The TECO theory and lawful dependency in successive episodic memory tests

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 693-728

  Sikström, Sverker ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERSONALITY TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RECALL; RECOGNITION; SHORT TERM MEMORY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); WORD ASSOCIATION TESTS;

EID: 0040566494     PISSN: 02724987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713755913     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ärlemalm, T., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1994). Recognition failure and integration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35(3), 271-280.
2. Bahrick, H.P. (1970). Two-phased model for prompted recall. Psychological Review, 77, 215-222.
3. Begg, I. (1979). Trace loss and the recognition failure of unrecalled words. Memory & Cognition, 7, 113-123.
4. Bryant, D.J. (1991). Exceptions to recognition failure of unrecalled words. Memory & Cognition, 19, 210-219.
5. Chappell, M., & Humphreys, M.S. (1994). An auto-associative neural network for sparse representations: Analysis and application to models of recognition and cued recall. Psychological Review, 101(1), 103-128.
6. Feller. (1968). An introduction to probability theory and its application. New York: Wiley.
7. Fisher, R.P. (1979). Retrieval operations in cued recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 224-231.
8. Flexser, A.J. (1981). Homogenizing the 2 * 2 contingency table: A method for removing dependencies due to subject and item differences. Phsychological Review, 88(4), 327-339.
9. Flexser, A.J., & Tulving, E. (1978). Retrieval independence in recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 85, 153-171.
10. Gardiner, J. (1988). Functional aspects of recollective experience. Memory and Cognition, 16(4), 309-313.
11. Gardiner, J. (1994). The Tulving-Wiseman law and recognition failure of recognizable words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), 93-105.
12. Gardiner, J., & Java, R.I. (1993). Recognition memory and awareness: An experiential approach. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 337-346.
13. Gardiner, J., Mäntylä, T., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1995). Exceptions to recognition failure of categorized words: Further evidence of exceptions. Memory, 3, 57-66.
14. Gardiner, J., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1990). Relation between recognition and recall: The Tulving-Wiseman law (Umeå Psychological Reports No 205). Umeå, Sweden: University of Umeå, Department of Psychology.
15. Gardiner, J., & Tulving, E. (1980). Exception to the recognition failure of recallable words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 194-209.
16. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1-67.
17. Hertz, J., Krogh, A., & Palmer, R.G. (1991). Introduction to the the theory of neural computation. Harlow, U.K.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
18. Hintzman, D.L. (1991). Contingency analyses, hypothesis, and artifacts: Reply to Flexser and to Gardiner. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 341-345.
19. Hintzman, D.L. (1992). Mathematical constraints and the "Tulving-Wiseman law". Psychological Review, 99, 536-542.
20. Hintzman, D.L. (1993). On variability, Simpsons Paradox, and the relation between recognition and recall: Reply to Tulving and Flexser. Psychological Review, 100, 143-148.
21. Hogan, R.M., & Kintsch, W. (1971). Differential effects of study and test trials on long term recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 562-567.
22. Hopfield, J.J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 81, 3088-3092.
23. Hopfield, J.J. (1984). Neurons with graded responses have collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 81, 3008-3092.
24. Howe, M.L., Rabinowitz, F.M., & Grant, M.J. (1993). On measuring (in)dependency of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 100(4), 737-747.
25. 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.
26. Jacoby, L.L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513-541.
27. Jones, G.V., & Gardiner, J.M. (1990). Recognition failure when recognition targets are identical. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 105-108.
28. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252-271.
29. Metcalfe, J. (1991). Recognition failure and the composite memory trace in CHARM. Psychological Review, 98, 529-553.
30. Muter, P. (1984). Recognition failure of recallable words with a single meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 10, 198-202.
31. Nilsson, L.-G., Dinniwell, M., & Tulving, E. (1987). Recognition failure of categorized words. Memory & Cognition, 5(15), 389-396.
32. Nilsson, L.-G., & Gardiner, J. (1991). Memory theory and the boundary conditions of the Tulving-Wiseman law. In W.E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennett B. Murdock (pp. 57-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33. Nilsson, L.-G., & Gardiner, J. (1993a). Identifying exceptions in a database of recognition failure studies from 1973 to 1993. Memory & Cognition, 21(3), 397-410.
34. Nilsson, L.-G., & Gardiner, J.M. (1993b). Mathematical constraints and the Tulving-Wiseman law: A rejoinder. Memory, 1(3), 219-229.
35. Nilsson, L.-G., & Shaps, L.P. (1980). A functional view of memory. In F. Klix & J. Hoffmann (Eds.), Cognition and memory: Interdisciplinary research of human memory activities (pp. 44-46). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
36. Ogilvie, J.C., Tulving, E., Paskowitz, S., & Jones, G.V. (1980). Three-dimensional memory traces: A model and its application to forgetting. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 405-415.
37. Payne, D.G., & Roediger, H.L. (1987). Hyperamnesia occurs in recall but not in recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 100(2), 145-165.
38. Richardson, J.T.E. (1985). The effects of retention tests upon human learning and memory: An historical review and an experimental analysis. Educational Psychology, 5(2), 85-114.
39. Riefer, D.M., & Batchelder, W.H. (1995). A multinomial modeling analysis of the recognition failure paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 23, 611-630.
40. Sandberg, K. (1990). Integration and cued recognition failure of recallable words. Scandanavian Journal of Psychology, 31, 302-314.
41. Schank, R.C., & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. Shaps, L.P., Johansson, B.S., & Nilsson, L.-G. (1976). Swedish Association Norms (Report). Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala, Department of Psychology.
43. Shimamura, A.P. (1985). Problems with the finding of stochastic independence as evidence for multiple memory systems. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23(6), 506-508.
44. Sikström, P.S. (1996a). TECO: A connectionist theory of successive episodic tests Doctoral thesis, Umeå University, Sweden.
45. Sikström, P.S. (1996b). The TECO connectionist theory of recognition failure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8, 341-380.
46. Sikström, P.S. (1998). A connectionist model for frequency effects in recall and recognition. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Birmingham conference of connectionist models in psychology, Birmingham, U.K.
47. Sikström, P.S. (1999a). Power function forgetting curves as an emergent property of biologically plausible neural networks model. International Journal of Psychology, 34, 460-464.
48. Sikström, P.S. (199b). The habituation model for episodic memory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
49. Sikström, P.S., & Gardiner, J.M. (1997). Remembering, knowing and the Tulving-Wiseman law. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 167-185.
50. Sikström, P.S., & Lansner, A. (1995). The TECO Theory - Simulations of Recognition Failure. In L.F. Niklasson & M.B. Bodén (Eds.), Current trends in connectionism (pp. 87-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
51. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
52. Tulving, E., & Flexser, A.J. (1992). On the nature of the Tulving-Wiseman function. Psychological Review, 99, 543-546.
53. Tulving, E., & Wiseman, S. (1975). Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 92, 257-276.
54. Wallace, P. W. (1978). Recognition failure of recallable words and recognizable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(5), 441-452.