European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

This article was downloaded by:[Stenberg, Georg] On: 8 February 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 790480663] Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713734596 The memorability of names and the divergent effects of prior experience Georg Stenberg a; Johan Hellman a; Mikael Johansson b a Kristianstad University, Sweden b Lund University, Sweden

First Published on: 01 July 2007 To cite this Article: Stenberg, Georg, Hellman, Johan and Johansson, Mikael (2007) 'The memorability of names and the divergent effects of prior experience', European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20:2, 312 - 345 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09541440701398724 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09541440701398724

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 nweg,adwe uhfrkoldei akn,rmmeigsuffers remembering lacking, in is encoded 1932). foreknowledge (Bartlett, such events semantic of when background because and a against knowledge, branches, interpreted normally two are memory episodic the considerable between is there Yet retrieval. interdependence and on encoding of the proceed processes the with cares about largely research mainly concerned memory typically episodic whereas phenomena organisation, are conceptual well of two studies structure become memory the has Semantic tracks. about memory separate research semantic and but episodic established, between distinction The 312 (2), 20 2008, PSYCHOLOGY COGNITIVE OF JOURNAL EUROPEAN eaiua cecs rsintdUiest,S-9 8Kitasa,See.E-mail: Sweden. Kristianstad, 88 SE-291 University, [email protected] Kristianstad Sciences, Behavioural tp/wwpyrs.o/c O:10.1080/09541440701398724 DOI: http://www.psypress.com/ecp h eoaiiyo ae n h iegn fet of effects divergent the and names of memorability The # orsodnesol eadesdt er tneg et fPyhlg,Sho of School Psychology, of Dept. Stenberg, Georg to addressed be should Correspondence nonspecific and specific ways. memory, separate semantic in dissociations memory of These episodic rates. forms with alarm interact by different false knowledge, than two for fame true that by was suggest influenced reverse strongly the more whereas consistently experiments frequency, were national Four remember-know rates frequency. and a curves, Hit by ROC recognition, paradigms. in diminished yes/no using but hits findings, fame, the Recognition of websites. confirmed by media number increased mass national the was on hits accuracy as word as frequency, fame operationalised name and knowledge, directory, but was telephone pre-experimental names Frequency of memory, of fame. measures recognition two and enhances to episodic relation examined its usually study and present domain The memory. accuracy. recognition stimulus episodic on the effects frequency paradoxical of have Knowledge can familiarity Pre-experimental 07Pyhlg rs,a mrn fteTyo rni ru,a nom business Informa an Group, Francis & Taylor the of imprint an Press, Psychology 2007 * Á rsmdcreaeo ro experience prior of correlate presumed a 345 er tnegadJhnHellman Johan and Stenberg Georg rsintdUni Kristianstad udUni Lund ialJohansson Mikael ro experience prior v riy Sweden ersity, v riy Sweden ersity, * sngtvl eae to related negatively is Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ense oices ohhtrtsadfleaamrts oeie leading sometimes sensitivity, rates, in alarm decline false have and net phases rates a hit test to both and increase study to seen the been preceding presentations repeated materials, eedn nterneo rqece nldd fternei ieand wide is range vary the can If relationship, inverted-U an included. is relationship finding frequencies typical the frequencies, of functional low very range includes specific the on the depending although familiarisation, 1997). ae nta,tetpclfnigi hthtrtsaerie n as alarm false the and called raised often are is rates pattern hit This that lowered. is are finding rates typical raise the would Instead, rate. it that predicted theories hs xeiet hr tml r rsne nafmlaiainphase familiarisation a in study presented usual controlled are closely the stimuli more before where three- A a experiment, in 2002). accomplished phase be Maddox, can experience & pre-experimental been of (Estes has manipulation i.e., assumption question frequency, That life. into experiential daily in reflect called word to the encountering expected of probability is the text, Glanzer, from newspaper) 1990; away (usually 1985, moving Adams, as 1993). & of Kim, (Glanzer & thought Iverson, directions are Adams, opposite distributions in new criterion the and pre- old take the not familiarity of did explanation prior models no if early was Second, there most effect. account, Because frequency into one. experience than experimental prior ways frequent that more widely generalisation Reder the and of 1998; face the consistent Humphreys, in memory. flies & a enhances it experience Chalmers but is 2000), by al., words et (reviewed common psychology finding better low-frequency are relatively reproduced than words for rare than advantage relatively terms that an recognised finding science The showed better words. groups computer high-frequency showed over both rare students (Chalmers, although science study of students, recent computer recognition more 1997), a episodic Dennis, & in & Similarly, words (Allen physics words. Humphreys, recognised study after common students better of early list than groups remembered a both better an from but be students, words In arts physics to did items. recognised than prone students semantic known physics more which less 1968), Garton, about are than & items encounters amassed (Anderson Thus, again episodic been encountered 1995). has be Dennis, to knowledge preserve 2000; likely to most 1991, rational clearly items Schooler, is those it environment, memory the perspective in to the adapted From is memory. memory episodic that enhance should items to-be-studied h fetbogtaotb odfeunyi ifrn rmprior from different is frequency word by about brought effect The odfeuny smaue ytepoaiiyo odsocrec in occurrence word’s a of probability the by measured as frequency, Word The of experience prior frequent generalisation, a to approximation first a As odfeunyeffect frequency word Á etpoeue ihbt ovra n verbal and nonverbal both With procedure. test a enacalnefrmmr hoisin theories memory for challenge a been has d ? Ets&Mdo,20;Mdo Estes, & Maddox 2002; Maddox, & (Estes both EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY h i rate hit the was irreffect mirror xlctyaddressed, explicitly and h as alarm false the eas the because , 313 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 optn yeo oes the models, 1996). of Gronlund, type & (Clark competing memory A recognition for models matching global from different quality a frequency. reflects with confounded it because probably word misnomer, frequency, the experiential a that concluded is (2002) view effect Maddox In rates. and frequency alarm Estes false low trends, and divergent rates these hit high of both reached of is effect peak combined The the frequencies. by low moderately at sensitivity maximum with 314 ulcapaacs t. l fwihcnhl oecd nepisodic of sense coming an a one familiarity, particular of encode any without sense name, a to the Nondistinctive mind with newspaper. to help encounters the previous brings many in hand, can achievements, it other seeing the which looks, as on person’s memory, such of name, that the all with with The encounter associated etc., person. particular that is appearances, a about celebrity out facts public known singles a mind it to of names brings name and proper name, to the applied of bearer as detail; associated of it. with interfere memory, may radically episodic form nondistinctive in supports the knowledge memory whereas semantic and episodic Distinctive recollection with ways. memory, interact different episodic and they of name a Furthermore, forms bear common familiarity. two memory a semantic to of is resemblance forms two Jones structural We These Tom not. is lapses). that Humperdinck knowing semantic Engelbert as memory such as everyday distinctive, of such one of nondistinctive, source forms, two object Bjo oft-lamented takes that names the knowing an of knowledge being as that these propose well material, (as memory, names proper stimulus semantic knowledge use We or memory. the episodic knowledge on as has general experience this of effects the heading and the under 2000). in subsumed al., do, et words (Reder familiarity low-frequency higher & than their (Arndt know-responses with curves more keeping ROC attract the will of remember high words shape a If the with 2002). in consistent Reder, reflected responses recollection, show targets will of demands data between degree task the made if distractors, be similar Thus, to manipulations. and discriminations they experimental fine contributions, by extraordinarily different apart necessitate of two pried familiarity often are be greater more the can there are to Because words ascribed be words. low-frequency can that high-frequency part 2000). fact alarm al., false the et The reflects Reder recollected. part 2002; Reder, rate & hit (Arndt The effect to ways frequency different word in overall contribute the they and these familiarity, to and according recollection recognition, theories: in available are processes Two interpretation. h oe sdb se n adx(02 eog otecasof class the to belongs (2002) Maddox and Estes by used model The itntv eatcmmr hrswt eolcinarltv richness relative a recollection with shares memory semantic Distinctive experience prior of kind the with concerned is study present The TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, ¨ nBr stenm faclbae enspae,adone and player, tennis celebrated a of name the is Borg rn Á nwrsossaercre,high-frequency recorded, are responses know lexicality dual-process nawd es,wihtnst be to tends which sense, wide a in ls,hsmd different a made has class, Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 oso htsc aiirt sdtietlt psdcrcgiinmemory. recognition the episodic to respect, aim We detrimental that mind. is In to familiarity bearer such that particular show any to bringing without familiarity of sense names Frequent fore. the to rqec asstenielvli h eonto rcs,admksthe this, makes of and process, Because recognition the experiment. distinguish. in the to the level difficult from signal noise within the distinguished possible, study raises are easily from frequency sources be several arising if cannot familiarity the and in environment occurrences source, frequent from a pre-experimental arising definition, to familiarity by The attributed arise. context-free episodic may be confusion is to the familiarity needs Because into it process. the feed in would confusion hand, other memories. context-rich episodic engender the into feed distinctive at would that affected recollection celebrity) was they with expectation that (correlated Our knowledge show systems. semantic to memory wanted different also partly we least but accuracy, recognition on shortly recognition for tested and visually, study thereafter. for presented were names n h ullsso ae r vial nteInternet. the be on later, available could given are are names groups of Examples four lists groups. full low and the and and criteria, well high as cross-classifying independent Conceptually by media. are formed news these national in of empirically, hits pages as of Internet number the national the of the as of search defined search a similarly computerised was a in Celebrity directory. hits telephone of frequency Operationally, number media. the the as in measured was mentioned being by name name, the were of the bability bearing Both persons With celebrity. of quantities. number and environmental relative reflect frequency a to dimensions: meant using two effect, along parallel orthogonally a demonstrating by material. the genuine, stimulus that different indications is further Instead, effect causative provides 2002). the study frequency Maddox, be present could & the confounded, (Estes Nonetheless, be factor. life may of frequency daily frequency which of in with result lexicality, words a been really the has not with it is above, effect encounters mentioned frequency As word effect. the that frequency proposed word the of relative close 1 odsiciesmni nweg creae ihfeuny,o the on frequency), with (correlated knowledge semantic Nondistinctive effects opposite-sign had frequency and celebrity that show to aimed We ae ie,frtnm lsls ae htwr sdi hssuyvaried study this in used were that name) last plus name first (i.e., Names http://www.stenberg.ys.se/Projects/Names/Names.htm ytm ypoiigmtra o ealdecdn,i would it encoding, detailed for material providing By system. aefeunyeffect frequency name * uha mt n Jones and Smith as such hc eamt ouet sa is document, to aim we which , EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY familiarity celebrity frequency * 1 nteexperiments, the In fe vk uha such evoke often ema h pro- the mean we ytm causing system, erfrt the to refer we 315 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 316 eoyo psdcmmr,uigapo fnmswt hc participants which foreknowledge. with measurable names semantic and of general varying pool and had a distinctive using memory, of episodic effects on the memory assessed experiment first The eoyi u es edntb psd pcfc nweg concerning, Knowledge specific. episode be is semantic not Bjo make distinctive need e.g., although to sense Humphreys, some wish our and in we in Chalmers memory distinction of accuracy; The that mere recognition detrimental. to for accuracy, similar was dis- effect value words recognition the doubtful making supported conditions of Whereas definitions was phase. familiarisation supplying familiarisation by the by presentation tinctive the in strength by strength definitions generalised specific experimentally, of episode and varied presentation, of were low-frequency frequency and factors high- of Both recognition words. episodic in strength specific episode h on ews omk sta psdsaenta not are episodes that is make to relevant wish personally we significance. form autobiographical point and The even emotion may with charged they perhaps memories, and victories, Wimbledon Borg’s of code information genetic the the contributed have only living. dead, leaving long the memory, ancestors, as from presented much away was behind, him faded about information themselves which have in Events instances. many over esnlmmr,ytte have memory. episodic they within-experiment evokes on yet name effects a different memory, that probability the personal increase Both to a a association. likely are autobiographical make within frequency runs of and to line fame irrespective dividing wish itself, a We memory that memory. semantic namely proposal, episodic different the and although demonstrate related semantic results Moscovitch’s better of & interdependence were so tests Westmacott memory. in not lives performance semantic celebrities own improved of than also participants’ experiment self-relevance and recognition Furthermore, in associated. episodic Moscovitch events an by in with celebrities remembered elucidated associated that showed been were They 2003). that has Moscovitch, & people (Westmacott colleagues famous of be ownknowledge can our of people fabric the famous into woven of being lives. Knowledge without individuating memory. and detailed semantic distinctive of hlesadHmhes(98 itnuse ewe eeaie and generalised between distinguished (1998) Humphreys and Chalmers nobel,eioe a ermmee tl ymn h witnessed who many by still remembered be may episodes Undoubtedly, h itnto ewe uoigahclyrlvn n irrelevant and relevant autobiographically between distinction The ¨ TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, nBr sgnieysmni ntesneo en accumulated being of sense the in semantic genuinely is Borg rn XEIET1 EXPERIMENT * sw upr oshow to purport we as necessary component * radically Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 Method ih ae fec yewr eetd xmlso omn famous common, of Examples selected. Forty- were Infrequent. type as or each name Frequent experi- of each either The judged names and Nonfamous, material, Sweden. eight or stimulus Statistics Famous tables the bureau, either frequency in constructing census using popular when name) national 2005) last menters, (late the plus currently name by those (first provided of combined set or media, the the from selected either were an half about took session whole The participants pace. instructions, own hour. on-screen their software. at some E-prime experiment and using the instruction ran presented oral were brief stimuli a which After each on booths, computer, separate in a seated were with participants where laboratory, a in place 24 27 orienting of frequency in average the resulting in an 20 tasks, with and orienting task, task. 40, orienting two celebrity to to the 16 in allotted participants from randomly ranged were Ages They voucher. years. lunch a with 05s edakcnenn orcns ftersos a given. brief was a response response, the the of After correctness first. concerning happened feedback the whichever s) elapsed, (0.5 in in had s name specified 4 that until of been bearers 10 had than question more ‘‘Is or there ‘‘Are latter famous?’’ Sweden?’’). mean person (The to this time at ‘‘Is text (presented frequent?’’ either this instruction reminder): question during a name orienting and as the s, screen this to the 2 given of for be top to screen, the was the response on a centred window displayed, was name each study for the followed determined phase delay. test independently without The order. and phase presentation the randomly was or as was set study participant, mixed the set to test names distractor the of Assignment in the distractors. reappeared of number names equal Studied an study. with for names 32 presenting roiratings priori A Materials study three into divided was experiment present The 2 of groups in tested were Participants Procedure compensated were and participated, women) (34 students Forty-seven Participants uigtets hs,nmswr rsne ni epnewsgvnor given was response a until presented were names phase, test the During The cross. fixation s 1 a by preceded was stimulus each study, During e f12Seihnmswscntutd Names constructed. was names Swedish 192 of set A . Á 6a ie h xeiettook experiment The time. a at 16 EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY Á etcce,each cycles, test 317 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 318 eepromd(lr,17) n ihsbet,adteohrwt tm,as items, with other analyses the of and sets subjects, with two one items, 1973), and (Clark, subjects performed were both across generalisation allow To Results Go were: names sohr fmr eetrnw.Tepeetst n nepne,second expanded, an and http://www.stenberg.ys.se/Projects/Names/Names.htm. set, at: present included available well The as are Ernfrid renown. names Bergman), recent set (Garbo, names, more Celebrity decades of over Gagner. others nonfamous extended as fame Guje rare, to claim and whose and ones Sten, Eklund, Hildegard Zlatan Gustav Hammar, Sven and Axelsson, and Garbo, Maria e.g., Greta were, Holmgren, names Kamprad, nonfamous Ingvar Common, Ibrahimovic. names: famous uncommon, is n ewe h atrtotecreainws.4(e al 1). Table (see .84 ( was sites correlation the Internet two with latter .98 the and between classification, Agreement and searches. participant hits, Internet with in .86 hits was of tau) pattern (Kendall’s the and participants by given study names. the the the of in for dimension memory one task affect towards orienting also would directed it attention stimuli an classification, was whether stimulus as examine task the to participants rating of served validation the Each providing celebrity. of from or Apart half phase. frequency one for to names allotted the rate to invited Nonfamous. and Famous into dichotomised transformed. log was and Visual (www. variable sites, the Google across a Finally, added by was by hits published of interface number made The programming google.com). were a television using (www.dn.se, Searches program, two www.tv4.se). newspapers Basic websites, and and national Swedish (www.svt.se six four www.aftonbladet.se) networks at www.expressen.se, media: searched www.svd.se, important was name with Each affiliated engine. dichot- search was Google which Frequency, variable Infrequent. the was and number Frequent as into This telephone used hits. omised nationwide and of Swedish, number transformed, the the log in noting name and (www.eniro.se), each directory up looking by frequency osbeidctro xeinilfeuny( frequency experiential of indicator possible and nentsearches Internet nentht ntepoedrcoywsurltdt iso h media the on hits to unrelated was directory phone the in hits Internet ratings the by confirmed were frequency and celebrity of ratings priori A ratings Participant Similarly, r r TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, 7 o h media; the for .71 0) u ohwr orltdwt h oa u fGol is a hits, Google of sum total the with correlated were both but .04), celebrity ¨ a eso,Iga ega,adBjo and Bergman, Ingmar Persson, ran ovrf h ugmns ae eecekdfor checked were names judgements, the verify To . nadto otesac aa atcpnswere participants data, search the to addition In . a hce ymkn ieseii okp i the via lookups site-specific making by checked was n 192). r 4 o h hn directory, phone the for .43 ¨ nBr;adof and Borg; rn Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 rqec fetaogtecelebrities. the among effect frequency retn akhdn fet ln ri neato,adi ilntbe not will it recognised, better and were names uncommon interaction, factor. in between-participant or a alone effect, mentioned. third no further had the Task and Orienting factors, within-participant four data. Internet ratio-scaled from our from predicting derived rates analyses, alarm classification regression false and perform empirical rates the could hit in the we item and Thus, used, used searches. was subjects- names we Internet the the of analysis, In classification and accessible. priori item-based otherwise a (Frequency the not conditions analysis, issues based items within of random by analysis examination because only Furthermore, set, permitted boundaries. possible condition data across was present not Celebrity), the items with of necessary been arguably selection has is strategy Gremmen, analysis it & Schrijnemakers, this (Raaijmakers, 1999), practice Although general term. a as error questioned random the of source n Frequency, and a optd(ndrs own 98.I a ujce oa2 a to subjected was It (Frequency 1988). Corwin, analysis & (Snodgrass computed was aosnmswr uhbte eebrdta nonfamous, than remembered better 238.96, much were names Famous gemn ewe lsiiaino tml yapir ugmns(oun)and (columns) judgements priori a by stimuli of classification between Agreement atcpn judgements Participant search Internet oa 84 84 192 48 46 50 192 48 48 47 48 50 41 48 4 48 1 48 47 3 4 48 43 Total Famous 3 Famous Infrequent Frequent 47 Total Famous Famous Infrequent Frequent The ysubjects By miia