Richer concepts are better remembered: number of features effects in free recall

Many models of memory build in a term for encoding variability, the observation that there can be variability in the richness or extensiveness of processing at encoding, and that this variability has consequences for retrieval. In four experiments, we tested the expectation that encoding variability could be driven by the properties of the to-be-remembered item. Specifically, that concepts associated with more semantic features would be better remembered than concepts associated with fewer semantic features. Using feature listing norms we selected sets of items for which people tend to list higher numbers of features (high NoF) and items for which people tend to list lower numbers of features (low NoF). Results showed more accurate free recall for high NoF concepts than for low NoF concepts in expected memory tasks (Experiments 1–3) and also in an unexpected memory task (Experiment 4). This effect was not the result of associative chaining between study items (Experiment 3), and can be attributed to the amount of item-specific processing that occurs at study (Experiment 4). These results provide evidence that stimulus-specific differences in processing at encoding have consequences for explicit memory retrieval.

[1]  Alexandre Gaudeul An Experimental Study of Memory. , 1921 .

[2]  M. Glanzer,et al.  Two storage mechanisms in free recall , 1966 .

[3]  John G. Seamon,et al.  Depth of processing in recall and recognition memory: Differential effects of stimulus meaningfulness and serial position. , 1976 .

[4]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[5]  The Effects of Concreteness on Memory: Dual Codes or Dual Processing? , 1996 .

[6]  D. Balota,et al.  Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words , 2009 .

[7]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  Ken McRae,et al.  Semantic Memory: Some Insights from Feature-Based Connectionist Attractor Networks , 2004 .

[9]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[10]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

[11]  Eli Saltz,et al.  Specifying the Mechanisms in a Levels-of-Processing Approach to Memory. , 1976 .

[12]  George S. Cree,et al.  Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Michael Wilson,et al.  MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00 , 1988 .

[14]  P. Pexman,et al.  Number-of-features effects and semantic processing , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[15]  Kenneth Gilhooly,et al.  Imagery, concreteness, age-of-acquisition, familiarity, and meaningfulness values for 205 five-letter words having single-solution anagrams , 1977 .

[16]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  Retrieval contexts and the concreteness effect: Dissociations in memory for concrete and abstract words , 2005 .

[17]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of processing: A framework for memory research , 1972 .

[18]  C. Beal,et al.  Image detail and recall: evidence for within-item elaboration. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[19]  J. Bastian,et al.  Recall of abstract and concrete words equated for meaningfulness , 1966 .

[20]  M. Kahana Associative retrieval processes in free recall , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[21]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[22]  T. O. Nelson Repetition and depth of processing , 1977 .

[23]  J. Carroll,et al.  Age-of-acquisition norms for 220 picturable nouns , 1973 .

[24]  B. Ross The more, the better?: Number of decisions as a determinant of memorability , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[25]  J. Eich Levels of processing, encoding specificity, elaboration, and CHARM. , 1985, Psychological review.

[26]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[27]  K. McRae,et al.  Shared Features Dominate Semantic Richness Effects for Concrete Concepts. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[28]  A. Paivio,et al.  Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? , 1973 .

[29]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[31]  Marc W Howard,et al.  A context-based theory of recency and contiguity in free recall. , 2008, Psychological review.

[32]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  "Schema Abstraction" in a Multiple-Trace Memory Model , 1986 .

[33]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[34]  Jason D. Ozubko,et al.  The mixed truth about frequency effects on free recall: Effects of study list composition , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  Brian Litt,et al.  Gamma Oscillations Distinguish True From False Memories , 2007, Psychological science.

[36]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[37]  P. Schwanenflugel,et al.  Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[38]  A. Yonelinas,et al.  Memory variability is due to the contribution of recollection and familiarity, not to encoding variability. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[39]  David A. Gallo,et al.  Deep levels of processing elicit a distinctiveness heuristic: Evidence from the criterial recollection task , 2008 .

[40]  Robert S. Lockhart,et al.  CHARM is not enough: Comments on Eich's model of cued recall. , 1986 .

[41]  Yasushi Hino,et al.  The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness effects on memory: when and why? , 1994 .

[43]  W. F. Battig,et al.  Handbook of semantic word norms , 1978 .

[44]  S. Hashtroudi,et al.  Type of semantic elaboration and recall , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[45]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[46]  Suparna Rajaram,et al.  The Concreteness Effect in Implicit and Explicit Memory Tests , 2001 .

[47]  Penny M. Pex There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition , 2008 .

[48]  Marc W Howard,et al.  When Does Semantic Similarity Help Episodic Retrieval , 2002 .

[49]  Sean M. Polyn,et al.  Semantic cuing and the scale insensitivity of recency and contiguity. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[50]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  Word concreteness and word structure as independent determinants of recall , 1992 .

[51]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .