Modeling list-strength and spacing effects using version 3 of the retrieving effectively from memory (REM.3) model and i
- PDF / 1,735,794 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 70 Downloads / 185 Views
Modeling list-strength and spacing effects using version 3 of the retrieving effectively from memory (REM.3) model and its superimposition-of-similar-images assumption Tyler M. Ensor 1,2
&
Aimée M. Surprenant 2 & Ian Neath 2
# The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019
Abstract Shiffrin and Steyvers (1997) introduced a model of recognition memory called retrieving effectively from memory (REM) and successfully applied it to a number of basic memory phenomena. REM incorporates differentiation, wherein item repetitions are accumulated in a single mnemonic trace rather than separate traces. This allows REM to account for several benchmark findings, including the null list-strength effect in recognition (Ratcliff, Clark, & Shiffrin, 1990). The original REM treated massed and spaced repetitions identically, which prevents it from predicting a mnemonic advantage for spaced over massed repetitions (i.e., the spacing effect). However, Shiffrin and Steyvers discussed the possibility that repetitions might be represented in a single trace only if the subject identifies that the repeated item was previously studied. It is quite plausible that subjects would notice repetitions more for massed than for spaced items. Here we show that incorporating this idea allows REM to predict three important findings in the recognition memory literature: (1) the spacing effect, (2) the finding of slightly positive list-strength effects with spaced repetitions, as opposed to massed repetitions or increased study time, and (3) liststrength effects that have been observed using very large strong-to-weak ratios (see Norman, 2002). Keywords Retrieving effectively from memory . Differentiation . Recognition . Item strengthening . Memory models
Retrieving effectively from memory (REM; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997) is a well-known model of human memory that has successfully accounted for a number of memory phenomena, including the word-frequency effect (Malmberg & Murnane, 2002), the strength-based mirror effect (Criss, 2006), output interference (Criss, Malmberg, & Shiffrin, 2011), the list-strength effect (Malmberg & Shiffrin, 2005), intentional forgetting (Lehman & Malmberg, 2011), retrieval-induced forgetting (Verde, 2013), the letter frequency effect (Malmberg, Steyvers, Stephens, & Shiffrin, 2002), source recognition (Osth, Fox, McKague, Heathcote, & Dennis, 2018), effects of midazolam (Malmberg, Zeelenberg, & Shiffrin, 2004), and some implicit-memory tasks (Schooler, Shiffrin, & Raaijmakers, 2001). In Shiffrin and Steyvers’s initial REM article, they presented several
versions of REM, but the one called REM.1 is most often used when modeling recognition. As we review below, however, REM.1 has a simplifying assumption that renders it unable to explain some memory phenomena. Specifically, in REM.1 item repetitions are always accumulated in a single mnemonic trace, even when other study items intervene between presentations. In the present article, we give a brief overview of REM’s historical underpinnings, and then explore a version that Shiffrin an
Data Loading...
