Recall versus recognition: a methodological note.

J F Hall

doi:10.1037//0278-7393.9.2.346

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6222150

Recall versus recognition: a methodological note.

J F Hall

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Some current investigators have made direct comparisons of recognition performance with cued recall. In other instances, indirect comparisons of recognition and recall have been made by observing the difference in recognition performance with different types of target material, for example, high- and low-frequency words; this difference has been then compared with the difference obtained when recall is used to measure retention of the same type of target materials. Finally, some experimenters have examined how recognition performance is related to the type of target material that is used, for example, words, pictures, and so on. The results obtained from all of these studies have been used to make inferences about the nature of the memorial process. We have attempted to call attention to the generally accepted but neglected finding that performance on any recognition test can be manipulated by changing the characteristics of the distractors, thus casting doubt on the generality of the experimental findings as well as their theoretical implications.

Explore related subjects

Form Perception Humans Memory Mental Recall Paired-Associate Learning Pattern Recognition, Visual Speech Perception Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J F Hall. 1983. Recall versus recognition: a methodological note.. https://doi.org/10.1037/%2F0278-7393.9.2.346

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Self-motion and the perception of stationary objects.

One of the ways that we perceive shape is through seeing motion. Visual motion may be actively generated (for example, in locomotion), or passively observed. In the study of the perception of three-dimensional structure from motion, the non-moving, passive observer in an environment of moving rigid objects has been used as a substitute for an active observer moving in an environment of stationary objects; this 'rigidity hypothesis' has played a central role in computational and experimental studies of structure from motion. Here we show that this is not an adequate substitution because active and passive observers can perceive three-dimensional structure differently, despite experiencing the same visual stimulus: active observers' perception of three-dimensional structure depends on extraretinal information about their own movements. The visual system thus treats objects that are stationary (in an allocentric, earth-fixed reference frame) differently from objects that are merely rigid. These results show that action makes an important contribution to depth perception, and argue for a revision of the rigidity hypothesis to incorporate the special case of stationary objects.

Form Perception↗

PubMed2001

Role of motion integration in contour perception.

Contours are believed to play a key role in the visual analysis of scenes by the primate brain. In dynamic scenes, the presence of contours is often signaled by discontinuities in motion fields. However, it is unclear whether the motion fields over which the visual system extracts discontinuities, correspond to the local optic-flow or the pattern motion fields obtained by integrating local estimates. A resolution of this issue would provide important clues about the organization of visual motion and form analysis processes. In this paper, we present experimental evidence which suggests that the perception of motion defined contours is strongly dependent on motion integration - an operation that is believed to take place relatively late in the visual stream.

Form Perception↗

PubMed2001

Texture space.

Many previous studies have examined the ease with which two spatially adjacent textures can be segmented. Our goal is to examine the representational system that determines the appearance of isolated patches of visual texture. To this end, similarity judgments from three subjects were obtained for 20 artificial textures comprising filtered noise. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) revealed that three perceptual dimensions explain most of the variance in subjects' similarity judgments. In addition, the three subjects' similarity judgments and MDS solutions were highly correlated. A computational model utilizing the energy responses in seven bandpass filters explains an average of 80% of the variability in the original similarity scores of individual subjects. In the model, energy responses are mapped to the perceptual space through a linear transformation that can be decomposed into two components. The first component decorrelates initial filter responses and the second component maps the decorrelated filter responses to a perceptual space. These latter transformations show remarkable agreement between the three subjects.

Form Perception↗