Oncogenic Role of THOR , a Conserved Cancer/Testis …
Troyer et al (1999) make a distinction between associative source information and organizational source information. Associative source information is more closely tied to the stimulus itself (e.g., whether a male or female voice spoke a particular word), while organizational source information is more independent of the stimulus (e.g., where on the screen a word appeared). One would suspect that associative source information is more likely to be processed at the same time and through the same pathways as the item itself. Therefore we are likely to see less of a discrepancy between item and source memory when the source-monitoring task involves associative source information than organizational information. Modality should be closely bound to the item itself (i.e., associative source information), and therefore less vulnerable to memory errors. This is particularly true in the current experiment, since items are presented in different forms in the two modalities under investigation (i.e., as pictures in the visual modality and as words in the auditory modality). The dual-coding hypothesis of memory (Galotti, 1999, pp. 287-288) predicts that the pictures will be stored verbally as well as visually, but the visual image should help differentiate visual from auditory stimuli during the source-monitoring task. The close association between stimuli and modality of presentation, combined with the fact that source is being processed incidentally in the current experiment, led us to predict a close relationship between item and source memory performance across conditions.
A compendium of DNB, WM, IQ information up to 2015
Our results showed an interaction between response type and condition in the S and U conditions. Specifically, participants in the U condition did better than those in the S condition on source monitoring for seen items. The reverse was true for heard items. This is consistent with our hypothesis that the dual coding advantage for pictures would be lost in the S condition. In fact, seen items showed a much greater advantage for recognition over heard items in the U condition than in the other two conditions. In order to attribute this advantage more definitively to dual coding of pictures, we would have to perform a similar experiment in which the seen items were written words rather than pictures. If the same pattern emerged there, we would have to rule out the dual coding hypothesis as an adequate explanation for this phenomenon.
In two experiments, participants judged whether nouns fitted particular sentence frames and then received an unanticipated recall test with the sentence frames as cues. Concrete nouns were better recalled than abstract nouns, and nouns presented in meaningful sentence frames were better recalled than nouns presented in anomalous sentence frames. In Experiment 2, performance in a test of free recall was positively related to the concreteness of the nouns but unrelated to the meaningfulness of the sentence frames. The increase in performance from free recall to cued recall was positively related to the meaningfulness of the sentence frames but not significantly related to the concreteness of the nouns. The effects of concreteness and meaningfulness showed no sign of any interaction either in their effects on recall performance or in their effects on the advantage of cued recall over free recall. These results are consistent with the dual-coding theory of imagery and verbal processes but are not consistent with either of two different interpretations of the relational-distinctiveness processing theory.
The RNA World and other origin-of-life theories. by Brig …
On the other hand, the analyticmethods for single neuron study are developing in order to resolve howneurons can encode the information of external stimuli. In particular,recently dual coding hypothesis which combines rate coding and temporalcoding attracts attention as a new rule which resolves this problem, andmany physiological results support this hypothesis.
Today, research in the RNA world is a medium-sized industry
One complication in making a hypothesis regarding modality dominance is the dual-coding hypothesis. This states that, when we see pictures, we both encode them as images and as sub-vocalized speech. This dual-process encoding improves memory of visually-presented items. In the simultaneous presentation condition, though, it is not clear whether participants would be able to dual-encode the pictures, since the auditory stimulus (and, possibly, rehearsal of it) would interfere. So we might expect to see a greater degradation of recognition memory for visual stimuli during the simultaneous as compared with the non-divided condition, because visual items would no longer have the advantage of dual coding. On the other hand, we might see improved source monitoring in this case because, since visual items would not be encoded verbally but, rather, only as images, there would be greater distinctiveness between verbal and visual stimuli.
Whole Concept List | Psychology Concepts
A third question addressed by this study is whether divided attention affects visual source memory or auditory source memory more? That is, for the S and D conditions, relative to the U condition, will memory for modality be degraded more for items that were seen or heard at study? I predicted that visual item memory would be affected more than auditory item memory because the dividing of attention would prevent dual coding. That is, verbal sub-vocalization and recoding of the picture stimuli would be prevented. Whereas I expected that both item and source memory for seen items would be superior to heard items when stimuli are presented separately with full attention (U), I hypothesized that memory for seen and heard items would be equalized under the simultaneous and divided attention conditions (S and D).