lsiiainb nentsac rw,uprhl) n participant and half), upper (rows, search Internet by classification empirical priori a d p ? B esr seFgr )soe anefc fFeuny because Frequency, of effect main a showed 1) Figure (see measure .001, tmlscass vrgdoe tm o ahpriiat and participant, each for items over averaged classes, stimulus i ae n as lr ae eercre o aho the of each for recorded were rates alarm false and rates Hit . ofmu 750 46 47 1 49 2 46 48 1 1 1 43 1 Nonfamous 45 Nonfamous 1 Nonfamous Nonfamous F h 1 45) (1, p 2 : 84 Celebrity ugmns(os oe half) lower (rows, judgements : hr a loa neato ewe Celebrity between interaction an also was There aosNnaosFmu ofmu Total Nonfamous Famous Nonfamous Famous 6.24, rqetInfrequent Frequent p AL 1 TABLE retn ak,tefrttobeing two first the Task), Orienting .016, F EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY 1 45) (1, h p 2 : 12 42.19, ; u oapotentiated a to due p B .001, F 1 45) (1, h p 2 2 319 : 48 d 2 ? : Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ae;daod:nnaos rqec so h -xs ro asshow bars Error x-axis. the on is Frequency nonfamous. diamonds: names; iue1. Figure 320 eutn naClbiyeffect, Celebrity a in resulting al .Teehsbe icsina owihidxo fetsz is size effect of index which to as discussion the been designs, within-subjects has in preferable There 2. Table 2. Table neato,Celebrity interaction, oalwcmaios h omri etadtelte ntables. in latter the and text in former both, the present comparisons; We allow 2005). to (Bakeman, designs between-subjects to comparable ninteraction, an h ninteraction, an Fgr 1). (Figure : 20 p 2 h rtro,C a oe o aosnmsta o nonfamous, for than names famous for lower was C, criterion, The fetszsfrteefcso rqec n eert r logvnin given also are Celebrity and Frequency of effects the for sizes Effect as lr ae eeafce yFrequency, by affected were rates alarm False i ae hwda feto Frequency, of effect an showed rates Hit ; dprime, crit n ag feto Celebrity, of effect large a and 0 1 2 : 35 TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, ; xeiet1 ausof Values 1: Experiment n yCelebrity, by and F F 1 46) (1, 1 46) (1, Frequency, 11.50, 25.83, F low d 1 46) (1, ? fildsmos n ufildsmos;crls famous circles: symbols); (unfilled C and symbols) (filled F p 1 45) (1, Exp. 1 p F 1 46) (1, Fre .001, .001, F 14.19, q 1 45) (1, uenc h h 67.38, p 2 h y p 2 rthe or F p p 2 231.20, 1 46) (1, B : 20 .001, : p 27.35, 36 F high : B h 1 46) (1, : G 2 .001, p vrgsaegvnin given are Averages ; h B 11.79, h atrbigmore being latter the p 2 .001, p B h : 9 24 p 2 24.41, Nonfamous Famous .001, tnaderror. standard 1 p ; h swl sby as well as p 2 : 59 .001, ; p h : 83 B n an and p 2 h ; .001, and p 2 : 37 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 h tpiergeso rcdr ete o oe ihtrepredictors: three with model a for settled procedure regression stepwise ( sites ( calls (Frequency ersin a h nosmn aei h rqec retn task orienting frequency the in rate endorsement stepwise a the ( into entered (a) were predictors regression: potential Four First, variable. performed. dependent was analysis regression groups. multiple three other the to compared names, famous infrequent, lr ae eecmue.Te eesbetdt 2 a to subjected were false They and rates computed. hit were item-wise and rates item, each alarm for participants over averaged rqec 8 7 2 .20 .20 .26 .25 were there as inasmuch .78 pattern, expected Celebrity. .69 the and Frequency to mirror both a conformed of for data assumption effects the the mirror shows, are under magnitude, table means of the The order respectively. expected As Celebrity, the effect. and in Frequency right of to levels left from .82 low enumerated and high .90 across collapsed rates Frequency Celebrity A 2 1 2 2 1 .08 .63 .02 .52 .11 .03 .04 .07 .26 .90 .27 .88 .25 .65 .24 .65 .14 .90 .14 .90 .25 .73 .25 .74 effect Mirror items) (by FAR items) (by HR FAR HR h neato a losignificant, also was interaction The 11.42, 188) p freq_hits freq_calls p 2 patterns hr a eibeefc fCelebrity, of effect reliable a was There sn h ulrneo rdco aibe,isedo ihtme,a dichotomies, of instead variables, predictor of range full the Using yitems By h oe ato h al eiistemro fetptenb hwn i ae n as alarm false and rates hit showing by pattern effect mirror the verifies table the of part lower The as lr ae hwda feto Frequency, of effect an showed rates alarm False .004, ,()tenme fht nteItre erho h eehn directory telephone the of search Internet the in hits of number the (c) ), : 52 celeb_hits 4.35, p ; ,ad()tenme fht nteItre erho h media the of search Internet the in hits of number the (d) and ), n fFrequency, of and h ,()teedreetrt nteclbiyoinigts ( task orienting celebrity the in rate endorsement the (b) ), .001, p 2 isadfleaam eercre o ahstimulus, each for recorded were alarms false and Hits . p eert) ohbigbteniesfactors. between-items being both Celebrity), ofmu aosNnaosFmu rqec Celebrity Frequency Famous Nonfamous Famous Nonfamous : .Telte w eelgtasomdfrnraiy The normality. for transformed log were two latter The ). 04 .038, i ae n as lr ae nEprmn 1 Experiment in rates alarm false and rates Hit R R A2FAR1 FAR2 HR2 HR1 h ; p 2 o rqec ihfeunyEfc sizes, Effect frequency High frequency Low htwssrne hnteefc fCelebrity, of effect the than stronger was that h : 06 p 2 ; : u opriual o as lr ae for rates alarm false low particularly to due F 02 1 188) (1, : hr a loa interaction, an also was There AL 2 TABLE F 1 188) (1, 13.92, EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY Means p F B 1 188) (1, 6.53, .001, i rate hit p h p 2 .011, F 206.04, a sda the as used was 1 188) (1, : 07 h F nhtrates. hit on analysis 2 1 188) (1, p 2 p B : celeb_ 03 h .001, 8.70, G 2 F 321 : (1, Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 n eert admr ob eert) as lr ae eepeitdby predicted were rates alarm false celebrity), alone. by frequency so more (and celebrity and ersinpoeuewsofrdtesm orptnilpeitr.Only predictors. potential significant: four as same selected was the one offered was procedure regression n oms aiesekr hs ae ol pert efamiliar be to appear would names these media, speakers the native in names. use household potential most and any the wear names, to being constant famous by this and the eroded celebrities, In been have effect. the would interaction the among bizarreness that significant however, stronger a point, fact of this in basis at already was noted used effect was be material frequency can stimulus It modified experiments. could a later effect aspect, frequency in bizarreness the this whether to ascertain ascribed To be sound. and look unusual an 322 npriua,w ihdt aecnatwt h luihn eerhon research flourishing the with from contact make apart to two was, wished the memory. area episodic between we of relation particular, dimensions this the similar In and clarify in memory to semantic research wish of a dimensions further findings, basic our the replicating driving purpose The most and the familiarity of some between are distinguish FAR 2000). and to al., by HR et than (Reder used on recollection so effects characteristics more of Frequency, that important noted patterns by be can distinct affected It weak. were the relatively were hand, influences both alarms other False although Celebrity, on comparison. the Celebrity by of paled Frequency on impact of The rates, that rates. and alarm huge, false was and rates rates hit hit on noted be could first resulting the and parts, constituent alike. but nonfamous names, and unusual famous famous very of for group However, than the significant worse in was far names. boosted it fared was they effect nonfamous frequency indeed, were The all; names names. than at frequent remembered foreknowledge, better well pernicious not of much paradox famous memory, the retained furthers completing experience were prior that premise names the with keeping In Discussion Celeb_calls 4.88, hs hra i ae eepeitdb niaoso ohfrequency both of indicators by predicted were rates hit whereas Thus, the to applied was analysis same The lhuhbt atr a ut akdefcson effects marked quite had factors both Although oeo h nrqetnmswr obndfo eaieyrare relatively from combined were names infrequent the of Some TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, p B : .001; b .52, celeb_hits t (188) : XEIET2 EXPERIMENT b 8.40, freq_hits .28, p t B (188) .001; : as lr rate alarm false b atnm ar ol aehad have could pairs name last 4.58, freq_calls .18, t p (188) B d .001. : ? eaaeinfluences separate , b hs stepwise a Thus, . 2.51, .23, p t .013. (188) Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 h ei) n htw se atcpnst eaaeti a of way this familiarity the separate i.e., to experiment. report, the to participants within them encounter asked earlier wanted an we we by kind produced that the through from e.g., and ‘‘knowing’’ (acquired, knowledge media), ‘‘Know’’ previous label with the the do we which to instructions, to nothing the quality had the applied subjective In the experiment. for that particular the emphasised difficulty therefore this within familiarity engendered pre-experimental with some of familiarity confusion task anticipated with possible remember/know the We from the arising 1. material, Remember/Know performing Experiment in standard in otherwise participants was adapted which as task, memory therefore name presented the We to 1996) (Rajaram, alarms. instructions false Know of rate Method to expected be can names high-celebrity their context, of present elicit quality introspective the the In about questioned memory. are the participants is which and method in used separating often of An methods two. proposed the measuring has which recollection, and familiarity xeiet(nIw abigts) n ial eoyts o l the all for test memory period a retention other finally The the and by (128). task), followed This names gambling first, pace. Iowa came names own (an that to-be-remembered experiment their such (64) at experiment, all unrelated of experiment on- different, study further a the given with interleaved ran were was they then experiment instruction, and oral instructions, brief a screen each booths, After separate computer. in a seated were with participants where laboratory, a in place years. 23 of average an with 47, to 19 from ranged Ages voucher. e hsnm eoei h xeiet’.I aeo ‘e’ response, ‘‘Yes’’ a minns of ‘‘Jag ka case marked ‘‘Det choices In remember’’), with experiment?’’. (‘‘I followed, the screen det’’ you ‘‘Did in selection question three-button before the to a response name in ‘‘No’’, period this and s ‘‘Yes’’ 5 see marked a buttons, during mouse-clicked name on-screen be each two to block, with test the along In presented memorise. to was except period, this The during it. assigned in appeared min. material 40 verbal about other took or session names whole no but task, distracting atcpnswr etdi ruso 2 of groups in tested were Participants lunch a Procedure for exchange in participated women) (26 students Thirty-five Participants uigsuy ahnm a hw o ,adn vr akwas task overt no and s, 2 for shown was name each study, During Remember Know epne,prasepcal hs ie roeul,i.e., erroneously, given those especially perhaps responses, epne.Aaoosy rqec ol osbyafc the affect possibly could frequency Analogously, responses. ¨ n eat’(‘ nw’,ad‘Jggissar’’ ‘‘Jag and know’’), (‘‘I bekant’’ nns * bu 0min 10 about Á 6a ie h xeiettook experiment The time. a at 16 EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY Remember * a hsfle iha with filled thus was Á Know paradigm, 323 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 324 hoeia neet(itd&Srth 04,adtert ffleknow an of false have of focus might rate frequency the that the it. been suspected on and we influence has because 2004), us responses Stretch, interested & remember responses (Wixted false interest of theoretical rate The responses. kFA (Frequency analysis 2 98,ie,a h rprino nwrsossoto agt o ie a given not targets Jacoby, of & out responses Kelley know 1998; variables, of These Dolan, proportion response. ‘‘remember’’ by the & suggested as Jones, as i.e., (Jacoby, computed 1998), was items, colleagues latter old all The and of 3). Jacoby (Table out rate responses IRK-know remember the of and proportion the as computed (r), ae n as lr ae,ali 2 a in all rates, of alarm analyses conventional false made and and we by-subjects rates former, both the performed with was Starting analysis by-items. experiment, previous the in As Results selection. further any responses ‘‘No’’ by instructions. followed outset, (1996) not the Rajaram the at were of explained version extensively modified been a had using alternatives These guess’’). (‘‘I a efre hog eee e erh(eray20) about 2006), (February search one previous ( web famous sets the two renewed than data deceased later frequency a and or months fame 6 through the nonlisted of update performed for an (c) requisite was Garbo); made a effect Greta as as were bearer such bizarreness persons (exceptions directory-listed one a inclusion least at for to have that names to had nonfamous rise combination) infrequent, some give of of inclusion substitution could the (b) (a) names; were set new previous 96 the from changes main The experiment. is( hits respectively. hits, media the and a etogta rx o xeinilfeuny h oa ubrof number total the frequency, experiential for proxy ( a hits Google as thought be can httefu ye fnmsb qal represented. equally be names constraint of the types with four participant, the each that for independently and randomly made h remember The naeddadepne tmlssto 8 ae a sdi this in used was names 288 of set stimulus expanded and amended An Materials h ubro hn ietr iswsurltdt h ubro media of number the to unrelated was hits directory phone of number The h eeto f6 agt n 4dsrcosoto h 8 tmpo was pool item 288 the of out distractors 64 and targets 64 of selection The .. h rprino as lrsgvnrmme n know and remember given alarms false of proportion the i.e., , r TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, 0) u ohwr oiieycreae ihatidvral,which variable, third a with correlated positively were both but .01), n r 3) orltoswr 9 n 8 o h hn ietr hits directory phone the for .87 and .95 were correlations 132), 3 and .32 Á nwdt ile w eso aibe,termme rate remember the variables, of sets two yielded data know r eert) diinly ecomputed we Additionally, Celebrity). 8,rsetvl,alvralslgtransformed). log variables all respectively, .82, * r ein(Frequency design 2 o h e fietcliesi the in items identical of set the for and * IRK_k, l ae (first names all eesbetdt 2 a to subjected were Celebrity). atname last rFA d ? hit , and Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ybt rqec,F1 34) F(1, Frequency, both by names. infrequent to than frequent to made were alarms false rqec 7 7 2 .14 .17 .22 .19 .73 to alarm note false .65 See respectively. and Celebrity, rates and hit Frequency showing of by levels pattern low effect 1. Table and mirror high the across verifies table collapsed rates .78 the of part .86 lower The Frequency Celebrity FR00 .501 .101 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.68 0.10 0.60 0.05 0.00 0.17 0.47 0.11 0.20 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.27 0.22 0.10 0.05 0.68 0.04 0.76 0.22 0.02 0.22 0.05 0.82 0.32 0.02 0.41 0.23 0.83 0.11 0.07 0.63 0.79 0.04 0.86 0.12 0.62 0.16 0.89 0.46 effect Mirror 0.54 0.14 kFAR 0.89 rFAR 0.66 items) (by FAR FAR 0.68 IRK_k r items) (by HR HR h h h (,34) F(1, elctn h eert fetfo h rvosexperiment, previous the from effect 28.87, Celebrity these the of replicating aspects experiment. all previous the material, from stimulus reproduced well the the were among in results names differences infrequent and Despite frequent famous. between differences larger to due F : 10 1 34) (1, p 2 p 2 p 2 patterns eebrresponses Remember ysubjects By :rmme;k nw A:fleaamrt;H:htrt;IK needn remember-know. independent IRK: rate; hit HR: rate; alarm false FAR: know; k: remember; r: as lr ae eeafce yFrequency, by affected were rates alarm False atcpnsstteciein ,hge o ofmu ae,again names, nonfamous for higher C, criterion, the set Participants i ae hwdalreefc fCelebrity, of effect large a showed rates Hit ; n ointeraction, no and : : : 38 72 72 p B ; ; : nyamria feto Frequency, of effect marginal a only hr a loa interaction, an also was There ihn eert fetadn neato (both interaction no and effect Celebrity no with 25.45, .001, 9.9 p 199.59, The . ofmu aosNnaosFmu rqec Celebrity Frequency Famous Nonfamous Famous Nonfamous h R R A2FAR1 FAR2 HR2 HR1 i ae n as lr ae nEprmn 2 Experiment in rates alarm false and rates Hit p p 2 o rqec ihfeunyEfc sizes, Effect frequency High frequency Low B B .001, : d 46 ? .001, eebrrsosst l tm eeaffected were items old to responses Remember . esr Fgr )wsafce ybt Frequency, both by affected was 2) (Figure measure : F hr a oFeunyefc n ointeraction. no and effect Frequency no was There B h p 2 h 1. p 2 : 43 : 16,p 21.67, AL 3 TABLE 85 ; n Celebrity, and ; ihn interaction. no with F B EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY Means 1 34) (1, .001, F 1 34) (1, F F F h 1 34) (1, 1 34) (1, 1 34) (1, 7.55, p 2 : 3.74, 39 p ; 89.36, 20.66, 86.55, n Celebrity, and p .010, p F 1) More .10). .062, 1 45) (1, h p p p p 2 B B B h G 2 h .001, .001, .001, 325 : p 2 18 ; Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ae;daod:nnaos rqec so h -xs ro asshow bars Error x-axis. the on is Frequency nonfamous. diamonds: names; epne,ie,te eeafce ybt rqec,F1 34) F(1, Frequency, both by affected were p they remember as i.e., pattern same the responses, reflected 1998) al., et (Jacoby assumptions IRK interaction. iue2. Figure 326 hywr oenmru ofeun ae hnt nrqet Frequency, infrequent, to remembering. than names of F frequent theories to numerous threshold more were with They incompatibility their considering lrsi en oecmo ofeun ae hnt infrequent: to than names frequent to common more Frequency, being in alarms interaction. no aibe,atog h atrwsas efre n hwdtesame the showed and performed also was independent the latter dichotomising the from although resulting ANOVA variables, the not items, over 1 34) (1, nwresponses Know eebrrsosst e tm eeqiefw u interesting, but few, quite were items new to responses Remember nwrsosst e tm elce h atr faltpso false of types all of pattern the reflected items new to responses Know yitems By dprime, crit .001, 0 1 2 TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, xeiet2 ausof Values 2. Experiment h p 2 5.45, nteitrs fbeiy erpr nyrgeso analyses regression only report we brevity, of interest the In . F 1 34) (1, : 27 p ; nwrsosst l tm,cmue codn to according computed items, old to responses Know . n eert,F1 34) F(1, Celebrity, and .026, 7.95, h low p p 2 d ? fildsmos n ufildsmos;crls famous circles: symbols); (unfilled C and symbols) (filled .008, : 14 Exp. 2 : Fre eert a oefc,aoeo in or alone effect, no had Celebrity h p 2 q uenc : 19 y 4.6 p 141.36, : hr een te effects. other no were There high B .001, 9 Nonfamous Famous tnaderror. standard 1 h p 2 : 81 12.82, ; with Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ofdne o ifrn ulte feprec.Ide,oeatv ieof line active one Indeed, was experience. effects of qualities of different of degrees pattern not different express confidence, to The mainly responses different well-founded. the used participants be over the same to upon the essentially proved placed we with misgivings burden some Our associated familiarity. the experimental had from pre-experimental acknowledging We recognition distinguishing in score, accessible. participants of introspectively that be on qualities might misgivings celebrity different and the frequency that alarm speculating false on influence, only is the overall, sometimes force potent rates. and less influence, a dominant although Frequency, the rates. context. hit and on mainly task effect each to into specific of goes is that quality rate familiarity responses and hit recognition recollection i.e., The true the of familiarity, making shaping blend responses. particular in by the helpful recognition and shaped be well, as not false instead may little is or more very may rate have familiarity attract FA can The items and items alarms. familiar old false that recognising on is in assumption effect ones. only shared active a recognition. unusual dual-process, is of theories of recollection dual-process than hit brand of hallmark particular that Dissociation a the worse effects. is found Whatever of alarms patterns we false fare different and foreknowledge, showed hits names rates of of alarm paradox false common and this beforehand, rates famous not, resolve are to the or they Attempting from if findings famous retained basic better the but are replicated names we set, experiment; name first different partly a Using Discussion 5.48, sites media the b of c search significant, as Internet accepted the in ( directory hits ( telephone of the number of search log-transformed Internet the predictors in hits potential both the and by variable, affected Frequency by were affected rates were rates hit alarm i.e., false alone. but analysis, Frequency, by-subjects and Celebrity the as pattern rqec a on ob infcn predictor, significant a be to found was frequency celeb_hits eprudti aalls ute ihrmme-nwmethodology, remember-know with further parallelism this pursued We its exerts recollection, like Fame, parallelism. a traced have we far, So dependent the designated was rate hit analysis, regression first the In nasmlraayi,uigfleaamrt stedpnetvral,only variable, dependent the as rate alarm false using analysis, similar a In p .18, B .001. ) t * (285) eeitoue nasews nlss ohpeitr were predictors Both analysis. stepwise a in introduced were 3.64, eleb_hits d ? eebradko epne,sgetn that suggesting responses, know and remember , p B .001. : b * .53, a h o-rnfre ubrof number log-transformed the (a) EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY t (285) freq_hits 10.79, freq_hits p : B b .001; ,ad()the (b) and ), .31, freq_hits t (285) 327 : Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 l n h e itiuin,wihi esr facrc,ai othe to akin accuracy, of measure a is which distributions, conventional new to 2005). the (Harvey, regression refer and data linear old also original use the will distribution), of not We fitting do normal 3). likelihood analyses Figure maximum cumulative our but (see fitting, the although linear convenience, roughly of for be these inverse will the these the because by to converted data refer such of approaches data analysis Many how (Heathcote, on many proceed. consensus by complete should out no pointed is been there has although usefulness memory studies 2003), The about memory of adopted. for information are data indicator criteria detailed ROC different an of more when gives accuracy as of it interest variation because the increasing years, recent received in has processes It ROC the criteria. of of shape the about gleaned to high be from graded curves. can responses the information inviting of By confidence, criteria. characteristics of low memory set the a over examine stimuli to name performed was 3 Experiment (receiver ROC the responses, approach. confidence explicit characteristics) on operating decision based methods the of class into a to except enter debate, that not enter to remember do wish the not that experience do affirm We of 1998). Henzler, and qualities & ‘‘remember’’, (Hirshman than that, confidence of from degree apart lower a happens: just what expresses exactly is ‘‘Know’’ this that is research remember-know against criticism tnaddvaino h e rteoddsrbto racmrms ( compromise a the or by distribution distance old the the scaling or between new choice the a of is deviation There standard line. regression the of lp ssml h nes fthe of inverse the simply is slope in,adbcuetenwdsrbto sotnasmdt have distribu- to old assumed the often and is distribution new new the the of because deviations and tions, standard the experiments. and between two frequency relation first of the effects our in the With documented reflect as straightforward. to accuracy, intercept relatively on the celebrity is expect we interpretation data, the present way, either but 328 non eaeaottepooe osac-fsoe generalisation an constancy-of-slopes still constant proposed is remained There the has 1994). it about Tindall, others debate & in (Glanzer, McKoon, ongoing and accuracy (Ratcliff, 1999), increased conditions Adams, with across decrease & to Hilford, seen Kim, been has slope studies, he ye fprmtr a eetatd is,tedsac ewe the between distance the first, extracted: be can parameters of types Three range a over rates alarm false to rates hit relating function a is ROC The to turn now we attention, our to brought confidence response had Having h eodprmtri h lp ftergeso ie trfet the reflects It line. regression the of slope the is parameter second The TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, d ? nthe In . z tasomdgah,ti srfetdi h intercept the in reflected is this graphs, -transformed Á nwdsicinwsls sflfrorpurposes. our for useful less was distinction know XEIET3 EXPERIMENT SD fteoddsrbto,1/ distribution, old the of z tasomdRC (i.e., ROCS -transformed s old s nsome In . ,the 1, d a ), Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ihfeuny o eert;sas ihfeuny ihcelebrity. triangles: high frequency, celebrity; high high frequency, stars: low celebrity; low diamonds: frequency, celebrity; high low frequency, low circles: Markers: ntepeetsuyi o rmrl nti atr u ntepossible the in but matter, the this to attend in will we primarily Therefore, experience. not prior of interest is types two Our decrease. study of attenuated dissociation greatly present is a the assumption or slopes change, in of no constancy see the will hand, for we other examined correct, the increases, be on accuracy also If, wherever decreases. will that slope such slopes intercepts, study, on present those the paralleling effects In 1994). al., et (Ratcliff 3. Figure O uvs(pe af and half) (upper curves ROC -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -2 -1 2 0 1 0 1 0 -2.5 0.1 -2 0.2 -1.5 0.3 0.4 z -1 tasomdRCcre lwrhl)frEprmn 3. Experiment for half) (lower ROC-curves -transformed 0.5 -0.5 0.6 EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY 0 0.7 0.5 0.8 1 0.9 F+C+ F+C- F-C+ F-C- 1.5 F+C+ F+C- F-C+ F-C- 1 2 329 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 nevl a eeaie st hte hyicuezr rnot. or zero use. include to in testing put they hypothesis null be to whether confidence alternative can an to proposed corresponding development has as (2005) statistical the Killeen recent examined and another be computed, Alternatively, can be to intervals can corresponding contrasts Thus, effects at. arrived ANOVA be can interest of parameter any ape r osrce nwihvraiiyrfet hto h a data. raw the of that (typically reflects computer resampling variability which enough developed, new data, in With original be recently constructed the & to from are in Schooler replacement is samples with 2002; found resampling effect Martinez, By an & 2005). be Shiffrin, (Martinez of can methods reliability bootstrapping the solution intensive conversely, A or as however, variability, estimated. arises, the question safeguards The how and artefacts. to minor discontinuities of problematic influence eliminates undue against This ROC. group Shiffrin, a & (Schooler bias systematic to sensitive a is introduce analysis even Such 2005). sparse, empty. may be relatively and may are sheet data data data noisy the single-subject in that cells statistical several drawback conventional and to the submitted has of be It easily modes analysis. can and two that accessible estimates readily sketch parameter are produces will It separately. We condition experimental paths. each different first downward The along slight operation. proceed a 5). and can observed 3 fitting Figures we (see that conditions that our note of curvature to some pursue upward not in except will curvature We the further, 2002). Reder, than matter & Arndt 2003) the e.g., see, Heathcote, high- (but from 1999; dual-process as common signals deviation more al., arguably such is concave-downward et curvature character, downward a (Glanzer of artefactual type this produce an fact, In can linearity. of guessing, linear processes otherwise confidence other the all-or-none hand, on an other bent concave-upward introduces This process. a recognition 2002) sometimes probabilistic produces and (Yonelinas, graded process memory otherwise theories the recollection recognition into process element a of Dual that deviations. theories assume such Some posit model. the from explicitly detection deviations possible reflects signal shape the assumed quantity, single a in capture to they whether particular in and divergent. slopes, or on parallel celebrity are and frequency of effects 330 h rbblt frpiain ti eie stepoaiiyo new Effects a sign. of same probability the a have of the typically effect as significant an as at defined described arriving is conventionally power It similar of replication. experiment of probability the natraiei ooeaeo grgtddt rmalpriiat,i.e., participants, all from data aggregated on operate to is alternative An model on, focus to chooses one parameter of type what of Regardless difficult Although ROC. the of shape the is parameter of type third The TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, * n standard and * oeoeae nidvda aafor data individual on operates mode 00tms,cniec nevl for intervals confidence times), 1000 p rep z f.0o more. or .90 of RC nthe On -ROC. p rep , Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 Method The lgtydfeet h is cainue nepne n oiidstfrom set were modified materials and expanded stimulus 16 an The used respectively. occasion occasion, inclusion). years, first for 27 the first cutoff different; and were the slightly which the 44 being of were correct On (two ages 65% 12 scores, Mean memory. another low second, of on the because on excluded courses and tested, of were participants part as universities, of types four The distractors. 64 with proportions. mixed equal were names in studied present they were 64 where names containing The test rated each booklet. a blocks, a participants to in two shown’’ and test, choices into was their memory name marking divided before’’, the ensuing was shown sure not experiment the am was ‘‘I In it from sure name. ranging am ‘‘I per scale, projector, 6-point s a a 2 and on PowerPoint names of using rate screen, large a a at on presented were stimuli hsmasta eftamdlwt hrdciei nteaggregated assumptions can the the we decisive. paths, in If not different probably approach. criteria are these standard shared placement along criteria the with conclusions concerning definitive in the similar model criteria allow both at a separate arrive of point fit use here. outcome described and this we been the approach, have that at they present means as not we approaches, This aggregated study, does the present and and standard the 2005) In 2004; Kroll, Bawa, conclusions. & (Benjamin & complex However, is fitting. Dobbins criteria model shared suboptimal advantage concerning in evidence take result may the not and does criteria shared & separately these (Stretch condition of colours even each different criteria Treating with some marked their fact 1998). are fact, change Wixted, words empirical In to of session. classes reluctant The different a extremely to when throughout efficiently. are tend stimuli they people more judging suggests that in evidence finding data criteria the same is the taken, the fitting often use uses large simultaneous most of path a favour one the in permits speaking is second 2005) choice the first (Harvey, shallow The but program vs. conditions. second Rscore signal deep the of Harvey’s allows (e.g., number software L. separately all but condition Not simultaneously. choice, each conditions fit all or to study) whether made be effects. same-sign of number h xeietto lc ntoocsos ncassa w different two at classes in occasions, two on place took materials experiment The and Participants the which in experiment, classroom a as performed was experiment This Procedure rhgnlyt h ru esssnl-ujc usin hiehsto has choice a question, single-subject versus group the to Orthogonally p rep sesl optdfo ottapn ape ytlyn the tallying by samples bootstrapping from computed easily is EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY 331 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 / h efre ntoocsoswt lgtydfeetmtras twl be will It materials. different were slightly tests significant. with because if occasions only introduced mentioned two factor, on between-participant performed a being latter nitrcinbtenteetofactors, two these between interaction an aibe eesbitdt (Frequency) 2 to submitted were Variables Results this to pertaining effects interaction the or with main interactions of no absence factor. were the pattern There by the shown factor. that as out Group similar, turned quite a it was as effects and included analyses, of was the Group two in presentation. the variable of analysed between-subjects simplicity we for differences, together, slight used data these set of Despite final sets 4. the from and drawn 2 names Experiments used in occasion second the 1; Experiment inbtenthem, between tion h te xeiet.Temdl on ftertn cl a sda the as used was scale rating the of point middle criterion. The experiments. other the fsize of 332 interaction, ssmlrto similar is soels(avy 05,wihue aiu ieiodestimation. likelihood maximum program Harvey’s uses L. which by performed 2005), was (Harvey, ROCs the RscorePlus Fitting 3). Figure (see axes yalre feto rqec mn ofmu hnaogfamous among the of than slope the nonfamous of among frequency of effect names. larger a by feto Celebrity, of effect h : 74 p 2 p 2 i ae eeafce ybt Celebrity, both by affected were rates Hit O uvswr lte oho rbblt xsadon and axes probability on both plotted were curves ROC with comparison allow to computed were rates alarm false and rates Hit Analysis grgtdanalysis Aggregated tnadRCanalysis ROC Standard h tnaddvainfrteoddsrbto,wiheul h inverse the equals which distribution, old the for deviation standard The as lr ae eeafce yFrequency, by affected were rates alarm False ; n Frequency, and : : 70 36 n TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, ; ; n Celebrity, and n Celebrity, and 6wr rw ihrpaeetfo h aa ahsml gave sample Each data. the from replacement with drawn were 26 F 1 24) (1, d ? hwdefcso Frequency, of effects showed , z F RC a etdi iia NV.I hwdamain a showed It ANOVA. similar a in tested was -ROC, F F 1 24) (1, 1 24) (1, 1 24) (1, sn albsbosrpfnto,1,0 samples 10,000 function, bootstrap Matlab’s Using . 8.50, F F 1 24) (1, h esr facrc o ROCS, for accuracy of measure The . 1 24) (1, p 4.31, 4.42, 17.17, .008, 96.39, 6.47, p p B p h B .049, p 2 .046, p .001, F p B 1 24) (1, : 26 F .018, h .001, h (Celebrity) 2 1 24) (1, p 2 : p 2 h h neato a caused was interaction The p 2 F F h : 1 24) (1, 15 : h 1 24) (1, 16 p 2 6.02, : p 2 ; 42 n oohreffect. other no and Tbe4). (Table 67.46, : ; 21 : n hr a also was there and 80 p ; ; n h interac- the and 55.84, 13.22, swl stheir as well as Gop,the (Group), 2 .022, p z B -transformed .001, d h p p a p 2 B , which h .001, .001, p 2 : 20 : Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ihFeunyadHg iu o eert)frbt necps ( minus intercepts, (Low both contrasts for Celebrity) two Low compute minus to High and used Frequency and High sample each for extracted eaaeywt h aiu ieiodmto.Frtelwrpr ftetbe(h irreffect mirror (the table the condition 1. of Table each part for to lower data note the individual For see to method. patterns), fitted likelihood maximum been have the ROCs with slope. separately of inverse the i.e., distribution, 1.42, rqec 7 6 2 .14 .14 .22 .22 .69 .62 .78 .85 Frequency Celebrity irreffect Mirror SD eeue.Fo h upto h rga,egtmasadegtstandard eight and means eight program, (Old/New the of deviations of output the types From four used. 4. were all Figure RScorePlus for in the illustrated data is to fit result submitted to The was together. instructions stimuli which with ROC, program group 2005) averaged (Harvey, an to rise n h . n 75pretlswr dniid h ubr fpstv and positive of numbers and The tallied, identified. were were values percentiles negative 97.5 and 2.5 the and hsfc ofre idnsfo h ale experiments. earlier the from findings confirmed fact This A .601 .701 .80.14 0.55 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.83 0.27 0.55 0.11 0.86 0.16 0.69 d FAR HR 9%CI: (95% mean. the as sign same the eibeefc.Soe eelwri h ihClbiyconditions. Celebrity High the in lower were Slopes effect. reliable te ad averaged hand, other m a new patterns d fte1,0 ape,9%gv cetbeft ( fits acceptable gave 93% samples, 10,000 the Of Slopes Intercepts fodds.14 .514 .300 0.06 0.00 1.73 1.42 1.75 1.48 dist. old of a )/ samaueo cuay h O qiaetof equivalent ROC the accuracy, of measure a is p s rep old h rqec otatsoe naeaecoet eo 0.03 zero: to close average an showed contrast Frequency The . n slopes, and , .0 a ihyrpial fet nitret,ie,o accuracy. on i.e., intercepts, on effects replicable highly had 1.00, .1t .7,ada and 0.37), to 0.31 ohFrequency, Both . ofmu aosNnaosFmu rqec Celebrity Frequency Famous Nonfamous Famous Nonfamous R R A2FAR1 FAR2 HR2 HR1 .322 .718 .90.66 0.39 1.84 0.67 2.20 1.43 o rqec ihfeunyEfc sizes, Effect frequency High frequency Low s ihLwFrequency High/Low new .1(5 CI: (95% 0.31 / s old h etr fcnrs auswr sorted were values contrast of vectors The . p xeiet3 Experiment p rep m rep AL 4 TABLE f.7 ls ocac.Clbiy nthe on Celebrity, chance. to close .57, of a optda h rprinhaving proportion the as computed was 0.89, .3t .4,wt a with 0.04), to 0.63 Means EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY d p ? . rep SD ihLwClbiy were Celebrity) High/Low stesadr eito fteold the of deviation standard the is 99 n Celebrity, and .999, p 0)o h oe and model the of .05) p rep f.6 a .96, of h m G 2 old m 333 * Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 h eto h aiirt/eoysrnt xs hshl refrboth for true names. held frequent This versus infrequent axis. for and strength strength names, familiarity/memory memory nonfamous new versus great the famous were had on they also when that left weak stimuli were were the old, of rates were types they alarm when those i.e., False effect, latter. former. mirror the by the so more Celebrity by but both both, so by advantage by determined influenced more an were rates held Frequency, hit earlier names before, and the infrequent As better ones. and as were frequent names ones, over accuracy Famous nonfamous criteria. concerning of than range trends retained wider same a over the now experiments, traced curves ROC Discussion criteria. the mark lines Vertical conditions. 4. Figure 334 h hp n oain ftedsrbtossoe,i eea em,a terms, general in showed, distributions the of locations and shape The TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, xeiet3 e dr)adoddsrbtoso h orsmlaeul fitted simultaneously four the of distributions old and (dark) New 3. Experiment * .. oiindfrto far positioned i.e., Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ou eei ntebhvorlrsossadteRCaaye ae on based analyses ROC The the elsewhere. and responses reported behavioural the be them. on will is here data focus potentials) electrophysiological (event-related ERP and of context the recording, in conducted was 4 Experiment by Method data ROC the categories. response of of quality and scale the large full administration improve the the computer of to With use with hoped participants. encouraging we blocks, tested testing, shorter individually individual of into sample divided ROC the new material especially a effects, the in reproducing data, at aimed experiment fourth The tde ae n 6dsrcos h orstudy four The distractors. 36 and names studied 19 of of Age range compensation. a in 1-hour with voucher approximately ticket 24.8, averaged cinema an a participants during received and individually session, tested Hospital. long University was the at participant laboratory a Each in conducted was which experiment, High and new. old the the both of affecting familiarity without the raises distribution distributions hand, the new other celebrity the old whereas high the that on slopes, the fact familiarity, the on strength in to memory effect due specifically of be an level could the This had raises not. did names, while kind famous nonspecific accuracy manipulated with affect Other, in associated often slopes. variations time, affect study that unchanged. as also been with slopes leaving such vary has accuracy slopes variables finding affect which experimental to One that degree 2003). materials the (Heathcote, concerning debate accuracy been has There the of slopes unaffected. h olo 8 ae rvddsiuifrfu lcs ahwt 36 with each blocks, four for stimuli provided names 288 of pool The Procedure the in participated women) (14 University Lund at students Twenty-four Participants knowledge specific the experience, prior of aspect one that found We the on effects their in factors two the between difference a was There z RC.Clbiyafce h lps n rqec i not. did frequency and slopes, the affected Celebrity -ROCs. * n ihi h tnaddeviation standard the it with and XEIET4 EXPERIMENT * n ihi h tnaddeviation standard the it with and EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY Á 42. Á etbok eerun were blocks test * evn h ratio the leaving 335 * Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 F h 336 Celebrity, 23) i ae eeafce yFrequency, by affected were rates Hit Results response a but selection, response for allowed sooner. three was much with usually s display, you?’’) the 7 sure’’. are terminated ‘‘Not of sure and (‘‘How maximum sure’’, ‘‘Relatively prompt A sure’’, new ‘‘Quite display, marked a this buttons, terminated by response button followed response while either was ‘‘Yes’’ s on the marked which click in it, 2 mouse before below A a s for name appeared ‘‘No’’. Then 1 buttons this shown and response seen artefacts). a first two you motor by (‘‘Have and was without name experiment?’’), preceded name the ERPs phase, above a give study appeared (to prompt phase, the disabled test in was s the responding 2 In for cross. displayed fixation was name Each represented be names of types four block. the every of in participant, each equally each that for constraint randomly the made to was status subject of distractor Assignment or study them. to between names pauses subject-terminated with consecutively osrce rmtersossadue opo h O and ROC the plot to used and responses the from constructed iutnosy eutn ntedt nwihFgr sbsd Boot- based. previous is the 6 in as Figure analysed which were conditions experiment. which on four samples, all data 10,000 fitted produced Further, the it strapping analysis. group, in whole standard resulting the the of simultaneously, in scores participant aggregated the each using and condition each for nFgr .Htrtsadfleaamrtswr optd n h ROC the and computed, were rates alarm false analysed. and further rates were data Hit 5. Figure in of F n Celebrity, and 1 23) (1, 1 23) (1, p 2 tnadanalysis Standard tml eepeetdo optrsre ya -rm program. E-prime an by screen computer a on presented were Stimuli -on cl,rnigfo ‘ut uenw’t ‘ut ueod’was old’’ sure ‘‘Quite to new’’ sure ‘‘Quite from ranging scale, 6-point A Analysis avysRcrPu Hre,20)etatdteparameters the extracted 2005) (Harvey, RScorePlus Harvey’s d ? hwdefcso Frequency, of effects showed , : 18.47, 31 TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, ; ihn neato Tbe5). (Table interaction no with 27.51, 5.09, F 1 23) (1, p B F 1 23) (1, p .001, p B .034, h esr facrc o ROCs, for accuracy of measure The . .001, 81.21, h p 2 62.64, h h : p 2 45 p 2 p B : : as lr ae eeafce yFrequency, by affected were rates alarm False 18 p : .001, 55 B : ; sbfr,fmu n nrqetnames infrequent and famous before, As .001, n Celebrity, and F 1 23) (1, h p 2 F h 1 23) (1, p 2 : 78 : ; 46.41, 73 swl sterinteraction, their as well as ; n hi interaction, their and F 32.82, 1 24) (1, p B .001, p B d 10.36, a .001, z , h RCgraphs -ROC h analogue the p 2 d a h p : and 67 p 2 ; .004, F and : SD 59 (1, ; Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 ihfeuny o eert;sas ihfeuny ihcelebrity. triangles: high frequency, celebrity; high high frequency, stars: low celebrity; low diamonds: frequency, celebrity; high low frequency, low circles: Markers: h neato niae agrfeunyefc mn h nonfamous. the among z effect counterparts. frequency larger frequent a and indicated nonfamous interaction their The than remembered better were 5. Figure re ftetrsarne opaehge efrac first. performance higher place to arranged the terms computed, the were of frequency low-high order and celebrity high-low for Contrasts : 19 RC,soe nya feto Celebrity, of effect an only showed -ROCs, tnaddvaino h l itiuin h nes fsoeo the of slope of inverse the distribution, old the of deviation Standard Aggregated ; l other all O uvs(pe af and half) (upper curves ROC -1.5 -0.5 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -2 -1 F f1,0 ottapdsmls 4 aeacpal fits. acceptable gave 94% samples, bootstrapped 10,000 Of . 0 1 2 1 0 0 s B -3 1. 0.1 -2.5 0.2 -2 0.3 -1.5 z tasomdRCcre lwrhl)frEprmn 4. Experiment for half) (lower ROC-curves -transformed 0.4 -1 0.5 -0.5 EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY 0.6 F 0 1 23) (1, 0.7 0.5 0.8 1 5.26, 0.9 F+C+ F+C- F-C+ F-C- F+C+ F+C- F-C+ F-C- 1.5 p 1 .031, h 337 p 2 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 eert,respectively. Celebrity, odtos etcllnsmr h criteria. the mark lines Vertical conditions. 6. Figure 338 rqec fet nteohrhn,wssc htlwfeunyproduced frequency low that high such the was that of hand, such direction higher other was The the effect accuracy). on the higher effect, Frequency of (and lower slopes direction lower the The produced considered effect. celebrity be significant probably a could for .90 limit whereas Celebrity, and quency p rep .8(celebrity). 