Biomedical subjects

Amy H Criss

Publications and source records attributed to Amy H Criss.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

List discrimination in associative recognition and implications for representation.

Four experiments tested the predictions made by the model outlined in A. H. Criss and R. M. Shiffrin (2004b). Participants studied 2 successive lists of pairs followed by a recognition memory test for the most recent list. Some items and some pairs were repeated across the 2 lists. Critically, a given item could be repeated in the same or different type of pair. For associative recognition, performance was only affected by repetitions in the same pair type. However, in single-item recognition confusions occurred for both types of repetitions. The results are as predicted and confirm the assumption that different associative representations were stored even when the same token repeated in different pair types, whereas similar item representations were used regardless of pair type.

Association↗

PubMed2004

Context noise and item noise jointly determine recognition memory: a comment on Dennis and Humphreys (2001).

S. Dennis and M. S. Humphreys (see record 2001-17194-007) proposed a model with the strict assumption that recognition memory is not affected by interference from other items. Instead, confusions are due to noise generated by prior contexts in which the test item appeared. This model seems disparate from existing models of recognition memory but is similar in many ways that are not superficially obvious. One difference is the order in which item and context information are used as retrieval cues. A more critical difference is the assertion that only an item's history, and not other items, affects recognition memory. Conceptual arguments along with the results of 2 experiments make a persuasive case that both types of noise affect recognition. To illustrate the approach, the authors fit experimental data with a version of the retrieving effectively from memory model (R. M. Shiffrin & M. Steyvers, 1997) incorporating both sources of noise.

Association↗

PubMed2004

Interactions between study task, study time, and the low-frequency hit rate advantage in recognition memory.

In studies of episodic recognition memory, low-frequency words (LF) have higher hit rates (HR) and lower false alarm rates (FAR) than do high-frequency words (HF), which is known as the mirror pattern. A few findings have suggested that requiring a task at study may reduce or eliminate the LF-HR advantage without altering the LF-FAR effect. Other studies have suggested that the size of the LF-HR advantage interacts with study time. To explore such findings more thoroughly and relate them to theory, the authors conducted 5 experiments, varying study time and study task. The full mirror pattern was found only in 2 cases: the standard condition requiring study for a later memory test and a condition requiring a judgment about unusual letters. The authors explain their findings in terms of the encoding of distinctive features and discuss the implications for current theories of recognition memory and the word frequency effect.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

Pairs do not suffer interference from other types of pairs or single items in associative recognition.

What is the source of interference on a memory test following study of a list containing different types of pairs? Many current models predict that pairs and singles of all types will jointly interfere and therefore harm memory. Such list length effects have often been observed for lists of a single-item type (e.g., a list of words). Here, we examine interference for lists containing multiple types of pairs (e.g., word-word, face-face, word-face). In three experiments, we manipulate the number of each type on the study list. In associative recognition, discrimination fell as the number of pairs of the same type rose, but the number of pairs of other types had little effect. That is, we found a list length effect within, but not between, classes of stimuli. We highlight the importance of representation and propose alternatives to current model representations that can predict such findings.

Discrimination, Psychological↗