TANIMA BELLEĞİNDE MADDE VE BAĞLAM MODELLERİ HAKKINDA BİR KARŞILAŞTIRMA

Madde modellerine (BEG; Shiffrin ve Steyvers 145-166) göre, tanıma belleğinde başarıyı etkileyen birinci faktör, bellekte yer alan diğer uyarıcıların izleridir. Bu nedenle, BEG modeli çalışma listesindeki uyarıcı sayısının artmasıyla birlikte tanıma belleğinin zayıflayacağını yordamaktadır. Bağlam modellerine (BİKOBM; Dennis ve Humphreys 452-478) göre ise, tanıma belleğindeki başarıyı etkileyen asıl faktör uyarıcının daha önce yer aldığı farklı bağlamlardır. Buna göre de bağlam modelleri karıştırıcı değişkenler kontrol edildiğinde çalışma listesinin uzunluğunun tanıma belleğindeki başarıyı etkilemeyeceğini yordamaktadır. Bu nedenle, liste uzunluğu etkisi tanıma belleğini açıklayan modellerin test edilmesinde önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Olaysal bellek çalışmalarından elde edilen sonuçlar, tanıma belleğinde hem bağlamın hem de bellekte kayıtlı diğer izlerin rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Fakat bu iki çeşit bilginin tanıma kararları verilirken hangi aşamada ve ne ölçüde etkili olduğu tam olarak anlaşılamamıştır. Özellikle, testin bozucu etkisi incelendiğinde, test boyunca tanıma belleği başarısında görülen azalmanın bellekteki diğer izlerden mi, değişen bağlamdan mı yoksa diğer potansiyel karıştırıcı etkilerden mi olduğu alanyazındaki mevcut bilgi birikimi ile tam olarak açıklanamamaktadır.

A COMPARISON OF ITEM- AND CONTEXT-NOISE MODELS IN RECOGNITION MEMORY

Item-noise models (b; Shiffrin and Steyvers 145-166) assert that recognition memory performance depends on item information of other traces in the list. REM therefore proposes that performance decreases with increasing list length (list-length effect). Context-noise models (BCDMEM; Dennis and Humphreys 452-478) assert that the main factors in determining memory performance are the contexts in which the stimulus has been learned. Therefore, context-noise models assume null list-length effect when the potential confounds are controlled. Due to the contradictory predictions, list-length effect is critical to test recognition memory models. There is a signicant amount of literature demonstrating the importance of both item and context information in recognition. However, further research must be conducted to understand in which level of recognition these two types of information have an impact on. Especially in the observation of output interference, literature has not been revealed as to whether the main cause of a decrease in memory performance through test phase is item-noise, context-noise or other confounding variables.

