Psychological Development and Education ›› 2015, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (4): 385-392.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2015.04.01

    Next Articles

Familiarity-based Recognition of Inter-item Semantic Relations

ZHAO Guangping1,2, ZHOU Chu1, GUO Xiuyan3   

  1. 1. Department of psychology, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China;
    2. Department of psychology, Minnan Normal University, Zhangzhou 363000, China;
    3. School of Psychology and Cognition Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
  • Online:2015-07-15 Published:2015-07-15

PDF (PC)

Abstract: Among cues that fail to elicit successful recall, participants can still discriminate based on familiarity between cues that do and do not resemble studied inter-item semantic relations. In the laboratory, this ability is referred to as recognition without cued recall (RWCR). One theoretical question is whether inter-item relational RWCR is driven by relational concept or by abstract structure processing. We hypothesized that the RWCR could be supported by abstract structure information between items.
240 word pairs and relational concepts were used in RWCR paradigm, in which participants studied some items and were shown new items at test, half of which related to studied items and half of which did not. For each test item, participants first attempted to recall a related item from the study list. Then, regardless of whether successful recall occurred, participants were prompted to rate the familiarity of the test pair, which was said to indicate the likelihood that an item was similar to the test item studied. To examine how abstract structure vs. relational concept affected RWCR effect, Experiment 1 controlled test condition and used 2 study status (within-subjects: studied vs. unstudied)×2 test condition (between-subjects: word-pair vs. relation-concept), in which participants studied word pairs (e.g., lion-gazelle) and were shown two types of test cues (e.g., snake-mouse vs. prey on). Experiment 2 controlled study condition in which participants studied two types of materials (e.g., prey on vs. A prey on B) and were shown word pairs (e.g., snake-mouse).
The results showed that participants demonstrated an ability to recognize inter-item semantic relations without cued recall through familiarity. RWCR effect was found only when relational concepts act as test cues rather than study materials. However, the processing of structured materials of relational concepts in study can cause RWCR effect.
To conclude, the results support that RWCR effect of inter-item semantic relations depends on abstract structure processing at encoding.

Key words: inter-item semantic relations, familiarity, RWCR

CLC Number: 

  • B844
Aly, M., Ranganath, C., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2013). Neural correlates of state-and strength-based perceptions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, in press.
Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. (2000). How analogies are generated: The roles of structural and superficial similarity. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 108-124.
Blumenfeld, R. S., Parks, C. M., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ranganath, C. (2011). Putting the pieces together: the role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in relational memory encoding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(1), 257-265.
Brown, M. W., & Aggleton, J. P. (2001). Recognition memory: what are the roles of the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(1), 51-61.
Cleary, A. M. (2004). Orthography, phonology, and meaning: Word features that give rise to feelings of familiarity in recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(03), 446-451.
Cleary, A. M. (2008). Recognition memory, familiarity, and déjà vu experiences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 353-357.
Cleary, A. M., Brown, A. S., Sawyer, B. D., Nomi, J. S., Ajoku, A. C., & Ryals, A. J. (2012). Familiarity from the configuration of objects in 3-dimensional space and its relation to déjà vu: A virtual reality investigation. Consciousness and cognition, 21(2), 969-975.
Cleary, A. M., & Greene, R. L. (2000). Recognition without identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(4), 1063.
Cleary, A. M., & Specker, L. E. (2007). Recognition without face identification. Memory & cognition, 35(7), 1610-1619.
Cleary, A. M., & Reyes, N. L. (2009). Scene recognition without identification. Acta psychologica, 131(1), 53-62.
Cleary, A. M., Ryals, A. J., & Nomi, J. S. (2009). Can déjà vu result from similarity to a prior experience? Support for the similarity hypothesis of déjà vu. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(6), 1082-1088.
Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2009). Analogical transfer from interaction with a simulated physical system. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1406-1411.
Diana, R. A., Reder, L. M., Arndt, J., & Park, H. (2006). Models of recognition: A review of arguments in favor of a dual-process account. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 1-21.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155-170.
Gentner, D. Ratterman, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524-575.
Gentner, D., & Smith, L. (2012). Analogical reasoning. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (2nd Ed.). pp. 130-136. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
Green, A. E., Fugelsang, J. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2006). Automatic activation of categorical and abstract analogical relations in analogical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 34 (7), 1414-1421.
Kostic, B., Cleary, A. M., Severin, K., & Miller, S. W. (2010). Detecting analogical resemblance without retrieving the source analogy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 405-411.
Liang, J. Q., & Guo, C. Y. (2012). Dissociating the neural correlates of item retrieval and relational retrieval in. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(005), 625-633.
Mealor, A. D., & Dienes, Z. (2013). The speed of metacognition: Taking time to get to know one's structural knowledge. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(1), 123-136.
Ryals, A. J., & Cleary, A. M. (2012). The recognition without cued recall phenomenon: Support for a feature-matching theory over a partial recollection account. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 747-762.
Spellman, B. A., Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2001). Analogical priming via semantic relations. Memory & Cognition, 29(3), 383-393.
Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there?. American Psychologist, 40(4), 385.
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441-517.
Yonelinas, A. P., Aly, M., Wang, W. C., & Koen, J. D. (2010). Recollection and familiarity: Examining controversial assumptions and new directions. Hippocampus, 20(11), 1178-1194.
梁九清, 郭春彦. (2012). 跨领域项目间联结记忆中项目提取和关系提取的分离: 一项事件相关电位研究. 心理学报, 44(005), 625-633.
[1] YUAN Juanjuan, YANG Yang, ZHENG Zhiwei, LIU Pingping. Picture-text Horizontal Layout Enhances Recognition of Unfamiliar Words: Evidence from 8-year-old Children and Adults [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2021, 37(4): 525-538.
[2] YU Yurong, ZHANG Wanlu, XING Qiang. The Influence of the Fluency of Heterogeneous Context on Recognition in the Phase of Coding and Retrieval [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(2): 138-145.
[3] ANG Chen, LV Huan, ZHOU Yacong, LI Bowen, WANG Ruiming. The Familiarity Influence on the Activation of Non-Target Language in Language Comprehension of Unskilled Chinese-English Bilinguals [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2016, 32(1): 26-32.
[4] CHE Xiaowei, ZHANG Qian, LI Shouxin. The Influence of The Familiarity of Distractions and Cognitive Styles in Text Reading [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2015, 31(2): 198-203.
[5] XING Qiang, SHAN Yong-ming. The Effects of Text Presentation and Structure On Primary School Students’Representation of Math Word Problems [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(3): 292-298.
[6] MENG Hong-xia, LIU Xi-ping. Young Children’s Understanding of the Role of Intention and Action in Pretense [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2010, 26(2): 121-127.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright 2018 © Editorial office of Psychological Development and Education
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd