Context noise and item noise jointly determine recognition memory: A comment on Dennis and Humphreys (2001)

Psychological Review

Volumn 111, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 800-807

  Criss, Amy H ^a   Shiffrin, Richard M ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECOGNITION; REVIEW; SEMANTICS; UNITED STATES;

ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; CUES; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIANA; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS;

EID: 3042776460     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.800     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Anisfield, M., & Knapp, M. E. (1968). Association, synonymity, and directionality in false recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 171-179.
2. AT&T Laboratories Cambridge. (n.d.) The database of faces. Retrieved from http://www.uk.research.att.com/facedatabase.html
3. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). When things that were never experienced are easier to "remember" than things that were. Psychological Science, 9, 484-489.
4. Dennis, S., & Humphreys, M. S. (2001). The role of context in episodic recognition: The bind cue decide model of episodic memory. Psychological Review, 108, 452-478.
5. Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1-67.
6. Gronlund, S. D., & Elam, L. E. (1994). List-length effect: Recognition accuracy and variance of underlying distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1355-1369.
7. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
8. Humphreys, M. S., Pike, R., Bain, J. D., & Tehan, G. (1989). Global matching: A comparison of the SAM, Minerva II, Matrix, and TODAM models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 36-67.
9. McClelland, J. L., & Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 105, 734-760.
10. Morrell, H., Gaitan, S., & Wixted, J. T. (2002). On the nature of the decision axis in signal-detection-based models of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1095-1110.
11. Murdock, B. B. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information. Psychological Review, 89, 609-626.
12. Murdock, B. B. (1997). Context and mediators in a theory of distributed associative memory (TODAM2). Psychological Review, 104, 839-862.
13. Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803-814.
14. Shiffrin, R. M., Huber, D. E., & Marinelli, K. (1995). Effects of category length and strength on familiarity in recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 267-287.
15. Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM - Retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145-166.
16. Sommers, M. S., & Lewis, B. P. (1999). Who really lives next door: Creating false memories with phonological neighbors. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 83-108.
17. Underwood, B. J. (1965). False recognition produced by implicit verbal responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 122-129.
18. Wixted, J. T., & Stretch, V. (2000). The case against a criterion-shift account of false memory. Psychological Review, 107, 368-376.
19. Zaki, S. R., & Nosofsky, R. M. (2001). Exemplar accounts of blending and distinctiveness effects in perceptual old new recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1022-1041.