| 1. |
- Nilsson, Lars-Göran, et al.
(author)
-
A model of distributed storage
- 1987
-
In: Zeitschrift fur Psychologie mit Zeitschrift fur angewandte Psychologie. - 0044-3409 .- 1438-9789. ; 195:2, s. 141-162
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Discusses a recent development in psychological memory research, of which one of the end products is a model of distributed storage, as distinguished from the hitherto-prevailing concept of localized memory. The distributed storage model, based on matrix algebra, purports to account for perfect recall performance, the 2 basic prerequisites of which are that (1) codes formed during encoding should be unique and (2) they should be reconstructed at test. Four simulations were designed to test violations of these prerequisites. Decreasing recall performances were demonstrated in all cases. However, a considerable robustness of the proposed storage system for large matrices proves the viability of the underlying assumptions of the model under discussion.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sandberg, Karl W.
(author)
-
Recognition failure of recallable words: free and cued recall compared
- 1988
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0036-5564 .- 1467-9450. ; 29:3-4, s. 129-136
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Tested 72 Swedish students (aged 17-21 yrs), assigned to 1 of 6 conditions, to examine whether the phenomenon of recognition failure of recallable words could be demonstrated when a free recall (FR) test rather than a cued recall (CRL) test was used. Ss were instructed that a recognition test, a CRL test, or an FR test would follow the study trial, but the actual test sequence given was recognition followed by CRL or recognition followed by FR. Results demonstrate that cases of recognition failure of recallable words occurred in all 6 conditions, but the amount of recognition failure for the recognition-FR test sequence was less than that predicted from the function of E. Tulving and S. Wiseman (see record 1978-07206-001). Data for the recognition-CRL test sequence showed the amount of recognition failure that was predicted by this function.
|
|
