Biomedical subjects

Martin Chodorow

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Chodorow.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Does the effect of familiarity on proofreading change with encoding task and time?

The authors examined whether the beneficial effect of text familiarity on proofreading is dependent on the type of encoding operations performed on the text prior to proofreading (i.e., surface vs. deep), and on the time elapsed between encoding and proofreading. In the present study, familiarity, irrespective of the nature of the encoding operations and delay, improved proofreading times, whereas only surface encoding made proofreading more accurate. These results represent a challenge for the transfer-appropriate processing model of memory.

Attention↗

PubMed2004

Priming and the predictability of contextual information.

Past research has indicated that repetition priming is disrupted by variable contextual information such as word-to-word changes in voice. In three experiments, we examined whether subjects' prediction of contextual changes could attenuate this effect. Predictability of contextual changes was accomplished either by presenting speakers' voices in a fixed sequential order or by giving subjects prior knowledge of which voice would produce the next word. In these experiments, predictability attenuated the disruptive effect that changes in voice had on priming, suggesting the processes which underlie this memory phenomenon are modulated by expectations that selectively optimize subjects' processing of incoming information.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Error detection in text: do feedback and familiarity help?

In the present study, the authors examined the extent to which familiarity and feedback (auditory and/or articulatory) might be beneficial to proofreading. Participants proofread unfamiliar and familiar (repeated) passages while (a) concurrently reading either aloud or silently, (b) concurrently listening to the passages being read to them, or (c) reading without either auditory or articulatory feedback. Errors were one-letter changes that transformed function words into contextually inappropriate words. Familiarity improved reading times largely irrespective of feedback, and it enhanced error detection only when auditory feedback was available to participants. Proofreaders' enhanced error detection in familiar text reflected a change in their sensitivity to errors rather than any change in the placement of the response criterion for reporting errors. These findings suggest that familiarity can produce two kinds of functional fluency, one involving speed of processing, which is largely independent of feedback, and the other concerned with accuracy of processing, which relies on feedback.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Asymmetric interference in implicit memory: effects of study-test awareness and stimulus order.

This study examined the extent to which fragment completion performance is susceptible to the effects of two different forms of interference (proactive and retroactive) and whether any of these effects depend on participants' awareness of the relationship between study and test. Unaware participants were found to be susceptible to proactive but not retroactive interference. Aware participants did not show evidence of susceptibility to either form of interference. These results contribute to the debate about whether implicit memory is immune to interference effects by demarcating the limits of such an immunity.

Awareness↗

PubMed2004

Asymmetric interference effects in fragment completion: the consequences of recognition failures and successes.

We examined the extent to which implicit and explicit memory performance is susceptible to the effects of proactive and retroactive interference produced by orthographic similarity. Participants studied target and nontarget words that were orthographically similar or dissimilar. At test, they were given fragments of the target words intermixed with fragments of nonstudied words. Participants' initial task was to determine whether each fragment was a studied word. If they recognized it, they were to complete the fragment with the studied word; if not, they were to complete the fragment with the first word that came to mind. Completion rates including both recognized and nonrecognized target fragments provided evidence of proactive but not retroactive interference. The implicit processing engaged by the nonrecognized target fragments was found to be the primary source of the proactive interference effect.

Achievement↗