LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

ACM Ref: ComputingMethodologies_DOCUMENTANDTEXTPROCESSING, ComputingMethodologies_IMAGEPROCESSINGANDCOMPUTERVISION
At retrieval, people can adopt a retrieval orientation by which they recreate the mental operations used at encoding. Monitoring by retrieval orientation leads to assessing all test items for qualities related to the encoding task, which enriches foils with some of the qualities already possessed by targets. We investigated the consequences of adopting a retrieval orientation under conditions of repeated monitoring of the same\ud foils. Participants first processed foils in the context of one of two tests encouraging different retrieval orientations. The foils were then re-used on a subsequent test in which retrieval orientation either matched or mismatched that adopted on the first test. In the aggregate data, false alarms for repeated foils were higher when there was a match between the retrieval orientations on both tests. This demonstrates that when\ud retrieval orientation enriches foils with target-like characteristics, it can backfire when repeated monitoring of the same foils is required.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Cognition,  38,  391-­‐404.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025548   Mulligan,  N.  W.,  &  Peterson,  D.  (2013).  The  negative  repetition  effect.  Journal  of   Experimental  Psychology:  Learning,  Memory,  and  Cognition,  39,  1403-1416.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031789   Mulligan,  N.  W.,  &  Peterson,  D.  J.  (2014).  Analysis  of  the  encoding  factors  that  produce   the  negative  repetition  effect.  Journal  of  Experimental  Psychology:  Learning,   Memory  &  Cognition,  40,  765-­‐775  .  http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035577   Peterson,  D.  J.,  &  Mulligan,  N.  W.  (2013).  The  negative  testing  effect  and  multi-­‐factor   account.  Journal  of  Experimental  Psychology:  Learning,  Memory,  and  Cognition,  39,  
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article