Congruency effects on recognition memory: A context effect

Question

1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Running head: congruency effects on recognition memory 1 congruency effects on recognition memory: a context effect" ?

2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Running head: congruency effects on recognition memory 1 congruency effects on recognition memory: a context effect" ?

3. What is the key issue to consider?

4. What is the purpose of the present study?

Accepted Answer

This paper showed that additional encoding time itself does not invariably result in better recognition for more difficult selective attention items, rather, the dependence of recognition memory on encoding difficulty appears to reflect a context-sensitive control response to encoding difficulty.

Accepted Answer

Although speculative at this point, further development of a framework that integrates the conflict monitoring theory with the desirable difficulty principle may prove worthwhile.. Together, these results suggest that distractors at test can impact memory performance, but that the recognition advantage for items that were difficult to process over items that were easy to process at study does not hinge on the presence of distractors at test.

Accepted Answer

A key issue to consider is that congruency (i.e., two identical words) offers a relatively immediate cue of processing ease, whereas perception that a red target word is more salient than a green distractor word may require a more time-consuming binding of target colour (i.e., red) with relative salience.

Accepted Answer

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether recently demonstrated effectsof congruency on remembering (Krebs et al., 2013; Rosner et al., 2014) owe to an increase in cognitive control in response to conflict (e.g., Botvinick et al., 2001), or more straightforwardly to increased time-on-task.

Accepted Answer

In the recognition task, participants were presented with a fixation cross for 2000 ms, followed by a pair of red and green interleaved words.

Accepted Answer

in that study, inclusion of distractors at test produced higher false alarm rates for new congruent than new incongruent items, an effect produced perhaps by the greater fluency with which the new congruent items were processed (see Jacoby & Whitehouse, 1989).

Accepted Answer

Counterbalancing of items to conditions across participants ensured that each word appeared equally often as an old or new item, and within the old condition equally often as a bright target, dim target, bright distractor, and dim distractor.

Accepted Answer

Correct RTs were submitted to an outlier analysis (Van Selst & Jolicoeur,1994), removing 2.7% of observations from further analysis.

Accepted Answer

The implication is that intermixing two trial types that are sufficiently distinct (e.g., congruent and incongruent items) may allow for on-line selection of different forms of control for those two item types.

Accepted Answer

This false alarm effect was accompanied by lower hit rates for old congruent than old incongruent items, which together produced the wellknown mirror effect in recognition memory (Glanzer & Adams, 1985).

Accepted Answer

These d’ values were analysed with a 2 x 2 mixed-factors ANOVA, with difficulty (easyselection/hard-selection) as a within-subject factor and order (easy-first/hard-first) as a betweensubjects factor.

Congruency effects on recognition memory: A context effect

Chat with Paper

AI Agents for this Paper

Most frequently asked questions

1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Running head: congruency effects on recognition memory 1 congruency effects on recognition memory: a context effect" ?

2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Running head: congruency effects on recognition memory 1 congruency effects on recognition memory: a context effect" ?

3. What is the key issue to consider?

4. What is the purpose of the present study?

5. What was the RT for the recognition task?

6. What is the effect of distractors at test?

7. How many items were used to create the stimuli?

8. How many correct RTs were submitted to further analysis?

9. What is the implication of intermixing two trial types?

10. What is the effect of distractors on memory?

11. What was the d’ value used to evaluate recognition performance?

Figures

Citations

Memory-guided selective attention: Single experiences with conflict have long-lasting effects on cognitive control.

When increasing distraction helps learning: Distractor number and content interact in their effects on memory.

Distinct but correlated latent factors support the regulation of learned conflict-control and task-switching

Selective attention meets spontaneous recognition memory: Evidence for effects at retrieval.

Memory-Guided Selective Attention: An Instance Theory of Automatic Attentional Control

References

Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.

Computational analysis of present-day American English

Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.

Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review.

PsychoPy--Psychophysics software in Python.

Related Papers (5)

Rapid forgetting results from competition over time between items in visual working memory.

Is what goes in what comes out? Encoding and retrieval event-related potentials together determine memory outcome.

Implementation-intention encoding in a prospective memory task enhances spontaneous retrieval of intentions

Visual memory for novel shapes: implicit coding without attention.

Effects of Emotional Context on Memory for Details: The Role of Attention