Greene (2004) pseudoword effect (recognition memory)
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to establish the effects of pseudowords. The main aim of the study was to examine whether the generation of non-words could improve the recognition memory for words through a more different linguistic and conceptual stimuli representation. On the recognition tests, 100 participants were being requested to differentiate between stimuli based on episodic memory. The recognition memory was tested using the yes-no recognition test. On the test, the stimuli were shown at one moment, and the participants were asked to recall every stimulus that was shown. The results had four outcomes where the participants answered yes, and the stimuli never appeared on the study list; it missed, where the participant answered no, and the stimulus never appeared on the study list; false alarms, where the participants answered yes and the stimulus never appeared on the list and the correct rejections where the participants answered no and stimulus never appeared in the study list.
Introduction
Recognition memory is the ability to recall events, people, or objects that had been encountered previously. The remembrance involves recollection and familiarity. The theories of recognition memory include
- Threshold models: They theory motivate the general practice of memory accuracy estimation.
- High low threshold model: In this theory, the second component of memory is added to illustrate that lure or new items can be termed as new.
Episodic representation familiarity theories predict that recognition without identification must be observed for pseudowords. Proposing that discursive representations support familiarity suggests that one exposure is enough in the production of stimulus recognition which is familiarity-based, which leads to improved ratings for the items studied in comparison to the issues which are not considered. Therefore, no representation before the experiment is a need in the production of familiarity, allowing experienced items for the first moment in one’s life to be only recognized with friendliness. On the contrary, existing familiarity theories predict that recognition without identification must take place for pseudowords. The prediction comes from the existing methods of representation.
The accuracy of recognition might differ as stimulus class function.; for instance, high-frequency words are more accurate in recognition as compared to terms which are low-frequency and nouns, which are concrete than the abstract ones. People had false alarms and more hits to low-frequency words as compared to high-frequency words. The pattern is referred to as mirror effect. The effect takes place in a comparison of two groups of stimuli when hits relative proportion. Meaning, the stimulus group containing more stimulus has lesser false alarms as compared to another category. The mirror effect is among the human’ memory fundamental regularities. Even though mirror effects are recognition memory’s regularities, there are exceptions, for instance, non-words like “ballot” on the recognition tests are likely to have higher rates of false and hits alarms in comparison to real words. This pattern is referred to as the pseudoword effect. The most effective way of testing this effect was by using a procedure of the fast- choice test. After studying some few words, participants were tested. They were shown pairs of words. They were required to take the item of every couple which they had seen in the study list. Every pair in the test consisted of a single control word and high –frequency word. Whenever the remarkable high-frequency words functioned like pseudowords, the participants picked them in over half of the trials. This demonstration assisted in generalizing the results of the experiment. It is also mostly assumed that the forced-choice tests never needed a response standard because the participants picked the better option from ever trial. Therefore, using the results was extended and became a simple recognition measure because the forced-choice test was used.
The hypothesis was that high-frequency also are relatively meaningless, and therefore the comparison between meaningful control words and high-frequency should not bring about mirror effect.
Methods
Subjects were 120 students who volunteered to participate.
Procedure; the participants were tested in groups. They were given a study list and received a forced-choice recognition test, and they observed 70 pairs of words. The couples were shown one pair at a time at a rate of 30 seconds. Participants were requested to select the name which they knew was in the study list from every test pair.
Experimental design
Our IVS
N Mean SD
Word HR 121 0.651 0.174
Non word HR 121 0.695 0.171
Word FAR 114 0.206 0.169
Non word FAR 115 0.298 0.165
Hit rate (HR)-The “yes” responses’ proportion to old objects which were provided in the study list.30 each
False alarm rate (FAR)-The incorrect “yes” responses proportion to new objects that were never presented in the study.30 each.
The experiment was a recognition memory experiment, and the participants were requested to look at the items so that they can be prepared for the memory test. The study list had 30 pseudowords and 30 words. The test list contained 120 questions and was presented in 34 seconds rate. The participants were requested to press the m button if the item was present in the study list, and if the thing was not in the study list, they were told to press the z key. There was no time limit for answering the questions. The test was self-paced. The experiment was conducted on a media platform.
Results
The first pair consisted of one old high-frequency word and a new control word. The right option could be the high-frequency word. The participants produced the correct choice .80 of the time, which significantly varies from the .50 .t chance level. The second pair consisted of one new high-frequency word and one old control word. The control world would be the right option incorrectly; the participants selected the high –frequency words .24 of the time; that is they made the right option of .76 of the pairs of the control word. This significantly varies from the .50t chance level.
Discussion
The present study was purposed to contribute to the literature and to explore what causes the mirror effect as an unexplained phenomenon and yet prominent of the recognition memory. The results were obtained after conducting a forced-choice recognition memory test. The results provided a piece of evidence illustrating that a mirror effect happens when high-frequency words are compared to control words. Greene (2004) stated that failing to allocate mirror effect comparing pseudo words to words was caused by the pseudo words’ relative meaninglessness. It is also true to say that high-frequency also are relatively meaningless, and therefore the comparison between meaningful control words and high-frequency should not bring about mirror effect. The hypothesis was supported in the study. In particular, high –frequency words contain both more top false alarms and higher hits. If meaningless causes lack mirror effect, then the high-frequency words must have both false alarms and higher hits since they are generally to low in meaningfulness. Thus, some psychologists are wrong to state that high-frequency words are meaningless false or even Greene himself was wrong to claim that both higher false alarms and more top hits are as a result of pointless. The mirror effect is a recognition of memory’s regularity. Mirror effect affects how common a class of stimuli can feel.
In future, further research is required to illuminate further why mirror effect is a recognition memory’s regularity and might prove especially helpful for future research to test how the result can be caused by familiarity.
References
Greene, R. L. (2004). Recognition memory for pseudowords. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(3), 259-267.