0.18 Slopes Intercepts .0 en ftecnrsswr .8ad13,frFeunyand Frequency for 1.32, and 0.98 were contrasts the of Means 1.00. lps(n ihracrc) h en were means The accuracy). higher (and slopes TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, h elcblt a nymarginal, only was replicability The . xeiet4 e dr)adoddsrbtoso h orsmlaeul fitted simultaneously four the of distributions old and (dark) New 4. Experiment ohcnrsseiecdhgl erdcbeefcs both effects; reproducible highly evidenced contrasts Both . p rep .7(rqec)and (frequency) 0.17 8 o ohFre- both for .86 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 5.10, fetdhtrtsmr hnfeunydd hshl refrbt analysis both for that true in held celebrity items. This dissociation, and over did. and did, partial frequency subjects celebrity a than over than more found more rates we rates hit affected experiments, alarm false other affected the frequency all in As Discussion rdcoswr cetda infcn,c significant, as accepted were ( predictors sites media the of rqec a on ob infcn predictor, significant a be to found was frequency directory telephone the of search Internet the predictors in potential hits ( the of number and formed variable, dependent the A .100 .501 .50.13 0.60 0.25 0.27 0.12 0.85 0.15 0.61 0.07 0.89 0.11 0.76 d FAR HR rqec 8 7 1 .09 .10 .14 .13 .73 .69 .83 .87 Frequency Celebrity irreffect Mirror old of SD ietos)W nepe hsa niaigta ihfeunyimpairs distributions. frequency level new and high the old that both in raising indicating opposite familiarity (In in as however, by none. effects, this had weak performance the interpret only of frequency We had deviations whereas directions.) both standard analysis, analysis, the aggregated standard on the to impact the As an in different. had were distributions celebrity performance of data, components ROC the the on effects of patterns p freq_hits a B patterns distribution hs lhuhbt atr a ag fet nntacrc ( accuracy net on effects large had factors both although Thus, nasmlraayi,uigfleaamrt stedpnetvariable, dependent the as rate alarm false using analysis, similar a In analysis Item o h oe ato h al,sent oTbe1. Table to note see table, the of part lower the For .001; p B ,ad()telgtasomdnme fht nteItre search Internet the in hits of number log-transformed the (b) and ), 01 n owsc was so and .001, freq_hits ofmu aosNnaosFmu rqec Celebrity Frequency Famous Nonfamous Famous Nonfamous nargeso nlssoe tm,htrt a nee as entered was rate hit items, over analysis regression a In . R R A2FAR1 FAR2 HR2 HR1 .715 .818 .10.05 0.65 0.01 0.34 1.84 2.18 1.38 1.18 1.57 2.50 1.37 1.78 : o rqec ihfrequency High frequency Low celeb_hits b .30, aafo xeiet4 Experiment from Data eleb_hits ) * t (285) eeitoue nasews nlss Both analysis. stepwise a in introduced were AL 5 TABLE Á * : b n motnl,tevariance the importantly, and 6.27, EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY Means eleb_hits .14, p B t .001. freq_hits (285) : b * .50, a h log-trans- the (a) : b 2.43, fetsizes, Effect t (285) .29, p t (285) d .016. a 10.24, ,the ), h G 2 * 339 of Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 340 06 htapr ftemda eprllb,teria otx csas acts cortex, rhinal hippocampus. the the by lobe, orchestrated temporal encoding medial elaborated the the to of gatekeeper part a word a the that 2006) of history recalcitrant breeds proven the that has theories. As phenomenon memory familiarity several habit. common of for the this by encoding shows, of poor effect neglect of life frequency result or the daily are events, failures in run-of-the-mill memory examples many fact, find In although disregard. increased counterintuitive, easily more to can perhaps indepen- is ascribed need we pattern within would other be this memory The evidence. arguably although sharpened dent encoding, can of elaborative knowledge for pattern opportunities The of names. domains to preferred specific than 2002). rather Carr, & Wierenga, (Beilock, the wine- of disturbed routinisation is for when golfers only task experienced but memory putting putts, and specific recognition 2004), for memory superior Heatherbell, enhanced & show show White, experts (Parr, Chalmers odours Wine 1968; words related Garton, for 1997). & (Allen advantage al., study accuracy. memorial of et improve field the major (de student’s and to masters a 1996), from chess seen taken Jongman, in & been where positions raised chess Gobet, studies, has for Groot, hand, earlier memory domain superior resembled other stimulus include data Examples the the our of on respect, latter knowledge celebrity, this name In were accuracy. Increasing word name much-studied effects effect. Increasing the of direction. The frequency reminiscent in pattern strikingly, accuracy. a more accuracy, memory but lowered size, frequency on in only effects not different different completely reliability. had satisfactory the The with ratings, given participants. participant life, by our and daily statistics of mental in environment to names cultural variables related the meant variables homogeneous encountering presumably two the relatively of variables, on probabilities values environmental higher higher memorability that were the such on frequency, experience Both experiential prior of names. types two of of effects the studied We enadvrac fteoddsrbto pcfcly mrvn perfor- improving raises specifically, hand, distribution other old process. the the the on in of alike, Celebrity, mance distributions variance result. new and a and as mean old performance of impairs variance and the raises primarily frequency eety ersinehstre peiec Fradz&Tendolkar, & (Fernandez evidence up turned has neuroscience Recently, general, quite probably are experience prior of effects divergent The variables the frequency, experiential to relation their in similar Although nohrwrs efn u eut ob optbewt atr where pattern a with compatible be to results our find we words, other In TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, * aefeunyadcelebrity and frequency name EEA DISCUSSION GENERAL * eemaue ohb environ- by both measured were Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 as lr ae.Tema elcblt fti effect, this of for replicability larger being mean contrast The frequency rates. the alarm and false rates, hit for larger being contrast ihteecnrs crs n l oreprmnseiecdtecritical the The evidenced individual. experiments (all each four interaction all for significant and a rates scores, effect, these alarm contrast 2 Furthermore, these computed false 7. with and Figure and in high frequency shown the rates of is high outcome contrast test hit versus the over low to formed which and However, contrasts we size, celebrity, further, effect experiments. low fact of four this versus measures of the the significance in across statistical evident was consistency points showed these of first The in profiles different points: two had in summarised experience be prior can This of components. memory types on two impact their the that processing found same the also affect both mechanism. they encoding that facilitates hippocampal suggests the further possibly 2 approval overadditively stage, interact and of detailed to 1 novelty seal rhinal and Experiments and this fame found addition, in novel, we unique that in be fact to If, The with encoding. item pointers. ripe is the hippocampal judges encoding, it by is at cortex established that together be name can bound fact cues a possibly retrieval the potential We of If i.e., gatekeeper? web a knowledge, the decisive. associations, of semantic is scrutiny specific the individuated, that pass proposed can whether familiar, determines have What privilege deeply. although the encoded enjoys object, be it to an common, so gets ever and newsworthy, it the be of famous, is name 2000). a Schacter, If & gatekeeper. Maril, (Wagner, reten- stimuli depressed novel called showed to are been and relation system had in encoding that memory stimuli tion less study, the fMRI underwent recent of deemed beforehand, a is facilities is In primed value event. the event new news all the If the engrave hand, to encoding. cortex, upon other deepened rhinal to the the access on denied by high, is judged it as and high, uninteresting is familiarity If lps u rqec i o.Erirltrtr a icse h some and why accuracy discussed both has increase materials) be literature to Earlier can related two-process not. those rates (especially did of variables alarm frequency favour false but in slopes, and 2000). evidence al., rates et (Reder as hit memory interpreted recognition that of been theories fact has The dissociated .97. than better . . pr rmtedfeec ndrcino h eea eoyefc,we effect, memory general the of direction in difference the from Apart the of ban the escape objects well-known some show, data present the As nteeaiaino Os efudidctosta eert affected celebrity that indications found we ROCs, of examination the In eert eddt aesm feto O lps u rqec did frequency but slopes, ROC on effect not. did. some have celebrity frequency to than and tended more Celebrity did, rates frequency alarm than false more influenced rates hit influenced Celebrity p tleast at s EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY B NVswr computed were ANOVAs 2 0) hwn h celebrity the showing .02), p rep Klen 05,is 2005), (Killeen, 341 Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 vdnl eyiprati euaigecdn eore paddw in down and are up novelty resources versus encoding regulating familiarity in of important phenomena very The Fernandez acting evidently detector. cortex and rhinal familiarity the 2005), a for al., evidence as the et reviewed have (Moscovitch (2006) with Tendolkar memory footing and equal episodic an frequent and on but semantic memory, by declarative to subordinate conditioning) hierarchy, familiarity (i.e. the of case learning discounting. a breeds evidently that for starts, can stimuli conditioning ineffective how before similar demonstrated presentations very have rendered A that role. 1995) predictor, be noncausal Gewirtz, a a & as (Lubow in studies useless it anthropomorphic with being In experience as phenomenon, prior stimulus beforehand. its the it of familiarised if discounts because paired, animal been is the it has which terms, with response stimulus) by conditioned impeded a (the of in be elicitor phenomena conceptual as can related ineffective of are Conditioning form there literature. that long-term blocking learning fact very the animal denying a the not to is This possibly priming. effects. or different memory, exert variables semantic two the the event, that any evidence In the 2003). to (Heathcote, adds reached finding no been and has slopes, changing consensus without definitive accuracy affect others whereas slopes, ROC experiments. four the in rates alarm false and rates 7. Figure 342

eetter a wre aiirt hr lc ntememory the in place third a familiarity awarded has theory recent A to belonging as characterised be tentatively can effect frequency The contrast size contrast size 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0 0 TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, hsrfr otefnigta tmlscnb rendered be can stimulus a that finding the to refers This . en ftecnrsshigh contrasts the of Means HR HR aetinhibition latent x Exp 2 Exp 1 x Exp 4 Exp 3 FAR FAR a eneaie nsm ua learning human some in examined been has , Á o eert n high and celebrity low Cel Fre Fre Cel

