Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R M Shiffrin

Publications and source records attributed to R M Shiffrin.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Cuing effects and associative information in recognition memory.

Item recognition requires discrimination of studied words from nonstudied words. Associative recognition requires subjects to discriminate studied word groups from recombinations of words from different groups. Cued recognition requires the same old-new discrimination as item recognition, but list items are presented as cues along with the test item. The results from three experiments show (1) little or no effect of cuing for low-frequency words, but (2) positive cuing effects for high-frequency words; (3) increasing levels of overall performance with increases in study time, but (4) unchanging effects of cuing with study time; and (5) stronger positive cuing effects for two cues than for one cue. Five models (Independent Cue Model, Matrix model, MINERVA 2, SAM, and TODAM) were fit to the data of Experiment 1. Each model has trouble with at least one aspect of the results. Theoretical implications and modifications are discussed at length.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Automatization and training in visual search.

In several search tasks, the amount of practice on particular combinations of targets and distractors was equated in varied-mapping (VM) and consistent-mapping (CM) conditions. The results indicate the importance of distinguishing between memory and visual search tasks, and implicate a number of factors that play important roles in visual search and its learning. Visual search was studied in Experiment 1. VM and CM performance were almost equal, and slope reductions occurred during practice for both, suggesting the learning of efficient attentive search based on features, and no important role for automatic attention attraction. However, positive transfer effects occurred when previous CM targets were re-paired with previous CM distractors, even though these targets and distractors had not been trained together. Also, the introduction of a demanding simultaneous task produced advantages of CM over VM. These latter two results demonstrated the operation of automatic attention attraction. Visual search was further studied in Experiment 2, using novel characters for which feature overlap and similarity were controlled. The design and many of the findings paralleled Experiment 1. In addition, enormous search improvement was seen over 35 sessions of training, suggesting the operation of perceptual unitization for the novel characters. Experiment 3 showed a large, persistent advantage for CM over VM performance in memory search, even when practice on particular combinations of targets and distractors was equated in the two training conditions. A multifactor theory of automatization and attention is put forth to account for these findings and others in the literature.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Interference and the representation of events in memory.

Most current models of memory predict that the presence of increasingly well-learned, or strong, items in memory will cause increasing interference. This phenomenon, the list-strength effect, occurs as predicted when memory is tested by free recall but not when a recognition test is used. Four experiments use end-of-session testing to demonstrate that redistribution of storage time or effort from strong to weak items on mixed lists does not occur and therefore cannot be masking interference by strong items. Delay between study and test is found to cause memory loss independent of the basic list-strength findings. It is concluded that the presence of strong items in memory does not interfere with recognition performance and that interference is due to failures of retrieval rather than to composition or other forms of destructive interaction during storage.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1991

Word repetitions in sentence recognition.

When some items on a list are strengthened by extra study time or repetitions, recognition of other, unrelated, list items is not harmed (Ratcliff, Clark, & Shiffrin, 1990). Shiffrin, Ratcliff, and Clark (1990) accounted for this list-strength finding with a model assuming that different items are stored separately in memory, but that repetitions are accumulated together into a single stronger memory trace. Repeating words in the context of different sentences might cause separate storage of the repetitions of a given word, because either word or sentence traces are stored separately. Separate storage would, in effect, convert a list-strength manipulation into a list-length manipulation and thereby induce a positive list-strength effect. In Experiment 1, this result was produced for single-word recognition and for two types of sentence recognition. In Experiment 2, both words and sentences were repeated together, which should have caused repetitions to be stored in a single, stronger, trace. As expected, the list-strength effect was eliminated. A sentence trace model was fit to the data, supporting the account of Shiffrin et al. (1990) and supporting an account of word and sentence recognition in which activation is summed for representations of all list items. The results from the two studies are inconsistent with most current models of memory (as shown by the theoretical analyses of Shiffrin et al., 1990) and pose an additional challenge for theory.

Cognition↗
PubMed1990

List-strength effect: II. Theoretical mechanisms.

Ratcliff, Clark, and Shiffrin (1990) examined the list-strength effect: the effect of strengthening (or weakening) some list items upon memory for other list items. The list-strength effect was missing or negative in recognition, missing or positive in cued recall, and large and positive in free recall. We show that a large number of current models fail to predict these findings. A variant of the SAM model of Gillund and Shiffrin (1984), involving a differentiation hypothesis, can handle the data. A variant of MINERVA 2 (Hintzman, 1986, 1988) comes close but has some problems. Successful variants of a variety of composite and network models were not found (e.g., Ackley, Hinton, & Sejnowski, 1985; Anderson, 1972, 1973; Metcalfe Eich, 1982; Murdock, 1982; Pike, 1984). The results suggest constraints on the future development of such models.

Cues↗
PubMed1990

List-strength effect: I. Data and discussion.

Extra items added to a list cause memory for the other items to decrease (the list-length effect). In one of the present studies we show that strengthening (or weakening) some items on a list harms (helps) free recall of the remaining list items. This is termed the list-strength effect. However, in seven recognition studies the list-strength effect was either absent or negative. This held whether strengthening was accomplished by extra study time or extra repetitions. The seven studies used various means to control rehearsal strategies, thereby providing evidence against the possibility that the findings were due to redistribution of rehearsal or effort from stronger to weaker items within a list. Current models appear unable to predict these results. We suggest that different retrieval operations underlie recall and recognition, as in the SAM model of Gillund and Shiffrin (1984), which can be made to fit the results with certain relatively minor modifications.

Cues↗
PubMed1988

A model of automatic attention attraction when mapping is partially consistent.

A model is described to account for the data of Durso, Cooke, Breen, and Schvaneveldt (1987). On the basis of the relative frequency of an item's presentation as a target, the item develops an automatic tendency to attract attention. When stimuli are then displayed, each calls the attention system to a degree determined by its present strength. We assume that attention eventually drifts to the strongest stimulus (which is then given as a response), but in a time determined inversely by the difference in strength between the two strongest stimuli. A version of this model in which the strengths were freely estimated parameters predicted the various elements of the data with good accuracy. In other versions of the model, strength values were derived from assumptions concerning the learning of automatism. Two of these models, quite different in character, captured the major qualitative features of the data. Further empirical tests of the models are suggested.

Attention↗
PubMed1986

Retrieval strategies in recall of natural categories and categorized lists.

Experiments 1 and 2 examined the effect of retrieval strategies on 3 or 12 min of recall from a natural category. Experiment 3 examined the effect of strategy on 6 min of recall from a subset of a category presented as a list. In Experiments 1 and 2, a large recall deficit was produced by retrieval strategies involving recall in alphabetic order and by size of the words' referents, relative to free recall. In Experiment 3, four strategies, alphabetic, size, serial order, and free recall, gave similar levels of recall after 6 min, though the growth rate of the cumulative output functions differed among the strategies. An extension of the search of associative memory (SAM) model of Raaijmakers and Shiffrin was developed to explain these results; the new model postulates attention sharing among probe cues and the use of idiosyncratic strategies for free recall from natural categories.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1985

Building permanent memory codes: codification and repetition effects in word identification.

The studies presented in this article investigate the memory processes that underlie two phenomena in threshold identification: word superiority over pseudowords and the repetition effect (a prior presentation of an item facilitates later identification of that item). Codification (i.e., the development of a single memory code that can be triggered even by fragmented input information) explains the faster and more accurate identification of words than pseudowords. Our studies trace the development and retention of such codes for repeated pseudowords and examine the growth and loss of the repetition effect for both pseudowords and words. After approximately five prior occurrences, words and pseudowords are identified equally accurately in two types of threshold identification tasks, suggesting codification has been completed for pseudowords. Although the initial word advantage disappears, the accuracy of identification still increases with repetitions. The facilitation caused by repetition is not affected much by spacing within a session, but drops from one day to the next, and after a delay of one year has disappeared (new and old words were identified equally well). These results suggest an episodic basis for the repetition effect. Most important, after one year, performance is equal for old pseudowords and new and old words: all these levels are superior to that for new pseudowords, suggesting that the learned codes for pseudowords are as strong and permanent as the codes for words. A model of identification is presented in which feedback from codes and episodic images in memory facilitates letter processing. An instantiation of the model accounts for the major features of the data.

Attention↗
PubMed1985

Memory codes and episodes in models of word identification: a reply to Johnston, van Santen, and Hale.

We suggest that the activation model of identification benefits for repeated words and pseudowords proposed by Johnston, van Santen, and Hale (1985) is a variant of our own code/episode model (Salasoo, Shiffrin, & Feustel, 1985), used to explain the temporary and long-lasting effects of repetitions. In particular, Johnston et al.'s X and Y factors may reflect the operation of episodic memory traces and codification, respectively. Computational processing models, we believe, are useful because their precision helps clarify otherwise fuzzy theoretical distinctions.

Humans↗
PubMed1976

Attending to forty-nine spatial positions at once.

Simultaneous attention to 49 spatial positions resulted in the processing of threshold information from one of those positions essentially identical to the processing when the subject knew in advance that that position would be tested. This result held true when the task consisted of detection of the presence of a briefly presented dot. The same result held true for 9 spatial positions when the task consisted of report of the briefly presented letter in the target position.

Attention↗