Inverted list-strength effects in recognition.

IF 2.2 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Jeremy B Caplan, Dominic Guitard
{"title":"Inverted list-strength effects in recognition.","authors":"Jeremy B Caplan, Dominic Guitard","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>If some list items are studied strongly and others weakly, many memory models predict the effect of strength on memory will be larger when strengths are mixed within a list than between pure lists of a single strength: a list-strength effect. In explaining why list-strength effects were elusive in old/new recognition, Shiffrin et al. (1990) introduced differentiation. This gave the model a way to produce an inverted list-strength effect, which they thought was usually offset by the coexisting expected \"upright\" list-strength effect. Alternatively, attentional subsetting theory (Caplan, 2023; Caplan & Guitard, 2024b) predicted inverted list-strength effects in some circumstances by considering how the dimensionalities of attended feature spaces might differ for strong and weak items. Inversions were indeed found in manipulations of stimulus duration (e.g., 500 ms vs. 2,000 ms study time/word). Here we replicated the pattern when display time was equated (Experiment 1) and with massed repetition (Experiment 2), ruling out the relevance of vision-locked features and the number of stimulus onsets. Both theoretical accounts of inverted list-strength effects, however, miss the fine structure of the data, namely, reduced hit rates for weak items in pure than mixed lists and the reverse effect (albeit less robust) for strong items. Model fits suggested the critical factor is that list composition parametrically influences the number of deep features processed at test combined with participants' response bias adapting to list composition. In sum, inverted list-strength effects are robustly found in manipulations of item study time and point to differential processing of probe features depending on list composition, compatible with most models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50194,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001489","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

If some list items are studied strongly and others weakly, many memory models predict the effect of strength on memory will be larger when strengths are mixed within a list than between pure lists of a single strength: a list-strength effect. In explaining why list-strength effects were elusive in old/new recognition, Shiffrin et al. (1990) introduced differentiation. This gave the model a way to produce an inverted list-strength effect, which they thought was usually offset by the coexisting expected "upright" list-strength effect. Alternatively, attentional subsetting theory (Caplan, 2023; Caplan & Guitard, 2024b) predicted inverted list-strength effects in some circumstances by considering how the dimensionalities of attended feature spaces might differ for strong and weak items. Inversions were indeed found in manipulations of stimulus duration (e.g., 500 ms vs. 2,000 ms study time/word). Here we replicated the pattern when display time was equated (Experiment 1) and with massed repetition (Experiment 2), ruling out the relevance of vision-locked features and the number of stimulus onsets. Both theoretical accounts of inverted list-strength effects, however, miss the fine structure of the data, namely, reduced hit rates for weak items in pure than mixed lists and the reverse effect (albeit less robust) for strong items. Model fits suggested the critical factor is that list composition parametrically influences the number of deep features processed at test combined with participants' response bias adapting to list composition. In sum, inverted list-strength effects are robustly found in manipulations of item study time and point to differential processing of probe features depending on list composition, compatible with most models. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

识别中的倒排列表强度效应。
如果一些列表项目被研究得很强,而另一些项目被研究得很弱,那么许多记忆模型预测,当列表中混合了强度时,强度对记忆的影响会比在单一强度的纯列表中更大:列表强度效应。Shiffrin等人(1990)在解释为什么列表强度效应在新旧识别中难以捉摸时引入了分化。这给模型提供了一种产生反向列表强度效应的方法,他们认为这种效应通常被共存的预期“直立”列表强度效应所抵消。另外,注意子集理论(Caplan, 2023;Caplan & Guitard, 2024b)通过考虑强项目和弱项目参与特征空间的维度如何不同,预测了在某些情况下的倒列表强度效应。在刺激持续时间的操作中确实发现了反转(例如,500毫秒对2000毫秒的学习时间/单词)。在这里,我们复制了显示时间相等(实验1)和大量重复(实验2)时的模式,排除了视觉锁定特征和刺激次数的相关性。然而,倒排列表强度效应的两种理论解释都忽略了数据的精细结构,即纯列表中弱项目的命中率低于混合列表,而强项目的相反效果(尽管不那么健壮)。模型拟合表明,关键因素是列表组成和参与者对列表组成的反应偏差对深度特征处理数量的参数影响。总之,倒列表强度效应在项目学习时间的操纵中得到了强有力的发现,并指出了根据列表组成对探针特征的差分处理,与大多数模型兼容。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
163
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信