new” items.

Recognition• A typical mirror pattern was observed

between the new and old items. Furthermore, the recollective process usually associated with “remember” responses appears to be responsible for the “old” portion of the effect.

EXPERIMENT 1 – FREQUENCY PARADOX

METHOD• Study list

– 60 words were presented one at a time.– Words were high frequency (mean = 143) or

low frequency (mean = 6.9), blocked by frequency (blocks were counterbalanced and no block effect was observed in any experiments).

– Half of the old and the new items were high frequency and half were low frequency. Presentation of old/new probes as well as word frequency was randomized at test.

RESULTSGeneration• A generation advantage was observed for

high-frequency items relative to low frequency items

• This advantage was present for both “old” and “new” items.

Recognition• A typical mirror pattern was observed

between the new and old items. Furthermore, the recollective process usually associated with “remember” responses appears to be responsible for the “old” portion of the effect.

0.25

0.480.43

0.63

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pro

po

rtio

n G

ener

ated

New Old

Low Freq

High Freq

0.260.32

0.46 0.46

0.820.74

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

es

po

ns

es

New Know Remember

Low Freq

High Freqov

eral

l

• This general pattern of results can be seen regardless of whether the items were generated or not.

EXPERIMENTS 2-5: ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT AND THE MIRROR EFFECT IN

RECOGNITION

• Two of the factors that influence memory are encoding and environmental support at test; the partial-item recognition task allows easy manipulation of the latter one. Simply removing letters from items at test decreases the amount of environmental support.

• These experiments used the partial-item recognition paradigm in three different settings: either two letters were removed, one letter was removed or no letters were removed (standard yes/no recognition).

• These conditions were tested in a between-subjects design (Exp 2-4) and in a within-subjects design (Exp. 5).

• This general pattern of results can be seen regardless of whether the items were generated or not.

EXPERIMENTS 2-5: ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT AND THE MIRROR EFFECT IN

RECOGNITION

• Two of the factors that influence memory are encoding and environmental support at test; the partial-item recognition task allows easy manipulation of the latter one. Simply removing letters from items at test decreases the amount of environmental support.

• These experiments used the partial-item recognition paradigm in three different settings: either two letters were removed, one letter was removed or no letters were removed (standard yes/no recognition).

• These conditions were tested in a between-subjects design (Exp 2-4) and in a within-subjects design (Exp. 5).

TEST LISTINTACT

SI_TER

NEW OLD

NE_ULA

NEW OLD

CO_KIE

NEW OLD

RE_ALL

NEW OLD

RE_SON

NEW OLD

PEOPLE

NEW OLD

SI_TER

NEW OLD

NE_ULA

NEW OLD

CO_KIE

NEW OLD

RE_ALL

NEW OLD

RE_SON

NEW OLD

PE_PLE

NEW OLD

TEST LIST1 LETTER REMOVED

TEST LIST2 LETTERS REMOVED

SI_TER

NEW OLD

NE_ULA

NEW OLD

CO_KIE

NEW OLD

RE_ALL

NEW OLD

RE_SON

NEW OLD

PE__LE

NEW OLD

0.230.28

0.41 0.40

0.78

0.67

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

es

po

ns

es

New Know Remember

Low Freq

High Freqnon

-

gener

ated

0.36 0.380.42

0.45

0.86

0.76

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

es

po

ns

es

New Know Remember

Low Freq

High Freqgener

ate

d

RESULTS

Between Subjects

• A typical mirror effect was observed in the intact condition (no letters removed).

• The “old” portion of the mirror effect was significantly attenuated in both partial-item conditions.

Within Subjects

• No memory advantage was observed in the “old” portion of the effect, regardless whether the item had two, one, or no letters removed.

CONCLUSIONS

•Experiment 1 shows a HF advantage for generation and a LF advantage for recognition, all within one experiment.

•Results of Experiments 2-5, show that good encoding and environmental support are not always sufficient to support recollection.

•Subjects may adopt a common strategy in dealing with partial recognition probes that results in decreased recollection.

•Recognition results are consistent with 2-Factor accounts of the mirror effect (e.g. Joordens & Hockley, 2000).

RESULTS

Between Subjects

• A typical mirror effect was observed in the intact condition (no letters removed).

• The “old” portion of the mirror effect was significantly attenuated in both partial-item conditions.

Within Subjects

• No memory advantage was observed in the “old” portion of the effect, regardless whether the item had two, one, or no letters removed.

CONCLUSIONS

•Experiment 1 shows a HF advantage for generation and a LF advantage for recognition, all within one experiment.

•Results of Experiments 2-5, show that good encoding and environmental support are not always sufficient to support recollection.

•Subjects may adopt a common strategy in dealing with partial recognition probes that results in decreased recollection.

•Recognition results are consistent with 2-Factor accounts of the mirror effect (e.g. Joordens & Hockley, 2000).

0.24

0.35

0.72 0.73

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

esp

on

ses

New Old

Low Freq

High Freq

0.31

0.40

0.630.60

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

esp

on

ses

New Old

Low Freq

High Freq

0.12

0.27

0.78

0.68

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

esp

on

ses

New Old

Low Freq

High Freq

0.13

0.28

0.66

0.76

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

esp

on

ses

New Old

Low Freq

High Freq

0.21

0.32

0.69 0.72

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

esp

on

ses

New Old

Low Freq

High Freq

0.28

0.40

0.570.64

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f O

ld R

esp

on

ses

New Old

Low Freq

High Freq

betw

een

Ss

–

inta

ct

betw

een S

s –

1 lett

er

rem

oved

betw

een S

s –

2 lett

ers

rem

oved

with

in S

s – 1

l

ette

r

rem

oved

with

in S

s – 2

lett

ers

rem

oved

with

in

Ss

–

inta

ct