The variance theory of the mirror effect in recognition memory

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 408-438

  Sikström, Sverker ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MEMORY; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RECOGNITION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PROBABILITY; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 0035459794     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196178     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. FELLER, W. (1968). An introduction to probability theory and its application. New York: Wiley.
2. GILLUND, G., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1-67.
3. GLANZER, M., & ADAMS, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13, 8-20.
4. GLANZER, M., & ADAMS, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 5-16.
5. GLANZER, M., ADAMS, J. K., & KIM, K. (1993). The regularities of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 100, 546-567.
6. GLANZER, M., & BOWLES, N. (1976). Analysis of the word frequency effect in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 2, 21-31.
7. GLANZER, M., KISOK, K., & ADAMS, J. K. (1998). Response distributions as an explanation of the mirror effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 633-644.
8. GREENE, R. L. (1996). Mirror effect in order and associative information: Role of response strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 687-695.
9. HERTZ, J., KROGH, A., & PALMER, R. G. (1991). Introduction to the theory of neural computation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. HINTZMAN, D. L. (1988). Judgment of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
11. HOPFIELD, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79, 2554-2558.
12. HOPFIELD, J. J. (1984). Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 81, 3088-3092.
13. HUMPHREYS, M. S., BAIN, J. D., & PIKE, R. (1989). Different way to cue a coherent memory system: A theory for episodic, semantic and procedural tasks. Psychological Review, 96, 208-233.
14. KIM, K., & GLANZER, M. (1993). Speed versus accuracy instructions, study time, and the mirror effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 638-652.
15. KRUSCHKE, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22-44.
16. KUČERA, H., & FRANCIS, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
17. LEWANDOWSKY, S. (1991). Gradual unlearning and catastrophic interference: A comparison of distributed architectures. In W. E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 445-476). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Li, S.-C., & LINDENBERGER, U. (1999). Cross-level unification: A computational exploration of the link between deterioration of neurotransmitter systems and dedifferentiation of cognitive abilities in old age. In L.-G. Nilsson & H. J. Markowitsch (Eds.), Cognitive neurosciences of memory (pp. 103-146). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
19. Li, S.-C., LINDENBERGER, U., & FRENSCH, P. A. (2000). Unifying cognitive aging: From neuromodulation to representation to cognition. Neurocomputing, 32-33, 879-890.
20. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & CHAPPELL, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 105, 724-760.
21. METCALFE, J. (1982). A composite holographic associative recall model. Psychological Review, 89, 627-658.
22. MURDOCK, B. B. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information. Psychological Review, 89, 609-626.
23. MURDOCK, B. B. (1998). The mirror effect and attention-likelihood theory: A reflective analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 524-534.
24. OKADA, M. (1996). Notions of associative memory and sparse coding. Neural Networks, 9, 1429-1458.
25. RATCLIFF, R., SHEU, C-F., & GRONLUND, S. D. (1992). Testing global memory models using ROC curves. Psychological Review, 99, 518-535.
26. RUMELHART, D. E., HINTON, G. E., & WILLIAMS, R. J. (1986). Learning representation by backpropagating errors. Nature, 323, 533-536.
27. SHIFFRIN, R. M., & STEYVERS, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM-retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145-166.
28. SIKSTRÖM, S. (1996a). TECO: A connectionist theory of successive episodic tests. Umeå: Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University (ISBN 91-7191-155-3).
29. SIKSTRÖM, S. (1996b). The TECO connectionist theory of recognition failure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 341-380.
30. SIKSTRÖM, S. (1999). Power function forgetting curves as an emergent property of biologically plausible neural networks model. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 460-464.
31. STRETCH, V, & WIXTED, J. T. (1998a). Decision rules for recognition memory confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1397-1410.
32. STRETCH, V., & WIXTED, J. T. (1998b). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1379-1396.