Redintegration and Item Recognition: Effectsof Storage Unit Size and Context
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Redintegration and Item Recognition: Effectsof Storage Unit Size and Context MICHAEL K. HALLDORSON A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial FuElJment of the Requirements for the Degree of Department of Psychology University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba O August, 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale l*l of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OrcawaON K1AON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, 10% distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substântial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. FACULTY OF GRADUATE STVDIES +*f ït* COPYRIGHT PER%aSSIOXPAGE A Thesis/Practicum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfrllment of the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHZLOSOPBP Hichael K. Halldorson Perxnission has been granted to the Library of The University of Manitoba to lend or seU copies of this thesislpracticum, to the National Library of Canada to microfilm this thesis and to lend or self copies of the fdm, and to Dissertations Abstracts International to publish an abstract of this thesis/practicum. The author reserves other publication rights, and seither this thesislpracticum nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's written permission. Abstract Pnor research suggests item recognition can involve the redintegration of a storage unit from rnemory. Evidence for this claim indicates that items from large storage units take longer to recognize than do items from small storage units but only when the study and the test context difTer. This evidence, however, offers only limited support because data from storage units larger than word pairs are lacking. Accordingly, two experiments examined whether the interactive effects of storage unit size and context would generalize to the recognition of items from storage units larger than word pairs. In both experiments, participants used interactive mental imagery to organize groups of unrelated words into newly integrated storage units. The number of words within each group varied. In the subsequent item recognition test, a priming technique was used to manipulate test context. In the same context condition, the prime and target came from the same storage unit; in the different context condition, the prime and target came from different storage units. Experiment 1 explored priming effects for storage units that were word pairs, triplets, and quadmplets. The resdts indicated significant effects of storage unit size and context, but, contrary to expectation, these effects were additive. These results suggested that target processing was the source of the storage unit size effect. Experiment 2 tested this hypothesis further by exploring priming effects for storage units that were pairs and triplets at either a short (400 ms),a medium (1000 ms), or a long (2000 ms) stimulus onset asynchrony. Moreover, in the different context condition the storage unit size for the prime and for the target were combined factorially. Despite these changes, however, the ody effect was the additive effect of storage unit size and context, indicating that the processing of the target was indeed the source of the storage unit size effect. The results support the conclusion that recognition of an item can involve the redintegration of a storage unit from memory, but that it is only the item, as opposed to a context item, that initiates the redintegration. 1 Writing this thesis was a difficult task for me. So much so that there were times when 1 preferred scrubbing the porcelain in the bathroom to writing. Unlike the porcelain, the writing never seemed to end, and the draRs 1 produced always seerned to be lack-lustre. As it turns out though, 1 have had the good fortune of being surrounded by warm and supportive people to help and to encourage me. Without them, 1 know that 1 wouid never have continued to work through the tough spots and to polish the writing. To al1 of those who have helped and encouraged me, 1offer my sincere thanks. Deserving special thanks is my academic advisor, Dr. John Mclntyre, who was instrumental at al1 stages of the thesis project. Also dese~ngspecial thanks are the members of my exarnining cornmittee, Dr. 1. Begg, Dr. J. Clark, Dr. B. Johnston, Dr. M. Singer, and Dr. J. Whiteley, each of whom has made an impact on the thesis. I greatly appreciated their careful reading and thoughtfd comments. 1 also owe thanks to several others. Ester and Rachel Mellon helped me score the recall data. Don Godfred provided technicd cornputer assistance and wrote the cornputer software that collected the data. Ericka Sehn typed several drafts of the reference list. Finally, 1want to thank my family for al1 their support throughout. Mom and Dad were always there to encourage me and helped wherever they could. To rny wife Madalena, who gave up so much so that 1could devote my time and effort to this thesis, 1 offer rny deepest love and respect. Augusr 14. 1998 Table of Contents Abstract .......................-.......... ......... ................... ............................................................. i Acknowledgements ..... .. .. ... ..... .... .... .......... ... ....... ...... .-... .... .... .. ..... ... ...... .. .. ... .. .. .. .... .. ..... ..ii List of Tables.... .. ................ .. .....- .-.-............. ............ ..................... vi .. List of Figures ........................................................................... ................. .......... VU Introduction Redintegration and Memory Retrieval ....................................................... 1 Literature Review Redintegration ........................................................................................................6 Irnplicit Memory .......... ........................ ................. ............ 12 Mental Imagery Dual Coding Theory.......... ............................... .... .... .. 13 Recognition Memory .. ....... ... ... .... ...... ..---..... .. .. 16 The Retrieval Problem in Recognition Memory ...................... .. ........... .......17 Redintegration as a Recall-Like Retrieval Process Recall and Information Recovery .................................................... 22 Recall-Like Retrieval Processes in Recognition .............................. 24 The Contribution of Redintegration to Recognition Memory ............... ..... 2 5 Redintegration Establishes Episodic Context at Retrieval .......... 26 Distinctiveness is Relative to Episodic Context .............................27 Redintegration Indirectly Supports Distinctiveness During Retrievd....... .... .. ... .... ..... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 8 Episodic Piiming Item Recognition ................................................................................. -29 Imagery Instructions and Episodic Friming ..................... ....................... 30 OveMew of Experiments ............................. .. ........................................... 37 Experiment 1............................................................ .. ............................................. -42 Hypotheses......................................................................................................... 43 Method Participants............................................................................................ 44 Materials ................................................................................................. 44 Design ...................................................................................................... 52 Results General ................................................................................................ 54 Preliminary Results ......................................................................... 5 6 Priming Results ............................ ... .................................................. 60 Discussion ............................................................ ... ............................................ 63 Experiment 2................................................................................................................. -67 Hypotheses........................................................................................................ -69 Method . Partmpants............................................................................................ 70 Design and Materials ............................................................................70 Procedure ................................................................................................ 71 Results Preliminary Results ..............................................................................72 Priming Results .....................................................................................75