The novelty effect: support for the Novelty-Encoding Hypothesis.

In two experiments, we examined the "Novelty-Encoding Hypothesis" proposed by Tulving and Kroll (1995), suggesting that the encoding of online information into long-term memory is influenced by its novelty and that novelty increases recognition performance. In Phase 1 (familiarization phase), subjects participated in a standard memory experiment in which different types of materials (verbs and nouns) were studied under different encoding conditions (enactment and non-enactment) and were tested by an expected recognition test. In Phase 2 (critical phase), subjects evaluated the materials (both familiar materials which were encoded earlier in Phase 1, and novel materials which were not presented earlier in Phase 1) in a frequency judgment task and were given an unexpected recognition test. The results of both experiments showed that novel items were recognized better than familiar items. This result held true for both hit rates - false alarms and hit rates. The novelty effect was observed for different subjects (Swedish and Japanese), different materials (verbs and nouns; high frequency and low frequency), and different types of encoding in Phase 1 (enactment and non-enactment). These findings provide support for the "Novelty-Encoding Hypothesis" stating that the effect is based on the encoding of target items at the time of the critical study (Phase 2). A comparison between the present experiments and the Tulving and Kroll (1995), Dobbins, Kroll, Yonelinas & Liu (1998) and Greene (1999) studies suggests that the novelty effect is more pronounced under incidental encoding than under intentional encoding.

[1]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Representation of Grammatical Categories of Words in the Brain , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  A. Damasio,et al.  Nouns and verbs are retrieved with differently distributed neural systems. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  R. L. Cohen Memory for action events: The power of enactment , 1989 .

[4]  R. Greene The role of familiarity in recognition , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  E. Tulving,et al.  Novelty assessment in the brain and long-term memory encoding , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. , 1988 .

[7]  H. Otani,et al.  Word Frequency Effect: A Test of a Processing-Based Explanation , 1993 .

[8]  L. Nilsson,et al.  Facilitation of source discrimination in the novelty effect. , 2001, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[9]  P. Thorndyke Conceptual complexity and imagery in comprehension and memory , 1975 .

[10]  L. Nyberg,et al.  A component analysis of action events , 1991 .

[11]  L. Nilsson,et al.  A strict response criterion yields a mirror effect in the novelty paradigm. , 2003, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.

[12]  L. Bäckman,et al.  New evidence on the nature of the encoding of action events , 1986, Memory & cognition.

[13]  M. Glanzer,et al.  Analysis of the word-frequency effect in recognition memory , 1976 .

[14]  David A. Balota,et al.  Test-Expectancy and Word-Frequency Effects in Recall and Recognition , 1980 .

[15]  V. Gregg Word frequency, recognition and recall. , 1976 .

[16]  Lars-Göran Nilsson,et al.  Remembering actions and words , 2000 .

[17]  Reza Kormi-Nouri,et al.  The nature of memory for action events: An episodic integration view , 1995 .

[18]  G. Mandler Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. , 1980 .

[19]  M Glanzer,et al.  The mirror effect in recognition memory: data and theory. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  F. Craik,et al.  Additive and interactive effects in memory for subject-performed tasks , 1990 .

[21]  Marcel Kinsbourne,et al.  The mechanism of the word-frequency effect on recognition memory , 1974 .

[22]  F. Craik,et al.  Hemispheric encoding/retrieval asymmetry in episodic memory: positron emission tomography findings. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Johannes Engelkamp,et al.  Nouns and verbs in paired-associate learning: Instructional effects , 1986 .

[24]  Johannes Engelkamp,et al.  Current issues in memory of action events , 1991 .

[25]  M Glanzer,et al.  The mirror effect in recognition memory , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[26]  F. Craik,et al.  Novelty and familiarity activations in PET studies of memory encoding and retrieval. , 1996, Cerebral cortex.

[27]  Michael S. Humphreys,et al.  Role of generalized and episode specific memories in the word frequency effect in recognition. , 1998 .

[28]  A. Yonelinas,et al.  Distinctiveness in Recognition and Free Recall: The Role of Recollection in the Rejection of the Familiar☆☆☆★ , 1998 .

[29]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

[30]  W T Maddox,et al.  Direct and indirect stimulus-frequency effects in recognition. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  M. Glanzer,et al.  The regularities of recognition memory. , 1993, Psychological review.

[32]  L. Nilsson,et al.  The role of integration in recognition failure and action memory , 1998, Memory & cognition.