Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37973762›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Integrating word-form representations with global similarity computation in recognition memory.

Adam F Osth, Lyulei Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Adam F OsthUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. adamosth@gmail.com.
Lyulei ZhangUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DE170100106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recognition memory, retrieval is thought to occur by computing the global similarity of the probe to each of the studied items. However, to date, very few global similarity models have employed perceptual representations of words despite the fact that false recognition errors for perceptually similar words have consistently been observed. In this work, we integrate representations of letter strings from the reading literature with global similarity models. Specifically, we employed models of absolute letter position (slot codes and overlap models) and relative letter position (closed and open bigrams). Each of the representations was used to construct a global similarity model that made contact with responses and RTs at the individual word level using the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) model (Brown & Heathcote Cognitive Psychology, 57 , 153-178, 2008). Relative position models were favored in three of the four datasets and parameter estimates suggested additional influence of the initial letters in the words. When semantic representations from the word2vec model were incorporated into the models, results indicated that orthographic representations were almost equally consequential as semantic representations in determining inter-item similarity and false recognition errors, which undermines previous suggestions that long-term memory is primarily driven by semantic representations. The model was able to modestly capture individual word variability in the false alarm rates, but there were limitations in capturing variability in the hit rates that suggest that the underlying representations require extension.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, VisualReadingRecognition, PsychologyHumansModels, PsychologicalPsycholinguisticsSemanticsLinear ballistic accumulatorOrthographic representationsRecognition memorySemantic space models

Identifiers

PMID37973762
PMCPMC11192833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.