Trace loss and the recognition failure of unrecalled words

This paper addresses the phenomenon of recognition failure from the perspective of a theory in which recognition and recall are assumed to involve independent retrieval processes. However, even given independent retrieval, measures of recognition and recall success will covary if any traces are lost from storage, simply because such traces are unavailable for any memory test. In support of the theory, rote learning produced higher covariation between recognition and recall (i.e., fewer recognition failures) than did meaningful elaboration during study. Further, recognition and recall were approximately independent of each other with meaningful elaboration and imagery encoding, regardless of whether the latter involved interactive or separate images. The results of three experiments are discussed in terms of the present “vandal” theory and other theories of recognition failure.

[1]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  H. P. Bahrick.  Two-phase model for prompted recall. , 1970 .

[3]  G. Bower.  Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learning , 1970 .

[4]  Ian Begg,et al.  Recall of Meaningful Phrases. , 1972 .

[5]  E. J. Rowe,et al.  Continuous judgments of word frequency and familiarity. , 1972 .

[6]  W. D. Rohwer,et al.  Component analysis of the elaborative encoding effect in paired-associate learning. , 1974 .

[7]  Lynne M. Reder,et al.  A semantic interpretation of encoding specificity , 1974 .

[8]  L. Postman.  Tests of the generality of the principle of encoding specificity , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[9]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Relation between recognition and recognition failure of recallable words , 1975 .

[10]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Structure of memory traces. , 1975 .

[11]  The effects of stimulus frequency on subsequent recall of backward associates. , 1975 .

[12]  Edwin Martin,et al.  Generation-recognition theory and the encoding specificity principle. , 1975 .

[13]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Recognition Failure: Another Case of Retrieval Failure. , 1977 .

[14]  E. Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity: Relation between recall superiority and recognition failure. , 1976 .

[15]  D. Broadbent,et al.  Effects of recognition on subsequent recall: Comments on "Determinants of recognition and recall: Accessibility and generation" by Rabinowitz, Mandler, and Patterson. , 1977 .

[16]  George Mandler,et al.  Determinants of recognition and recall: Accessibility and generation , 1977 .

[17]  L Baker,et al.  Semantic integration and context , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[18]  I. Begg,et al.  An organizational analysis of the form class effect , 1977 .

[19]  W P Wallace,et al.  Recognition failure of recallable words and recognizable words. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[20]  Gregory V. Jones.  Recognition Failure and Dual Mechanisms in Recall. , 1978 .

[21]  I. Begg.  Imagery and organization in memory: Instructional effects , 1978 .

[22]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  More on Recognition Failure of Recallable Words: Implications for Generation Recognition Models. , 1978 .

[23]  I. Begg.  Similarity and contrast in memory for relations , 1978, Memory & cognition.

[24]  A. J. Flexser,et al.  Retrieval independence in recognition and recall. , 1978 .