Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

G O Einstein

Publications and source records attributed to G O Einstein.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

The bizarreness effect: it's not surprising, it's complex.

Higher recall of bizarre images relative to common images (the bizarreness effect) is consistently found when bizarreness is varied as a within-subject (mixed-list) variable. In Experiment 1, mixed lists, rather than the smaller number of bizarre sentences typically used in such lists, determined the occurrence of the bizarreness effect. Contrary to predictions from expectation-violation theory, Experiments 2 and 3 showed that manipulations designed to augment or attenuate surprise reactions to bizarre sentences had little impact on the bizarreness effect. Experiments 4 and 5 indicated that mixing affected the degree to which participants differentially encoded order information for bizarre and common items. A new account of the bizarreness effect is presented that combines considerations of distinctiveness with the differential use of order information across bizarre and common items.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Aging and prospective memory: examining the influences of self-initiated retrieval processes.

Past research has frequently failed to find age differences in prospective memory. This article tested the possibility that age differences would be more likely to emerge on a prospective memory task that was high in self-initiated retrieval. In the 1st experiment, participants were asked to perform an action every 10 min (a time-based task presumed to be high in self-initiated retrieval); in the 2nd experiment, participants were asked to perform an action whenever a particular word was presented (an event-based task presumed to be relatively low in self-initiated retrieval). Age differences were found with the time-based task but not with the event-based task. This pattern of age differences was again found in a 3rd experiment in which a new experimental procedure was used and the nature of the prospective memory task was directly varied. Generally, the results suggest that self-initiated retrieval processes are an important component of age-related differences across both retrospective and prospective memory tasks.

Age Factors↗
PubMed1994

What makes folk tales unique: content familiarity, causal structure, scripts, or superstructures?

Requiring readers to re-order randomly ordered sentences into a coherent text significantly enhances recall relative to that in a read-only control condition for non-folk-tale texts but not for folk tales (Einstein, McDaniel, Owen, & Coté, 1990). Experiments 1-3 showed that embedding components of folk tales (e.g., causal structure, conventional scripts, content related to background knowledge) in non-folk-tale texts did not render sentence unscrambling ineffective for increasing recall. In Experiments 4a-4c, a folk tale was presented either as a fairy tale or as part of a newspaper article. Significant sentence unscrambling effects (in free recall) were not obtained in either presentation format, which implies that a story superstructure (a story grammar) does not contribute to the absence of the sentence unscrambling effect. It is suggested that understanding why the sentence unscrambling effect is absent for folk tales may require considering the functional role that narrative plays in socioculturally situated cognition.

Cognition↗
PubMed1993

The importance of cue familiarity and cue distinctiveness in prospective memory.

Both retrospective cued-memory tasks and event-based prospective memory tasks require that cue and target information be associated, and that aspects of that association be reinstated for successful remembering. These functional similarities between retrospective memory and prospective memory were the bases for the hypothesis that the familiarity and the distinctiveness of the target event (cue) would influence prospective memory performance. Experiment 1, focusing on target familiarity, found a nominal advantage in prospective memory with unfamiliar target events. Experiment 2 showed a significant benefit for unfamiliar target events, as well as for target events that were distinctive relative to the local context. Additionally, prospective memory performance did not reliably correlate with explicit retrospective memory tasks (recall and recognition), but did correlate with an indirect retrospective memory task (word fragment completion). This pattern suggests and helps specify the general view that prospective memory processes may be similar to those involved in both direct and indirect tests of retrospective memory.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1992

Age-related deficits in prospective memory: the influence of task complexity.

Younger and older subjects were asked to perform an action whenever target words occurred during a short-term memory task. The difficulty of this prospective memory task was manipulated by varying the delay preceding the occurrence of a target event and by varying the number of different target events. Age-related performance differences emerged when there were several different target events but not when there was one target event presented several times. Age-related performance differences, when they occurred, were associated with poorer retrospective memory for the target events. The results were interpreted in terms of a componential analysis of prospective memory, which assumes both similarities and differences between prospective and retrospective memory.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Normal aging and prospective memory.

We develop a laboratory paradigm for studying prospective memory and examine whether or not this type of memory is especially difficult for the elderly. In two experiments, young and old subjects were given a prospective memory test (they were asked to perform an action when a target event occurred) and three tests of retrospective memory (short-term memory, free recall, and recognition). From the perspective that aging disrupts mainly self-initiated retrieval processes, large age-related decrements in prospective memory were anticipated. However, despite showing reliable age differences on retrospective memory tests, both experiments showed no age deficits in prospective memory. Moreover, regression analyses produced no reliable relation between the prospective and retrospective memory tasks. Also, the experiments showed that external aids and unfamiliar target events benefit prospective memory performance. These results suggest some basic differences between prospective and retrospective memory.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Bizarre imagery, interference, and distinctiveness.

Previous studies have shown that bizarre and common images produce equivalent levels of recall in unmixed-list designs. Using unmixed lists, we tested the view that bizarre images would be less susceptible than common images to common sources of interference. In all experiments, subjects imaged a list of either bizarre or common sentences and then performed some kind of interfering task before recalling the initial list of sentences. Experiment 1 showed that bizarre images were better accessed than common images after imaging an intervening list of common sentences. Also, components of common images tended to be better recalled than those of bizarre images after imaging an intervening list of bizarre sentences. Experiments 2a and 2b showed that interfering tasks consisting of studying lists of common concrete nouns did not differentially affect memory for bizarre and common images. In Experiment 3, labeling and imaging an interfering list of common pictures produced higher recall of bizarre images. Generally, bizarre images appeared to be less susceptible than common images to interference from certain types of common encodings. Importantly, the superior recall of bizarre images was always due to greater image (sentence) access, whereas higher recall of common images was associated with greater recovery of the image (sentence) constituents. Explanation of the precise pattern of results requires consideration of the distinctive properties of bizarre images.

Attention↗