Distinctiveness, not dual coding, explains the picture-superiority effect.

The picture-superiority effect is the finding that memory for pictures exceeds memory for words on many tasks. According to dual-coding theory, the pictures' mnemonic advantage stems from their greater likelihood to be labelled relative to words being imaged. In contrast, distinctiveness accounts hold that the greater variability of pictures compared to words leads to their mnemonic advantage. Ensor, Surprenant, et al. tested these accounts in old/new and forced-choice recognition by increasing the physical distinctiveness of words and decreasing the physical distinctiveness of pictures. Half of the words were presented in standard black font, and half were presented in varying font styles, font sizes, font colours, and capitalisation patterns. Half of the pictures were presented in black and white and half in colour. Consistent with the physical-distinctiveness account but contrary to the dual-coding account, the picture-superiority effect was eliminated when comparing the black-and-white pictures to distinctive words. In the present study, we extend Ensor, Surprenant, et al.'s results to associative recognition and free recall. Results were consistent with physical distinctiveness. We argue that dual-coding theory is no longer a viable explanation of the picture-superiority effect.

Valence and concreteness in item recognition: Evidence against the affective embodiment account.

The Affective Embodiment Account posits that sensorimotor interactions play an important role in learning and processing concrete words whereas experiences from emotional states play an important role in learning and processing abstract words. Because of this, there should be greater enhancement of valence for abstract than for concrete words and therefore there should be an interaction between valence and concreteness. Although this prediction has been observed in a number of tasks, very few studies have looked specifically at memory. Three experiments are reported that assess whether valence interacts with concreteness in recognition. In Experiment 1, recognition of concrete words was better than abstract, but there was no difference as a function of whether the words were positive or negative and there was no interaction. Experiment 2 compared positive and neutral words and Experiment 3 compared negative and neutral words; in both, there was a concreteness effect but no effect of valence and no interaction. These results replicate previous findings that when positive and negative words are equated more fully, valence has no effect on recognition, and also suggest a limit on the scope of the Affective Embodiment Account.

Irrelevant speech, changing state, and order information.

The changing state effect is the finding that a stream of irrelevant sounds that change more (e.g., different digits in random order) disrupts memory more than a stream of irrelevant sounds that change less (e.g., a single digit repeated over and over). According to the Object-Oriented Episodic Record (O-OER) model, the changing state effect will be observed only in memory tasks that have an order component or which induce serial rehearsal or serial processing. In contrast, other accounts-including the Feature Model, the Primacy Model, and various attentional theories-predict that the changing state effect should be observable when there is no order component. Experiment 1 first demonstrated that the irrelevant stimuli created for the current experiments produced a changing state effect in immediate serial recall in both on-campus and online samples. Then, three experiments assessed whether a changing state effect is observable in a surprise 2AFC recognition test. Experiment 2 replicated Stokes and Arnell (2012, Memory & Cognition, 40, 918-931), who found that although irrelevant sounds reduce performance on a surprise recognition test of words presented previously in a lexical decision task, they do not produce a changing state effect. Experiments 3 and 4 used two different encoding tasks (pleasantness and frequency judgment) and also found no changing state effect. The results support the prediction of the O-OER model and provide additional evidence against the other accounts.

Using preexperimental familiarity to compare the ICE and cue-overload accounts of context-dependent memory in item recognition.

In recognition, context effects often manifest as higher hit and false-alarm rates to probes tested in an old context compared with probes tested in a new context; sometimes, this concordant effect is accompanied by a discrimination advantage. According to the cue-overload account of context effects (Rutherford, 2004), context acts like any other cue, and thus context effects should be larger with lighter context loads. Conversely, the Item, Associated Context, and Ensemble (ICE) account (Murnane et al., 1999) attributes context effects to two factors: subjects erroneously attributing context familiarity to the probe, and the formation of ensembles (mnemonic combinations of item and context). Context familiarity increases as exposure at study increases, and thus ICE predicts larger effects of context as context load increases. Relatedly, ICE predicts larger effects of context as context meaningfulness increases, as meaningful contexts are more likely to be bound to the target in an ensemble. In Experiments 1 and 2, rather than manipulate context load during the study phase, we relied on subjects' preexperimental context exposure to manipulate context load. Subjects studied words superimposed on photographs of their university campus or another university campus. At test, targets and distractors were evenly divided between study and novel contexts and between familiar and unfamiliar contexts. In Experiment 3, we manipulated context familiarity within the experimental session. Results supported ICE, suggesting that context does not act as a retrieval cue in recognition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Semantic Relatedness Effects in Serial Recall But Not in Serial Reconstruction of Order.