PDF

___

Anderson, John R. ve Gordon H. Bower. “Recognition and Retrieval Processes in Free Recall.” Psychological Review 79 (1972): 97-123.
Anderson, Michael C. ve James H. Neely. “Interference and Inhibition in Memory Retrieval.” Memory. Handbook of Perception and Cognition. 2nd ed. Ed. Elizabeth L. Bjork veRobert A. Bjork. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1996. 237-313.
Annis, Jeffrey ve diğerleri. “Sources of Interference in Recognition Testing.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 39 (2013): 13651376.
Balota, David A. ve diğerleri. “The Word-frequency Mirror Effect in Young, Old, and Early-stage Alzheimer's Disease: Evidence for Two Processes in Episodic Recognition Performance.” Journal of Memory and Language 46. 1 (2002): 199226.
Cary, Melanie ve Lynne M. Reder. “A Dual-process Account of the List-length and Strength-based Mirror Effects in Recognition.” Memory and Cognition 49 (2003): 231–248.
Clark, Steven E. ve Scott D. Gronlund. “Global Matching Models of Recognition Memory: How the Models Match the Data.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 3. 1 (1996): 37-60.
Criss, Amy H., Kenneth J. Malmberg ve Richard M. Shiffrin. “Output Interference in Recognition Memory.” Journal of Memory and Language 64. 4 (2011): 316–326.
Dennis, Simon ve Michael S. Humphreys. “A Context Noise Model of Episodic Word Recognition.” Psychological Review 108 (2001): 452-478.
Dennis, Simon, Michael D. Lee ve Angela Kinnell. “Bayesian Analysis of Recognition Memory: The Case of the List-length Effect.” Journal of Memory and Language 59. 3 (2008): 361-376.
Estes, William K. “Statistical Theory of Spontaneous Recovery and Regression.” Psychological Review 62. 3 (1955): 145–154.
Glenberg, Arthur M. ve diğerleri. “A Two-process Account of Long-term Serial Position Effects.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6. 4 (1980): 355-369.
Gillund, Gary ve Richard M. Shiffrin. “A Retrieval Model for Both Recognition and Recall.” Psychological Review 91 (1984): 1-67.
Gronlund, Scott D. ve Laurie E. Elam. “List-length Effect: Recognition Accuracy and Variance of Underlying Distributions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20. 6 (1994): 1355-1369.
Howard, Marc W. ve Michael J. Kahana. “A Distributed Representation of Temporal Context.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46. 3 (2002): 269-299.
Kılıç, Aslı ve diğerleri. “Models That Allow Us to Perceive the World More Accurately Also Allows Us to Remember Past Events More Accurately via Differentiation.” Cognitive Psychology 92 (2017): 65-86.
Kinnell, Angela ve Simon Dennis. “The List Length Effect in Recognition Memory: An Analysis of Potential Confounds.” Memory and Cognition 39. 2 (2011) 348363.
Malmberg, Kenneth J. ve diğerleri. “Overcoming the Negative Consequences of Interference from Recognition Memory Testing.” Psychological Science 23.2 (2012): 115–119.
Mensink, Ger J. ve Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers. “A Model for Interference and Forgetting.” Psychological Review 95. 4 (1988): 434-455.
Murdock, Bennet B. “A Theory of the Storage and Retrieval of Item and Associative Information.” Psychological Review 89. 6 (1982): 609-626.
Murdock, Bennet B. ve Rita E. Anderson. “Encoding, Storage and Retrieval of Item Information.” Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium, Ed. Robert L. Solso, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1975. 145-194.
Murnane, Kevin, Matthew P. Phelps ve Kenneth Malmberg. “Context-dependent Recognition Memory: The ICE Theory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 128. 4 (1999): 403-415.
Murnane, Kevin ve Richard M. Shiffrin. “Interference and the Representation of Events in Memory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17. 5 (1991): 855-874.
Norman, Donald A. ve Nancy C. Waugh. “Stimulus and Response Interference in Recognition-memory Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 78. 4 (1968): 551-559.
Raaijmakers, Jeroen G. ve Richard M. Shiffrin. “SAM: A Theory of Probabilistic Search of Associative Memory.” The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory 14 (1980): 207-262.
Raaijmakers, Jeroen G. ve Richard M. Shiffrin. “Search of Associative Memory.” Psychological Review 88. 2 (1981): 93-134.
Shiffrin, Richard M. ve Mark Steyvers. “A Model for Recognition Memory: REM - Retrieving Effectively from Memory.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4. 2 (1997): 145–166.
Squire, Larry R. “Memory and Brain Systems: 1969-2009.” The Journal of Neuroscience 29 (2009): 12711-12716.
Tulving, Endel. “Episodic and Semantic Memory.” Organization of Memory, Ed. Endel Tulving ve Wayne Donalds, New York: Academic Press, 1972. 381-402. Tulving, Endel ve Daniel L. Schacter. “Priming and Human Memory Systems.” Science 247 (1990): 301–306.
Underwood, Benton J. “Recognition Memory as a Function of Length of Study List.” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 12. 2 (1978): 89-91.