Distinctive items are salient during encoding: Delayed judgements of learning predict the isolation effect

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 50-64

  Geraci, Lisa ^a   Manzano, Isabel ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Distinctiveness; Isolation effect; Judgements of learning; Memory; Salience

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; REACTION TIME; RECALL; STUDENT; TIME; UNIVERSITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LEARNING; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REACTION TIME; STUDENTS; TIME FACTORS; UNIVERSITIES; VOCABULARY;

EID: 77649135064     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210902790161     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 80(3, Pt. 2).
2. Bellezza, F. S., & Cheney, T. L. (1973). Isolation effect in immediate and delayed recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 55-60.
3. Bruce, D., & Gaines, M. T. (1976). Tests of an organizational hypothesis of isolation effects in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 59-72.
4. Castel, A. (2006, November). Learning about serial position effects via judgments of learning. Poster presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Houston, TX, USA.
5. Cedrus Corporation. (2001). Superlab Pro 4.0. [Computer program]. San Pedro, CA: Author.
6. Dunlosky, J., Hunt, R. R., & Clark, E. (2000). Is perceptual salience needed in explanations of the isolation effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 649-657.
7. Dunlosky, J., & Matvey, G. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1180-1191.
8. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 374-380.
9. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 545-565.
10. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1997). Similarity between the cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the cue for test is not the primary determinant of JOL accuracy. Journal of Memory and Language, 36,34-49.
11. Fabiani, M., & Donchin, E. (1995). Encoding processes and memory organization: A model of the von Restorff effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 221-240.
12. Geraci, L., & McCabe, D. P. (2006). Examining the basis for illusory recollection: The role of remember/know instructions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 466-473.
13. Geraci, L., McDaniel, M. A., &Sappington, R. (2008). The bizarreness effect: Evidence for the exclusive influence of retrieval processes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. Geraci, L., & Rajaram, S. (2002). The orthographic distinctiveness effect on direct and indirect tests of memory: Delineating the awareness and processing requirements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 273-291.
15. Geraci, L., & Rajaram, S. (2004). The distinctiveness effect in the absence of conscious recollection: Evidence from conceptual priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 217-230.
16. Geraci, L., & Rajaram, S. (2006). The distinctiveness effect in explicit and implicit memory. In R. R. Hunt & J. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 211-234). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Green, R. T. (1956). Surprise as a factor in the von Restorff effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52,340-344.
18. Hirshman, E., Whelley, M., & Palij, M. (1989). An investigation of paradoxical memory effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 594-609.
19. Hunt, R. R. (1995). The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 105-112.
20. Hunt, R. R., & Lamb, C. A. (2001). What causes the isolation effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1359-1366.
21. Jenkins, W. O., & Postman, L. (1948). Isolation and "spread of effect" in serial learning. American Journal of Psychology, 61, 214-221.
22. Karis, D., Fabiani, M., & Donchin, E. (1984). "P300" and memory: Individual differences in the von Restorff effect. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 177-216.
23. Kelemen, W. L., & Weaver, C. A. (1997). Enhanced memory at delays: Why do judgments of learning improve over time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1394-1409.
24. Kelley, M. R., & Nairne, J. S. (2001). Von Restorff revisited: Isolation, generation, and memory for order. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 54-66.
25. Kishiyama, M. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2006). Stimulus novelty effects on recognition memory: Behavioral properties and neuroanotomical substrates. In R. R. Hunt & J. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 381-406). New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Knight, R. T. (1996). Contribution of human hippocampal region to novelty detection. Nature, 383, 256-259.
27. Knight, R. T., & Nakada, T. (1998). Cortico-limbic circuits and novelty: A review of EEG and blood flow data. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 9, 57-70.
28. Knoedler, A. J., Hellwig, K. A., & Neath, I. (1999). The shift from recency to primacy with increasing delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 474-487.
29. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370.
30. McDaniel, M. A., Dornburg, C. C., & Guynn, M. J. (2005). Disentangling encoding versus retrieval explanations of the bizarreness effect: Implications for distinctiveness. Memory & Cognition, 33, 270-279.
31. McDaniel, M. A., & Geraci, L. (2006). Encoding and retrieval processes in distinctiveness effects: Toward an integrative framework. In R. R. Hunt & J. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 65-88). New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The "delayed-JOL-effect". Psychological Science, 2, 267-270.
33. Pillsbury, W. B., & Rausch, H. L. (1943). An extension of the Kohler-Restorff inhibition phenomenon. American Journal of Psychology, 56, 293-298.
34. Rundus, D. (1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 63-77.
35. Schmidt, S. R. (1985). Encoding and retrieval processes in the memory for conceptually distinctive events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 565-578.
36. Schmidt, S. R. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory & Cognition, 19, 523-542.
37. Shapiro, S. I., & Palermo, D. S. (1970). Conceptual organization and class membership: Normative data for representatives of 100 categories. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 3, 107-127.
38. Slamecka, N. J., & Katsaiti, L. T. (1987). The generation effect as an artifact of selective displaced rehearsal. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 589-607.
39. Sommer, W., Heinz, A., Leuthold, H., Matt, J., & Schweinberger, S. R. (1995). Metamemory, distinctiveness, and event-related potentials in recognition memory for faces. Memory & Cognition, 23, 1-11.
40. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 290-302.
41. von Restorff, H. (1933). Über die Wirkungvon Bereichsbildungen im Spurenfeld [The effects of field information in the trace field]. Psychologische Forschung, 18, 299-342.
42. Waddill, P. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Distinctiveness effects in recall: Differential processing or privileged retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 26,108-120.
43. Watkins, M. J., LeCompte, D. C., & Kim, K. (2000).Role of study strategy in recall of mixed lists of common and rare words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 239-245.
44. Weaver, C. A., & Kelemen, W. L. (1997). Judgments of learning at delays: Shifts in response patterns or increased metamemory accuracy? Psychological Science, 8,318-321.
45. Wollen, K. A., & Cox, S. D. (1981). Sentence cuing and the effectiveness of bizarre imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 386-392.