How implicitly activated and explicitly acquired knowledge contribute to the effectiveness of retrieval cues.

The extralist cued recall task simulates everyday reminding because a memory is encoded on the fly and retrieved later by an unexpected cue. Target words are studied individually, and recall is cued by associatively related words having preexisting forward links to them. In Experiments 1 and 2, forward cue-to-target and backward target-to-cue strengths were varied over an extended range in order to determine how these two sources of strength are related and which source has a greater effect. Forward and backward strengths had additive effects on recall, with forward strength having a consistently larger effect. The PIER2 model accurately predicted these findings, but a plausible generation-recognition version of the model, called PIER.GR, could not. In Experiment 3, forward and backward strengths, level of processing, and study time were varied in order to determine how preexisting lexical knowledge is related to knowledge acquired during the study episode. The main finding indicates that preexisting knowledge and episodic knowledge have additive effects on extralist cued recall. PIER2 can explain these findings because it assumes that these sources of strength contribute independently to recall, whereas the eSAM model cannot explain the findings because it assumes that the sources of strength are multiplicatively related.

Recursive reminding: effects of repetition, printed frequency, connectivity, and set size on recognition and judgments of frequency.

In the present experiments, predictions of common path and recursive-reminding models of recognition (RG) and judgments of frequency (JOFs) were contrasted. The results indicated that each task is affected by study frequency, printed frequency, and associative connectivity. However, effect size analyses indicated that study frequency and item attributes show a double dissociation over tasks. Study frequency has a greater effect on JOFs than on RG, whereas printed frequency and associative connectivity have greater effects on RG than on JOFs. The recursive-reminding model predicts differential effects of study frequency, because it assumes that although both tasks are influenced by familiarity, JOF is more likely to be affected by recollective reminding as a procedure for encoding event frequency. Associative set size effects were absent in each task, suggesting that competitors play no role in either task.