Lists of semantically related words are better recalled than lists of unrelated words on immediate serial recall tests. Prominent explanations for this beneficial effect of semantic relatedness, such as the item/order hypothesis, invoke differential contributions of item and order information and predict that on tests that de-emphasize item information, the effect of semantic relatedness will be abolished. The prediction is hard to assess because previous studies using reconstruction of order tests show conflicting and equivocal results. Three experiments are reported that were designed to minimize problems associated with extant studies and that will allow reassessment of the prediction that semantic relatedness will have no effect on reconstruction of order tests. The experiments replicated the usual beneficial effect of semantic relatedness on memory when the test was serial recall but found no effect when the test was reconstruction of order. These results were observed regardless of whether semantic relatedness was defined by category membership (Experiment 1), association (Experiment 2), or meaning (Experiment 3). These results clarify earlier results in the literature and confirm a strong prediction of the item/order hypothesis.

Stimulus-based mirror effects in associative recognition revisited.

The mirror effect, the finding that a manipulation which increases the hit rate in recognition tests also decreases the false alarm rate, is held to be a regularity of memory. Neath et al. (in press) took advantage of the recent increase in the number of linguistic databases to create sets of stimuli that differed on one dimension but were more fully equated on other dimensions known to affect memory. Using these highly controlled stimulus sets, no mirror effects were observed; in contrast, using stimulus sets that had confounds resulted in mirror effects. In this article, we use their stimulus sets to examine associative recognition. Using confounded stimuli, Experiment 2 found a lower false alarm rate for high- compared to low-frequency words, replicating previous results, and Experiment 4 found a mirror effect when manipulating concreteness, also replicating previous results. Using highly controlled stimuli, Experiment 1 found no evidence that frequency affected associative recognition, and Experiment 3 found concreteness affected only the hit rate, not the false alarm rate. When highly controlled stimuli are used, frequency affects only the false alarm rate in item recognition and has no effect in associative recognition, whereas concreteness affects hit rates in both item and associative recognition. Implications for theoretical accounts are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Valence does not affect recognition.

Valence refers to the extent to which a stimulus is viewed as negative or positive. One recent model of valence, the NEVER model (Bowen et al., 2018), predicts that in general negative words will be better remembered than positive or neutral words. However, this prediction is difficult to validate for recognition tests because the literature reports inconsistent findings. Three experiments reexamined whether valence affects recognition of words by taking advantage of the recent increase in the number of high-quality norms and databases, which allow for the construct ion of three sets of stimuli that differ in valence, but are equated on numerous other dimensions known to affect memory. Experiment 1 found no difference in recognition performance between positive and negative words; Experiment 2 found no difference between positive and neutral words; and Experiment 3 found no difference between neutral and negative words. The results disconfirm a prediction of the NEVER model and suggest that previous demonstrations of an effect of valence are due to confounding other dimensions with valence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Valence does not affect serial recall.

Despite being the prototypical test of short-term/working memory, immediate serial recall is affected by numerous lexical and long-term memory factors. Within this large literature, very few studies have examined whether performance on the task is affected by valence, the extent to which a word is viewed as positive or negative. Whereas the NEVER model (Bowen, Kark, & Kensinger, 2018) makes the general prediction that negative words will be remembered better than positive words, two previous studies using serial recall have reported that positive words are better remembered than negative words. Three experiments reassessed whether valence affects immediate serial recall using stimuli equated on multiple dimensions, including both arousal and dominance. Over the 3 experiments, with 3 different sets of stimuli, we found no differences in either accuracy or various error measures as a function of valence. The data suggest that there is no effect of valence on an immediate serial recall task when potentially confounding dimensions are controlled. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Calculating semantic relatedness of lists of nouns using WordNet path length.

Lists of semantically related words are better recalled on immediate memory tests than otherwise equivalent lists of unrelated words. However, measuring the degree of relatedness is not straightforward. We report three experiments that assess the ability of various measures of semantic relatedness-including latent semantic analysis (LSA), GloVe, fastText, and a number of measures based on WordNet-to predict whether two lists of words will be differentially recalled. In Experiment 1, all measures except LSA correctly predicted the observed better recall of the related than the unrelated list. In Experiment 2, all measures except JCN predicted that abstract words would be recalled equally as well as concrete words because of their enhanced semantic relatedness. In Experiment 3, LSA, GLoVe, and fastText predicted an enhanced concreteness effect because the concrete words were more related; three WordNet measures predicted a small concreteness effect because the abstract and concrete words did not differ in semantic relatedness; and three other WordNet measures predicted no concreteness effect because the abstract words were more related than the concrete words. A small concreteness effect was observed. Over the three experiments, only two measures, both based on simple WordNet path length, predicted all three results. We suggest that the results are not unexpected because semantic processing in episodic memory experiments differs from that in reading, similarity judgment, and analogy tasks which are the most common way of assessing such measures.

Re-assessing age of acquisition effects in recognition, free recall, and serial recall.

Age of acquisition (AoA) refers to the age at which a person learns a word. Research has converged on the conclusion that early AoA words are processed more efficiently than late AoA words on a number of perceptual and reading tasks. However, only a few studies have investigated whether AoA affects memory on recognition, serial recall, and free recall tests, and the results are equivocal. We took advantage of the recent increase in the number of high-quality norms and databases to construct a pool of early and late AoA words that were equated on numerous other dimensions. There was a late AoA advantage in recognition using both pure (Experiment 1) and mixed (Experiment 2) lists, no effect of AoA on serial recall of either pure (Experiment 3) or mixed (Experiment 4) lists, and no effect of AoA on free recall of either pure (Experiment 5) or mixed lists (Experiment 6). We conclude that AoA does reliably affect memory on some memory tasks (recognition), but not others (serial recall, free recall), and that no current account of AoA can explain the findings.

Modeling list-strength and spacing effects using version 3 of the retrieving effectively from memory (REM.3) model and its superimposition-of-similar-images assumption.

Shiffrin and Steyvers (1997) introduced a model of recognition memory called retrieving effectively from memory (REM) and successfully applied it to a number of basic memory phenomena. REM incorporates differentiation, wherein item repetitions are accumulated in a single mnemonic trace rather than separate traces. This allows REM to account for several benchmark findings, including the null list-strength effect in recognition (Ratcliff, Clark, & Shiffrin, 1990). The original REM treated massed and spaced repetitions identically, which prevents it from predicting a mnemonic advantage for spaced over massed repetitions (i.e., the spacing effect). However, Shiffrin and Steyvers discussed the possibility that repetitions might be represented in a single trace only if the subject identifies that the repeated item was previously studied. It is quite plausible that subjects would notice repetitions more for massed than for spaced items. Here we show that incorporating this idea allows REM to predict three important findings in the recognition memory literature: (1) the spacing effect, (2) the finding of slightly positive list-strength effects with spaced repetitions, as opposed to massed repetitions or increased study time, and (3) list-strength effects that have been observed using very large strong-to-weak ratios (see Norman, 2002).

Testing a Strategy-Disruption Account of the List-Strength Effect.

Presenting items multiple times on a study list increases their memorability, a process known as item strengthening. The list-strength effect (LSE) refers to the finding that, compared to unstrengthened (pure) lists, lists for which a subset of the items have been strengthened produce enhanced memory for the strengthened items and depressed memory for the unstrengthened items. Although the LSE is found in free recall (Tulving & Hastie, 1972), it does not occur in recognition (Ratcliff et al., 1990). In free recall, the LSE in mixed lists is attributed to a sampling bias promoting priority recall of strong items and consequent output interference affecting weak items. We suggest that, in recognition, the disruption of this pattern through the randomization of test probes is responsible for the null LSE. We present several pilot experiments consistent with this account; however, the registered experiment, which had more statistical power, did not support this account.

Dynamic Visual Noise Does Not Affect Memory for Fonts.

Dynamic visual noise (DVN) selectively impairs memory for some types of stimuli (e.g., colors, textures, concrete words), but not for others (e.g., matrices, Chinese characters, simple shapes). According to the image definition hypothesis, the key difference is whether the stimulus leads to images that are ill-defined or well-defined. The former will be affected because the addition of noise quickly reduces the usefulness of the image in supplying information about the item's identity. The image definition hypothesis predicts that fonts should lead to ill-defined images and therefore should be affected by DVN, and although three previous studies appear to show this result, they lack a key control condition and report only proportion correct. Two experiments reassessed whether DVN affects memory for fonts, but, unlike the previous studies, both included a static visual noise condition and both were analyzed using signal detection measures. There was no evidence that DVN affected memory for font information, thus disconfirming a prediction of the original version of image definition hypothesis. We suggest a revised version that focuses on redintegration can explain the results.

Concreteness and disagreement: Comment on Pollock (2018).

Pollock (Behavior Research Methods doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0938-y, Pollock, 2018) points out that most memory experiments using abstract and concrete words have a potential confound: Raters express more disagreement, on average, about the rating for an abstract word than for a concrete word, as evidenced by the larger standard deviation of the rating (SDR). Therefore, past demonstrations of the concreteness effect could be explained by the disagreement hypothesis: Words that engender disagreement (i.e., have a larger SDR) are more difficult to remember than those that engender agreement (i.e., have a smaller SDR). Three experiments test predictions of the disagreement hypothesis. In Experiment 1, concreteness (abstract vs. concrete) and SDR size (small vs. large) were factorially manipulated. A concreteness effect was observed for both SDR sizes, but there was no effect of SDR and there were no interactions involving SDR. In Experiment 2, a concreteness effect was observed despite using abstract words with a small SDR and concrete words with a large SDR, the opposite of what the disagreement hypothesis predicts. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 but with a larger set of stimuli. The results offer no support for the disagreement hypothesis.

The list-length effect occurs in cued recall with the retroactive design but not the proactive design.

An ongoing debate in the memory literature concerns whether the list-length effect (better memory for short lists compared with long lists) exists in item recognition (Annis, Lenes, Westfall, Criss, & Malmberg, 2015; Dennis, Lee, & Kinnell, 2008). This debate was initiated when Dennis and Humphreys (2001) showed that, when confounds present in earlier list-length experiments were controlled, the list-length effect disappeared. The issue has yet to be settled. Interestingly, the same confounds present in recognition experiments exist in cued-recall experiments. Here, we implemented Dennis and Humphreys' (2001) methodological controls to test for the list-length effect in cued recall. In Experiment 1, we found a robust list-length effect when start-of-study items from the long list were tested. However, no list-length effect was found in Experiments 2 and 3 when end-of-study items from the long list were tested. These results are consistent with the view that cued recall is susceptible to retroactive interference but not proactive interference, a position supported by early interference work (e.g., Lindauer, 1968; Melton & von Lackum, 1941). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Dynamic visual noise affects ill-defined, not well-defined, images.

Dynamic visual noise (DVN), a matrix of squares that randomly alternate between black and white, interferes with some but not all tasks that involve visuo-spatial processing. Although visual working memory is generally invoked to explain the detrimental effects of DVN, the failure of DVN to impair memory for some stimuli that should be processed via visual working memory has not been satisfactorily explained. The image-definition hypothesis proposes that DVN will impair only ill-defined, not well-defined, images. We report five experiments that test this hypothesis. Experiments 1 and 2 use stimuli that lead to well-defined visual images (matrices, photographs of common objects) and no effect of DVN was observed. In contrast, Experiments 3 and 4 use stimuli that lead to ill-defined visual images (textures, photographs of snowflakes) and DVN affected performance. Experiment 5 demonstrated that a potentially disconfirmatory result in the literature was due to analysing proportion correct rather than a measure of discriminability. These results offer initial support for the image-definition hypothesis, and we discuss the implications for theories explaining DVN.

Visual similarity effects in immediate serial recall and (sometimes) in immediate serial recognition.

Words that sound dissimilar are recalled better than otherwise comparable words that sound similar on both immediate serial recall and immediate serial recognition tests, the so-called acoustic similarity effect. Although studies using immediate serial recall have shown an analogous visual similarity effect, in which words that look dissimilar are recalled better than words that look similar, this effect has not been examined in immediate serial recognition. We derived a prediction from the Feature Model that a visual similarity effect will be observed in immediate serial recognition only when the items are acoustically dissimilar; the model predicts no effect when the items are acoustically similar. Experiments 1 and 2 used visually dissimilar and visually similar stimuli that were all acoustically similar and replicated the visual similarity effect in serial recall but revealed no effect in serial recognition. Experiments 3 and 4 used a second set of stimuli that were acoustically dissimilar and found a visual similarity effect in both serial recall and serial recognition. The experiments confirm the Feature Model's predictions and add to earlier findings that the two tests, serial recall and serial recognition, may show quite different results because the two tests are not as similar as previously thought.

Set size and long-term memory/lexical effects in immediate serial recall: Testing the impurity principle.

The impurity principle (Surprenant & Neath, 2009b) states that because memory is fundamentally reconstructive, tasks and processes are not pure. This principle is based on a long line of research showing the effects of one memory system or process on another. Although the principle is widely accepted, many researchers appear hesitant to endorse it in extreme edge cases. One such case involves the effects of long-term memory and lexical factors when a small, closed set of items is used. According to this view, because the subject knows the set of items, there will be no effect of item information. In contrast, the impurity principle predicts that such effects can still be observed, because immediate serial recall with a small closed set of items is not a pure test of order information. Four experiments tested this edge case. In Experiments 1 and 2, we found concreteness effects when item uncertainty was minimized in both within-subjects (Exp. 1) and between-subjects (Exp. 2) designs. In Experiments 3 and 4, we found frequency effects when item uncertainty was minimized in both within-subjects (Exp. 3) and between-subjects (Exp. 4) designs. Analyses of intrusion and omission errors indicated that the sets of items had been learned. Analyses by experiment half also confirmed that the effects of concreteness and frequency were observable in the latter stages of the experiments, when there should have been even less doubt about the items. The results support the impurity principle and suggest that hesitation about accepting it in edge cases is unwarranted.

Increasing word distinctiveness eliminates the picture superiority effect in recognition: Evidence for the physical-distinctiveness account.

A well-established phenomenon in the memory literature is the picture superiority effect-the finding that, all else being equal, memory is better for pictures than for words (Paivio & Csapo, 1973). Theorists have attributed pictures' mnemonic advantage to dual coding (Paivio, 1971), conceptual distinctiveness (Hamilton & Geraci, 2006), and physical distinctiveness (Mintzer & Snodgrass, 1999). Here, we present a novel test of the physical-distinctiveness account of picture superiority: If the greater physical variability of pictures relative to words is responsible for their mnemonic benefit, then increasing the distinctiveness of words and/or reducing the physical variability of pictures should reduce or eliminate the picture superiority effect. In the present experiments we increased word distinctiveness by varying font style, font size, color, and capitalization. Additionally, in Experiment 3 we reduced the distinctiveness of pictures by presenting black-and-white pictures with similar orientations. In Experiment 4, a forced choice procedure was used in which subjects were asked to identify the form that each probe had taken during the study phase. The results were consistent with the distinctiveness prediction and, notably, were inconsistent with dual coding.

Short- and long-term memory tasks predict working memory performance, and vice versa.

The Brown-Peterson, operation span, and continual distractor tasks all require people to retain information while performing a distractor task. Scale Independent Memory, Perception, and Learning (SIMPLE), a local relative distinctiveness model, has been fit to aspects of each task and offers the same explanation for each: the distractor task serves to space the items out in time and memory performance depends on the relative distinctiveness of the target item at the time of recall. If this is correct, it follows that performance on all three tasks should correlate, even though the tasks have, at various times, been ascribed to different memory systems, short-term memory, working memory, and long-term memory, respectively. We tested 190 subjects on all three tasks and found that performance on all three tasks is significantly correlated. We then fit the data from each task using SIMPLE. We argue that these results support the relative distinctiveness principle (Surprenant & Neath, 2009). We contrast SIMPLE with other models of the same tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).