contrast size contrast size 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0 Á HR HR o rqec,cmue o hit for computed frequency, low FAR FAR Kamin Fre Cel Fre Cel Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 hles .A,Hmhes .S,&Dni,S 19) auaitcsuyo h word the of study naturalistic A (1997). S. Dennis, & S., M. Humphreys, A., K. Chalmers, hles .A,&Hmhes .S 19) oeo eeaie n psd pcfi eoisin memories specific episode and generalized of Role (1998). S. M. Humphreys, & A., K. Chalmers, ejmn .S,&Bw,S 20) itatrpasblt n rtro lcmn nrecognition. in placement criterion and plausibility Distractor (2004). S. Bawa, & S., A. Benjamin, elc,S . irna .A,&Cr,T .(02.Eprie teto,admmr in memory and attention, Expertise, (2002). H. T. Carr, & A., S. Wierenga, L., S. Beilock, (1932). F. Bartlett, aea,R 20) eomne fetsz ttsisfrrpae esrsdesigns. measures repeated for statistics size effect Recommended (2005). R. Bakeman, rd,J,&Rdr .M 20) odfeunyadrcie prtn hrceitccre in curves characteristic operating receiver and frequency Word (2002). M. L. Reder, & J., Arndt, nesn .R,&Shoe,L .(00.Teaatv aueo eoy nE uvn .Craik F. & Tulving E. In memory. of nature adaptive The (2000). J. L. Schooler, & R., J. Anderson, nesn .R,&Shoe,L .(91.Rflcin fteevrneti memory. in environment the of Reflections (1991). J. L. Schooler, & R., J. Anderson, le,L . atn .F 16) h nuneo odkoldeo h odfeunyeffect word-frequency the on word-knowledge of influence the (1968). F. R. Garton, & R., L. Allen, rates. alarm false effect affecting highly notably This without It distinctive. features, rates memory domain. hit individuating the raises make stimulus to encoding to a on serve links that within providing associations expertise specific by or encoding matter, facilitates subject new of the and knowledge old the is both the rate in alarm variability confuses of false it level distinguish the the distributions. to mechanism, retrieval, raises hard this it is of Further, By that raised. memory. time familiarity sought-after of the the sense from denying At a thereby engendering resources. ordinariness, by prior recogniser encoding signalling the by it to study, encoding of to time access deep the related inhibit At familiarity. to general both to tends episodic related on is are effects type opposed One diametrically They recognition. exert they but semantic. names, of as experience described tentatively trace. a without disappears preserved what becomes and what deciding memory thereby in experience, everyday of course the rqec feti psdcrecognition. episodic in effect frequency h odfeunyefc nrecognition. in Cognition effect and Memory, frequency word the ora fMmr n Language and Memory of Journal esrmtrsileeuin mato oe akcntanso ults efrac and performance dual-task on constraints task novel memory. of episodic Impact execution: skill sensorimotor eerhMethods Research eonto eoy vdnefrada-rcs interpretation. dual-process Cognition a and Memory, for Learning, Psychology: Evidence memory: recognition (Eds.), h itntv yeo eatcmmr,o h te ad resembles hand, other the on memory, semantic of type distinctive The memory, of types two of indications found have we summary, In Science memory. recognition in h xodhnbo fmemory of handbook Oxford The , 2 6,396 (6), Remembering Á , urel ora fEprmna scooy eto A Section Psychology: Experimental of Journal Quarterly 408. 37 3,379 (3), , scooi Science Psychonomic 24 3,610 (3), xod K xodUiest Press. University Oxford UK: Oxford, . Á 384. , REFERENCES Á 51 632. 2,159 (2), xod K xodUiest Press. University Oxford UK: Oxford, . eoyadCognition and Memory , Á ora fEprmna scooy Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal 172. , 10 28 1) 401 (12), rgnlmnsrp eevdDcme 2006 December received manuscript Original 5,830 (5), EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY eie aucitrcie ac 2007 March received manuscript Revised Á Á 402. 842. is ulse nieJl 2007 July online published First , 25 6,780 (6), ora fExperimental of Journal , Á 784. 55 4,1211 (4), Psychological Beha Á 1241. 343 v ior Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 atnz .L,&Mrie,A .(2002). R. A. Martinez, & L., W. Martinez, ocvth . oebu,R . iba . di,D . etaot . rd,C,e al. et C., Grady, R., Westmacott, R., D. Addis, A., Gilboa, S., R. Rosenbaum, M., Moscovitch, adx .T,&Ets .K 19) ietadidrc tmlsfeunyefcsin effects stimulus-frequency indirect and Direct (1997). K. W. Estes, & T., W. Maddox, uo,R . eit,J .(95.Ltn niiini uas aa hoy n implications and theory, Data, humans: in inhibition Latent (1995). C. J. Gewirtz, & E., R. Lubow, ile,P .(05.A lentv onl-yohsssgicnetests. significance null-hypothesis to alternative An (2005). R. P. Killeen, ely .M,&Jcb,L .(98.Sbetv eot n rcs iscain Fluency, dissociation: process and reports Subjective (1998). L. L. Jacoby, & M., C. Kelley, aoy .L,Jns .C,&Dln .O 19) w fet frptto:Spotfradual- a for Support repetition: of effects Two recollection. (1998). conscious O. P. in Dolan, processes & decision C., T. of Jones, L., role L. The Jacoby, (1998). A. Henzler, & E., Hirshman, etct,A 20) tmrcgiinmmr n h eevroeaigcharacteristic. operating receiver the and memory recognition Item (2003). A. Heathcote, lne,M,Km . ifr,A,&Aas .K 19) lp ftereceiver-operating the multiple-distribution, a of fits that Slope program Macintosh/Windows (1999). A RscorePlus: (2005). K. O. L. J. Harvey, Adams, & A., Hilford, K., Kim, M., Glanzer, lne,M,Aas .K,Iesn .J,&Km .(93.Terglrte frecognition of regularities The (1993). K. Kim, & J., G. theory. Iverson, and K., Data J. memory: recognition Adams, in M., effect Glanzer, mirror The (1990). K. J. Adams, & M., Glanzer, lne,M,&Aas .K 18) h irrefc nrcgiinmemory. recognition in effect mirror The (1985). K. J. Adams, & M., Glanzer, enne,G,&Tnokr .(06.Teria otx ‘aeepr’o h elrtv memory declarative the of ‘‘Gatekeeper’’ cortex: rhinal The (2006). I. Tendolkar, & G., Fernandez, se,W . adx .T 20) ntepoessudryn tmlsfmlaiyefcsin effects stimulus-familiarity underlying processes the On (2002). T. W. Maddox, & K., W. Estes, obn,I . rl,N .A 20) itntvns n h eonto irreffect: mirror recognition the and Distinctiveness (2005). A. E. N. Kroll, & G., strength I. list Dobbins, null the and frequency word the on environment the of impact The (1995). S. Dennis, (1996). W. R. Jongman, & F., Gobet, D., A. Groot, De lr,S . rnud .D 19) lblmthn oeso eonto eoy o the How memory: in recognition of statistics models matching language Global of (1996). D. critique S. Gronlund, A & E., fallacy: S. Clark, language-as-fixed-effect The (1973). H. H. Clark, 344 20) ucinlnuontm frmt psdc eatcadsailmmr:Aunified theory. A trace memory: multiple spatial and on semantic based episodic, account remote of neuroanatomy Functional (2005). Hall. Chapman London: 539 recognition. o schizophrenia. for 16 nwn,adfeeling. and knowing, rcs oe fkoldejdmnsadecuinerrors. exclusion and 5 judgments knowledge of model process Science Psychological fEprmna scooy erig eoy n Cognition and Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of aibecieinsga eeto hoymdlt ofiec-aigdt Vr )[Computer 5) (Ver. data confidence-rating to http://psych.colorado.edu/ model program]. theory detection signal variable-criterion Cognition and memory. recognition in characteristic memory. Cognition and Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal Cognition system. n Cognition nonwords.and and words of recognition erig eoy n Cognition and heuristic. Memory, placement Learning, criterion item-based an for Evidence version]. http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/CogPsych/Noetica/Issue1/Environment.html [Electronic memory recognition in effects eye professional the of heuristics the oesmthtedata. the match models research. psychological 4,705 (4), 5,345 (5), Á 559. TNEG ELA,JOHANSSON HELLMAN, STENBERG, rnsi Cogniti in Trends Á scooia Re Psychological , 709. Á 13 354. ora fEprmna scooy erig eoy n Cognition and Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal 1,8 (1), , , 25 28 2,500 (2), 6,1003 (6), Á scooia Bulletin Psychological 20. , caPsychologica Acta 9 ora fVra erigadVra Beha Verbal and Learning Verbal of Journal 1,61 (1), scooi ultnadRe and Bulletin Psychonomic Á v v 513. Sciences e Á iew 1018. , Á 65. 100 , 31 3,546 (3), se,TeNtelns a ocm&Co. & Gorcum Van Netherlands: The Assen, . , 6,1186 (6), ora fEprmna scooy erig Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal 10 ora fEprmna scooy erig Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal lharvey/Software%20Zip%20Files/RscorePlus_Win.zip 8,358 (8), , , ora fAnatomy of Journal 117 98 Á 567. (2 opttoa ttsishnbo ihMatlab with handbook statistics Computational 1,87 (1), Á Á 1198. ) 127 3), Á 362. otc,1 Noetica, Á ecpinadmmr nces tde in Studies chess: in memory and Perception 103. v iew Á 140. , ora fEprmna Psychology: Experimental of Journal 3 1,37 (1), , scooi ultnadRe and Bulletin Psychonomic 207 eree 9Mrh20 from 2007 March 19 Retrieved . , 29 1,35 (1), Á 6,1210 (6), 60. v iour , Á scooia Science Psychological , 16 66. 12 1,5 (1), Á 335 , 1230. Á Á 16. eoyand Memory 359. , Journal 23 v iew (3), . , , Downloaded By: [Stenberg, Georg] At: 09:06 8 February 2008 oeia,A .(02.Tentr frcleto n aiirt:Arve f3 er fresearch. of years 30 of review A familiarity: and recollection of nature The (2002). P. A. Yonelinas, itd .T,&Srth .(04.I ees ftesga eeto nepeaino remember/ of interpretation detection signal the of defense In (2004). V. Stretch, & T., J. Wixted, etaot . ocvth .(03.Tecnrbto fatborpia infiac to significance autobiographical of contribution The (2003). M. When Moscovitch, memory: of & forms R., between Westmacott, Interactions (2000). L. D. Schacter, & A., Maril, D., A. Wagner, tec,V,&Wxe,J .(98.Dcso ue o eonto eoycndnejudgments. confidence memory recognition for rules Decision (1998). T. J. Wixted, & V., Stretch, ndrs,J . own .(98.Pamtc fmauigrcgiinmmr:Applications memory: recognition measuring of Pragmatics (1988). J. Corwin, & G., J. Snodgrass, colr .J,&Sifi,R .(05.Efiinl esrn eonto efrac ihsparse with performance recognition measuring Efficiently (2005). M. R. Shiffrin, & J., L. Schooler, ee,L . huvnsog . cun .D,Aes .S,Agtd,P,&Hrk,K (2000). K. Hiraki, & P., Angstadt, S., M. Ayers, D., C. recognition Schunn, from A., Nhouyvanisvong, data M., L. of Reder, generality Empirical (1994). M. Tindall, & G., McKoon, R., Ratcliff, aaa,S 19) ecpulefcso eebrn:Rcletv rcse npicture in processes Recollective remembering: on effects Perceptual (1996). S. Rajaram, aimkr,J .W,Shinmkr,J .C,&Gemn .(99.Hwt elwt ‘‘the with deal to How (1999). F. Gremmen, & C., M. J. Schrijnemakers, W., G. J. Raaijmakers, ar .V,Wie .G,&Hahrel .A 20) xlrn h aueo ieexpertise: wine of nature the Exploring (2004). A. D. Heatherbell, & G., K. White, V., W. Parr, ora fMmr n Language and Memory of Journal nwjudgments. know eatcmemory. semantic learning. episodic new hinders priming ora fEprmna scooy erig eoy n Cognition and Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal odmni n amnesia. and dementia to data. ehnsi con ftemro fetfrwr rqec:Acmuainlmdlof model computational A paradigm. Cognition frequency: recognition and word Memory, continuous for Learning, a Psychology: effect in mirror judgments the remember-know of account mechanistic A memory global the for implications and models. functions characteristic receiver-operating memory 22 eonto memory. recognition eoyadLanguage and solutions. Memory alternative and misconceptions Common fallacy’’: language-as-fixed-effect htudriswn xet’ofcoyrcgiinmmr advantage? memory recognition olfactory experts’ Preference wine underlies What 2,365 (2), Beha ora fEprmna scooy erig eoy n Cognition and Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal Á , v 377. 15 o eerhMethods Research ior 5,411 (5), scooi ultnadRe and Bulletin Psychonomic eoyadCognition and Memory Á ora fEprmna scooy erig eoy n Cognition and Memory, Learning, Psychology: Experimental of Journal 421. , 41 3,416 (3), ora fEprmna scooy General Psychology: Experimental of Journal , , Á 37 46 426. 1,3 (1), 3,441 (3), ora fCogniti of Journal , Á 31 10. Á 5,761 (5), 517. , v 26 iew 2,294 (2), , EOAIIYO NAMES OF MEMORABILITY 11 Á 774. 4,616 (4), Á v 320. Neuroscience e Á 641. ora fExperimental of Journal , , 24 117 , 6,1397 (6), 12 odQaiyand Quality Food 1,34 (1), 6,52 (6), , 20 4,763 (4), Á Á Á 50. ora of Journal 1410. 61. Á 345 785. ,