Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:55:25.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Familiarity Changes as a Function of Perceptual Shifts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Salvador Algarabel  and
Alfonso Pitarque
Salvador Algarabel*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Alfonso Pitarque
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Salvador Algarabel. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad de Valencia. Blasco Ibanyez, 21. 46010 Valencia. (Spain). E-mail: Salvador.Algarabel@uv.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This experiment compares the yes-no and forced recognition tests as methods of measuring familiarity. Participants faced a phase of 3 study-test recognition trials in which they studied words using all the letters of the alphabet (overlapping condition, O), and an additional phase in which targets and lures did not share any letters (non-overlapping condition, NO). Finally, subjects performed a forced-choice task in which they had to choose one of two new words, each from one of the subsets (Parkin et al., 2001). Results in the NO condition were better than in the O condition in the yes-no recognition test, while the forced-choice rate was significantly higher than .50, showing their sensitivity to familiarity. When the letter set of the words for study in the third list of the NO condition was switched, the difference between NO and O conditions disappeared in yes-no test, while the force-choice rate was not higher than .50. We conclude that both the yes-no test and the forced-choice test are valid and equivalent measures of familiarity under the right conditions.

Este experimento compara tareas de reconocimiento convencionales (sí-no) y de elección forzosa como métodos de medición de la familiaridad. Los participantes realizaron tres tareas de estudio y reconocimiento convencional en las que estudiaron y reconocieron palabras compuestas por todas las letras del alfabeto (condición de solapamiento, O) y otras tantas tareas similares en las que las palabras a estudiar y reconocer, y las palabras de relleno no compartían ninguna letra (condición de no solapamiento, NO). Tras este último bloque de tareas los sujetos realizaban una tarea de elección forzosa en la que tenían que elegir entre dos palabras nuevas, cada una formada por un subconjunto de letras distintas (Parkin et al., 2001). Los resultados en la condición NO fueron mejores que en la condición O en las tareas de reconocimiento sí-no, mientras que la tasa de elecciones forzosas a favor de las palabras formadas por el subconjunto de letras estudiadas fue significativamente superior a 0.50, lo que muestra la sensibilidad de la tarea para medir familiaridad. Cuando en la tercera tarea de no solapamiento cambiamos sorpresivamente el conjunto de letras que formaban las palabras a estudiar y reconocer la diferencia entre las condiciones NO y O desapareció en la tarea de reconocimiento sí-no, mientras que la tasa de elección forzosa dejó de ser superior a 0.50. Se concluye que tanto las tareas de reconocimiento convencional como de elección forzosa dan medidas equivalentes de estimación de la familiaridad bajo las condiciones adecuadas.

Keywords

memoryrecollectionfamiliaritymemoriareconocimientofamiliaridad
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , November 2010 , pp. 518 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alameda, J. R., & Cuetos, F. (1995). Diccionario de frecuencias de las unidades linguísticas del castellano. [Frequency Dictionary of Castellan Linguistic units]. Oviedo, Spain: Universidad de Oviedo.Google Scholar
Algarabel, S., Pitarque, A., Tomás, J. M., & Mazón, J. F. (2010). Explorations on familiarity produced by words having specific combinations of letters. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algarabel, S., Escudero, J., Mazón, J. F., Pitarque, A., Peset, V., & Lacruz, L. (2009) Familiarity based recognition in young, healthy aged people, mild cognitive impaired and Alzheimer's disease patients. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2056–2064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algarabel, S., Rodríguez, L. A., Escudero, J., Fuentes, M., Peset, V., Pitarque, A. et al. , (in press). Recognition by familiarity in Parkinson's and Lewy-Body disease. Neuropsychology.Google Scholar
Aggleton, J. P., & Shaw, C. (1996). Amnesia and recognition memory: A re-analysis of psychometric data. Neuropsychologia, 34, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arndt, J., & Reder, L. M. (2003). The effect of distinctive visual information on false recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastin, C., & Van der Linden, M. (2003). The contribution of recollection and familiarity to recognition memory: A study of the effects of test format and aging. Neuropsychology, 17, 14–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleary, A. M., & Greene, R. L. (2005). Recognition without perceptual identification: A measure of familiarity? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1143–1152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohn, M., & Moscovitch, M. (2007). Dissociating measures of associative memory: Evidence and theoretical implications. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. I., Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (2005). Revisiting the role of recollection in item versus forced-choice recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 720–725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeCarlo, L. T. (2007). The mirror effect and mixture signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 18–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Diana, R. A., Peterson, M. J., & Reder, L. M. (2004). The role of spurious feature familiarity in recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 150–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobbins, I. G., & Kroll, N. E. A. (2005). Distinctiveness and the recognition mirror effect: Evidence for an item-based criterion placement heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1186–1198.Google ScholarPubMed
Joordens, S., & Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1534–1555.Google Scholar
Khoe, W., Kroll, N. E. A., Yonelinas, A. P., Dobbins, I. G., & Knight, R. T. (2000). The contribution of recollection and familiarity to yes-no and forced-choice recognition tests in healthy subjects and amnesics. Neuropsychologia, 38, 1333–1341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nairne, J. S. (2002. The myth of the encoding-retrieval match. Memory, 10, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paller, K. A., Voss, J. L., & Boehm, S. G. (2007). Validating neural correlates of familiarity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkin, A. J., Ward, J., Squires, E. J., Furbear, H., Clark, A., & Townshend, J. (2001). Data-driven recognition memory: A new technique and some data on age differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 812–819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reder, L. M., Donavos, D. K., & Erickson, M. A. (2002). Perceptual match effects in direct tests of memory: The role of contextual fan. Memory & Cognition, 30, 312–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reder, L. M., Paynter, C., Diana, R. A., Ngiam, J., & Dickison, D. (in press). Experience is a double-edged sword: A computational model of the encoding/retrieval tradeoff with familiarity. In Ross, B., & Benjamin, A. S. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1379–1396.Google ScholarPubMed
Westerberg, C. E., Paller, K. E., Holdstock, J. S., Mayes, A. R., & Reber, P. J. (2006). When memory does not fail: Familiarity-based recognition in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychology, 20, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar