J O L R N , { LO F V E R B A L L E . { R . \ t N C{)/D rERB.{L
B E H , { v l o R2 2 , _ { g _ 5 _ _ i (Ol 9gg l )
R e m e m b e r i n gt h e D a t a .A n a r y z i n gI n t e r a c t i v e
p r o c e s s e si n R e a d i n q
LenRy L. J,c,cosy
P a s t e x p e r i e n c ec a n f a c i l i t a t e s u b s e q u e n tp e r c e p t u a l
activities as well as serveas the basis
tbr recognition memory. However. the memory
underlying perceptron rs commonlv assumed ro be more'.general..and. consequenrly.
t o p r e s e r v e - l e s si " ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; i l , ; l iial event than does rhe memory that underlies
recognition tbr a specillc episode. In contrast' expenments are performed which
demonstrate that perceptual identification and
recognition memory both rely on memory for
singlep.io. pro...ring episodes. In these experlments' the subjects'reliance on
data-driven *rt"r tnan concefiuaity driven processing
of a word was changedby varying the context
i n w h i c h t h e w o r d w a s r e a r l . , { g r e : r r e rd e g r e e
o f d a t a - d r i v e n p r o c e s s i n go f a w o r d . s u c h a s h a v i n g
a subject read (he word out ofcontext.
facilitated later perceptualidentification of that word.
c o n u . r r . i f . , g r . u , . , - d e g r e eo t . c o n c e p t u a l l y d r i v e n p r o c e s s i n go f a w o r d ' s u c h
a s h a v i n g t h e s u b j e c rg e n e r a t e t h e w o r d f r o m
a
conceptual clue' resulted in better recognition
r.rno.y antl iess iacilitation of perceptu.l
identification..This sensitivity of perceprual
rdentificarion to rhe balance berween
d a t a - d r i v e na n d c o n c e p t u a l l y d r i v e n p t o . . r r i n g
i n a s i n g l ep . i o . p r o . . r r i n g e p i s o d ep r o v i d e :
a means of anaiyzing inleractive processes
in reading.
Memorl' for past experience can be rerecognition memory and recall is treaterj as
v e a l e d b y p e r c e p t u a la c t i v i t i e sa s w e l l
a s b y b e i n g c u e t o p r o c e s s i n gr h a t i s p o s r p e r c e p performanceon tests of recognition
mem- tual, and thaiserves to provide a sem.n.c
ory or recall' However, the memory underi n t e r p r e t a t i o no r t o e l a b o r a t et h e e n c o t j i n g
l y i n g p e r c e p t i o na n d t h a t u n d e r l y i n g e i t h e r
of a perceptual evenr (e.g.. Anderson &
recall or recognirion memory have been
R e d e i . l g T i : c r a i x & - f u r v i n g . r g 7 _ 5 11.15 , , ,
t r e a t e d i n v e r y d i f f e r e n t m a n n e r si n t h e r e b e e n s u g g e s t e dt h a t t h e p e r c e p t u a lc l r a r l r c c e n t l i t e r a t u r e ' P e r f o r m a n c eo n t e s t so f r e c t e r i s t i c so f a n y e v e n t a r e r a p i c l l yf b r . g o t r e n
ognition mernory or recall is typically
so that it is primalily rhe meuning ot. i.rn
treatedas relyingon memorv for a particuevent that is remembered over. the lon!:
l a r p r i o r e p i s o d ew h i l e p e r c e p t i o ni s s e e n
as term (e.g.. Craik & Lockhart. rcz:: srclr.:
utilizing more generalabstract representa_
i967).
tions of knowledge. such as ,.h..no,
o.
F o ' p e r c e p t i o n .c o n t e x t h a s b e e n m l L n i p Iogogens (e'g' Friedman. 1979: Morton.
u l a t e d a s a m e a n so f i n v e s t i g a t i n gt h e i n t e r . 1 9 6 9 ' 1 9 7 9 :M c c l e l l a n d & R u m e l h a r t . 1 9 8I
: a c t i o n b e t w e e n c o n c e p t u . i l y d r . i v . e na n d
T u l v i n g ' 1 9 7 2 ) 'T h e s e a b s t r a c t r e p r e s e n t a < j a t a - d r i v e np r o c e s s i n g . w h e n u w r r . d i s
t i o n s a r e s a i d t o b e u t i l i z e di n a i e l a t i v e l v
reud in context. expectati()nsgained
i n v a r i a n t t ' a s h i o na c r o s s s i t u a t i t - l n sa n c l
t o t h r o u g h c o n c e p t u a l i vd r - i v e np r . o c e s s i n ul r r . e
change only slowly'.although temporary
s a i d t t c o m p e n s a t et b r -, r . c o m p l c m e n r t n e
p r i m i n g c a n o c c u r ' T h e e x t r e m ev a r i n b i l i t y .
e v . i d e n cg
e a i n e db v v r s u a lp r o c e s s i n gd. l L r r r in encoding that is observetj in studies
of tlriven p."i"rri"g.
Context cirn act r()
.'prime"
I t h a n kL e eB r o o k sF. e r g uCr r l i k .l n d B i l lJ o h n s r o n
t h e i t b s t . r u c tr e p r e s c n t i r t i o n1 1 tl'r
t b r I h e i re x t e n s i ' e
c o n r m c not \n e a r l r evr e r s i o nosf ' w o r d ( e . g . . i t l o g o g e n ) l r n t.l t h e r . e b v .r n l r k e
t h r sp a p e rl.n d r h a n k. { n nH o l l i n q s h eal dn c tl } e r r v t h e r e a d e f
l e * r e t i " n t o n v i s t t r riln t i l rm a t r o n
D o r v n etrb r t h e i r : r s s i s t l n ci ne
d i l t i .elr t l l e c t i olnr n t l r n i r l .
r s r s .T h i sr e s e u r c rhv u ss u p p , r r e rbJr N S E R Cc , , n u , t , '
c r a n t . \ 0 l s t . R e q u c s rtsi r r r ep r r n r s\ h ( ) u l dh c \ r , n r( ( l
L u r r v L . J a c o b r .D e p l r r m c n o
t l P s v c h g l r r { r!.l.c ! [ u s r e r L n i v e r : i r r . H : . r m i l r o no.n r i r r i o L - s s . l t _ s ,
Cunildu.
so the wot'd can be |eird mclre t'lrpitlll' lc.g..
Ehr'lich & Rltirner. lgfl | : Mc(llclllLncl &
Rumelhart. lgllI : Nlorton. lgTt)1. lJl
t h e o r . i e so t ' p e r c e p t i t l n . i t n y c , t J . e c t0s t . c t r n _
t e \ t o n m e m r ) t . v t i l r . i l p r . c s e n t c d r , v o t . ct lr r . co I
l(s
(Xll:-:i-lXl \1.(ltl
( .'P\ | itll
\il tr:ht.,,t
l,/x i jrr
\(,r,1!.illr( l,rr..
;(nr('Ju!lr{'|
I rr.
1il.,rr\ l,,rilr re_(rr!.il
+86
L.\R,RY
L. JAcoBY
no interest since perception is thought
to
r e l y o n a b s t r a c tr e p r e s e n t a t i o n sr a t h e i t h a n
memory for panicular prior episodes.
In contrast to the above view. the position put forward here is that a singleepis o d e o f p e r c e p t u a l p r o c e s s i n gi s i e m e m b e r e do v e r t h e l o n g t e r m a n d d o e s i n f l u e n c e
s u b s e q u e n tp e r c e p t i o n . . T h i sl o n g - l a s t i n ge f t ' e c to n p e r c e p t i o nw i l l b e s h o w n t o b e
lubJect to the same encoding variables that
have been well documented in studies
of
recognition memory and studies of recall
f o r p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t s - . F - f f e c tos f m a n i p u l a t tng the context in which a word is read
on
i t s l a t e r p e r c e p t i o na r e s h o w n i o b e u s e f u l
for analyzingthe interactionbetween
conceptually driven and. data-'lriven proc e s s i n g 'T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o no f t h e s e e f f e c t s
will be that rather than relying on memory
s y s t e m st h a t d i f f e r i n s t a b i l i t y a n d a b s t r a c tlon' perception and recognition memory
O"*.:i,t,::.1._To.ly for priorepisodes.
n o t a c t u a i l y p r e s e n t e dt o b e r e a d . C o n c e p t u a l l y d r i v e n p r o c e s s l n gi s i i l e n t i f i e d w i t h
t h e u s e o f c o n i e x t t o g e n e r a t ea w o r d . o r
to
g e n e r a t ee x p e c t a t i o n sa b o u t a w o r d
that is
t o b e r e a d . b o n c e p t u a l r yd r i v e n p r o c e s s r n g
is maximal in rhe generatecondition
and
minimal when a word is read withour context. Both the amount of data-driven
and
the amount of conceptually driven proc e s s i n gr e q u i r e d t o r e a d a w o r d i n c o n t e x t
are ini.rmediate to those required in
rhe
other trvo conditions. The reader can
use
e x p e c t a t i o n sg a i n e d f r o m c o n t e x t i o l . e d u c e
h i s o r h e r r e l i - a n c eo n t h e a n a l y s i so f v i s ' a l
information, Jota-oriuen processing
{e.g..
Ehrlich & Rayner. l9g2). If differences
among the conditions are later assesserr
w i t h i t e s t o f r e c o g n r t i o nm e m o r y , w e
hav.e
a familiar study from the memory literature. Generatini a word would be expected
to produce high-errecognition pertbrmance
thanwoutd'.ioing thatword(e.g..
iacoby.
.J JuirPvr"'rg rrotioflthat both percepi 9 7 8 : S l a m e c k a& G r a f . l 9 7 g ) . T h a t i s . w e
t u a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o na n d r e c o g n i t i o nm e m o r y
w o u l d e x p e c t t h a t r e c o g n i t i o nm e m o r y
perare dependent on memory for prior epif o r m a n c e w o u r d i n c r e a s ea s r h e a m o u n t
.fsodes' an experiment is needed in which
conceptualry-a.iu.n processing increuseu
t h e p r o c e s s i n go f a w o r d i s v a r i e d a n d
t h e a c r o s sc o n d i t i o n s .
consequencesof that variation are obHowever, what should we erpect if we
s e r v e d o n b o t h d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s .T h e
followed these encoding conditionswith
.
g e n e r a lp r o c e d u r ee m p l o y e d f o r t h e
experi- rest of p.r..piuui identiflcati'n..,
T
h
'
r
r
s
.
i
f
m e n t s i n t h i s p a p e r i s . o u t l i n e di n F i g u i e l .
we flashed words followed by a
m
'
s
*
.
In the first phaseof the e,rperimeni three
would we expect the subjecrto be 'bre
ttr
c o n d i t i o n sa r e u s e c lt h a t a r e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e
r e p o r t w o r d s m o r e a c c u r i . r t e rtyh a r h a d
b
e
e
n
employed by others to investigateinterp r e s e n t e c ri n t h e f i r s t p h a s e o f t h e
e
x
p
e
r
i
a c t i v e p r o c e s s e si n r e a d i n g . a n d t h a t
are ment than words that hatl not..,
F
u
r
t
h
c
r
.
.
meant to vary the balance of the contribuwoulti we e.\pect the tjifferenc., urung
,t-'."
tions of data-driven and conceptually
t h r e e e n c o d i n gc o n c l i t i ' n s t o m . k e r t d i f . t . c r . d r i v e n p r o c e s s i n g ' A g i.v e n w o r c l i s e i t h e r
e n c e i n t h i s i a i e r t e s t o f p e r . c e p r u . il d e n t i t l r e a d o u t o f c o n t e x t ' r ' e i l di n t h e c o n t e x t
of a cation'lwe could note thirtrhe three
encodw o r d t h a t p r e d i c t s i t s o c c u r r e n c e .o r g e n ing conditionsditfer in the extent to w,hrch
erated by a subject from a context word
t h e s u b j e c t n o r l o r e l y o n r h e v i s L r t trl r i m u { t h e a n r o n y m o f r h e i n t e n d e dw o r d ) . D a t a in ihe tlrst phase of rhe erper.imenr.
d r i v e n p r o c e s s i n gi s m a x i m a l w h e n a w o r d l y :
when the *r.JiJ..u.l wirhoutconrexr.
rnc
i s r e a d o u t o f c o n t e ' x ts i n c e . g i v e n n o b a s i s
readerha:i to rely most heavily on a virurrl
for expecting the word. the reader must
a n a l y s i so f t h e r v o r d . a n t l t h e p e r c e p r u i r(l ) p r e l y o n a v i s u a l a n a l y s i so f t h e w o r d
i n e r a t i o n se m p l o y e d m a v h e m o r . es i n r i l l r r . r .
o r d e r t o i d e n t i t - vi t ' I n c o n t r a s t .d a t a - d r i v e n
t h o s e r e q u i r e d t b r l a t e r p e r c e p t u r r it j c n t i t l p r o c e s s i n gi s m i n i m a l w h e n a w o r d g e n is
c * t i o n o f t h e w o r d p r - e s e n t ew
d i r h . L r re . n e r a t e d i n r e s p o n s et o a c o n r e x r w o r d
b u t t e x t t h a n a r e t h e o p e r i r t i o n st h i r t i r r . c
cm-
INTERACTIVE
487
PROCESSES
ployed when a word is read in context. word. The logogenmodel of word percepEffects of readinga word on its later per- tion has been modified in responseto the
ceptionmay dependon the similarityof the results of recent experiments(Morton.
operationsemployedon the two occasions 1979)but even this modifiedmodel cannor
(Kolers. 1979).When the word is not pre- accountfor effectson perceprionthat rely
sentedat all. as in thegeneration
condition. on memoryfor prior episodes.In the origithere is surelyleastsimilaritybetweenthat nal logogenmodelthe effectof recenr prior
orior experienceand the operations re- experienceon perceptionis accountedlor
quired for perceptionof the word. That is. by claimingthat readinga word temporarily
effectsof the encodingconditionson later lowers the thresholdof its corresponding
perceptualidentificationmight be opposite logogen, so less visual information is
to thosee.xpected
for recognitionmemory. neededto identifythe word when it is larer
Perceptual identification performance presented.To accommodatethe tindings
might be expected to increase as the that visual perceptualidentificationis nor
amountof data-drivenprocessingincreases enhancedby hearinga word (Jacoby& Dalacrossconditions.
las. l98l: Morton. 1979).
generating
a worcl
ln contrast,by currenttheoriesof word as a namefbr a picture(Morton. I979).or
perception
(e.g..lvlorton,19791
McClelland generatinga word in responseto its defini& Rumelhart.l98l). perceprion
alwaysuti- tion (Winnick& Daniel.1970).Morton poslizes an abstractrepresentation
of a word tulatedseparate
logogensystemsfor identiso subsequent perceptual identification ficationof wordsthatare presented
visually
should not reflect variability in the encod- and those that are heard or generated.By
ing of a particularprior presentationof a this more recentmodel,readinsa word eiPhdseI
Condition
Context
llo Context
.
- not
XXXX ll
G e n e r at e
-
-hot
( l lec)
ser\
(I sec)
{l sec)
{ I sec)
P h d s e?
P e r c e g t u a ll d e n t i f i c a t i o n
(500 msec)
-
..1.1
-
lc
a
?(
- a & & &- ( l s e c )
Recognition tlenory
F r c .l . Outline of procedure
ncarl
-
,I88
LARRY L , J A C O B Y
t h e r i n c o n t e x t o r w i t h o u t c o n t e x t s h o u l d for predicting an effect
of the context in
do more to enhance its subsequentpercep- w h i c h a w o r d i s r e a d .
B y t h e e p i s o d i cv i e w
tual identification than would generating of perception put forwar:d
here. perceptual
the word as an antonym of a context word.
identification. like recognition memory.
However. postulating separatelogogen sys_ relies on memory
for prior episodes but is
tems does not provide for an effect of the expected to reflect
the amount of prior
conte.\t in which a word is read on its later data-driven processing
rather than the
perceptual identification. Regardless of amount
of prior conceptually driven proc o n t e , \ t . r e a d i n g a w o r d m u s t u t i l i z e t h e c e s s i n g .R e a d i n ga w o r d
in context requires
s a m e l o g o g e ns y s t e m a n d l o w e r t h e t h r e s h _ less data-driven processing
than does reaci_
o l d o f i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n gl o g o g e n .A r e d u c - i n g t h e w o r d w i t h o u t
c o n t e x t a n < j .c o n s e _
t i o n i n t h r e s h o l dc a n b e u s e d t o r e c o r d t h a t q u e n t l y . s h o u l d d o
l e s s t o e n h a n c ei t s s u b _
a w o r d h a s b e e n r e c e n t l y r e a d : h o w e v e r . sequent identification.
The ordering of
since a logogen is an abstract reDresenta- conditions predicted
for perceptual iclentifi_
tion, its threshold cannot p..r..,r. any ef- c a t i o n i s t h e o p p o s i t e
o f t h a t p r e d i c r e dt b r
f e c t o f c o n t e x t o n t h e a m o u n t o f v i s u a l o r o - 'recogirition memory.
cessing required for the reading of a word.
The first three experiments are reported
To summarize. the balance of concep- together. Experimenr I followed
the procetually driven and data-driven processing d u r e d e s c r i b e di n F i g u r e
I but employetla
was varied by requiring subjects to read a t e s t o f p e r c e p t u a l
i d e n r i f i c a t i o no n l y . E x word without conte,\t, read the word in the p e r i m e n t 2 e m p l o y e d
t h e s a m e g e n e r a lp r . o context of its antonym, or generate the cedure but used two groups
of subjects.
word as an antonym of a context word.
S u b j e c t si n o n e g r o u p r e c e i v e da t e s t o f r e c Data-driven processing should be maximal o g n i t i o n m e m o r y
after the test of percepw h e n a w o r d i s r e a d o u t o f c o n t e x r . t u a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .w h e r e a s
s u b j e c t si n t h e
w h e r e a s c o n c e p t u a l l y d r i v e n p r o c e s s i n g s e c o n dg r o u p r e c e i v e d
only a test of recogshould be maximal when a word is gen- nition memory. In
contrast to eariierererated but not presented to be read. Read- p e r i m e n t s , t h e p r o c e d u r . e
e m p l o i , e t ir n E x _
ing a word in context was e.\pected to re- p e r i m e n t 3 r e q u i r e d
subjects to over.try
q u i r e b o r h a l e v e i o f d a t a - d r i v e np r o c e s s i n g g e n e r a t ea n
antonym of each context w()r,u
and a level of conceptually driven pro_ prior to the antonym
b e i n g p r e s e n t e t.l t l r .
c e s s i n gt h a t i s i n t e r m e d i a t et o t h e e x t r e m e s p r i o r t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n
of the series of
r e p r e s e n t e db y t h e o t h e r t w o c o n d i t i o n s . I n q u e s t i o nm a r k s . W i t h o u t
this requirement.
line with the results of prior experiments, subjectsmay not
b e g i n _ u e n e r - a t i ni rgn l r n t _
recognition memory was expected to re_ onym until a series
o f q u e s t i o n m ; . r r . k si r
f l e c t t h e a m o u n t o f p r i o r c o n c e p t u a l l y p r e s e n t e da n d .
thereby. reduce the dift'erd r i v e n p r o c e s s i n gb y b e i n g h i g h e s t i n r h e e n c e i n p r o c e s s i n g
between words thrrr
generate condition. By, most current were read
in context and those thlt w.erc
theories of word perception. perception reld without context.
T h a t i s . t h e e t i ' e c t so l
u s e s a n a b s t r a c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o nt h a t t l o e s c o n t e x t m a y n o t
be "irutomatis' [.urn o t p r e s e r v e i n i b r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e p r o _ t - i . r t h e br .e d e p e n d e n t
o n s u b j e c t ss e n e r . l i t i r r g
c e s s i n go f a n y p a r t i c u l a r p r i o r p r e s e n t a t i o n a w o r d p r i o r t o i t s p r e s e n t a t i o n
ro be r.eltd.
o f a w o r d s o s u b s e q u e n tp e r c e p t u a li c l e n t i f i - R e q u i r i n gs u b j e c t s
t o s a y i r n a n t c l n v mu l r l u t l
cat.ion should not vary across encoding also allowed perceptual
i c l e n t i f i c a t i o nt ( ) l ) c
c o n d i t i o n s .B y p o s t u l a t i n gs e p a r a t el o g o g e n c o n d i t i o n i r l i z e d o n w h e t h e r
ir wortl hrttl
s y s t e m s .V l o r t o n l l 9 7 9 l p r o v i d e sa b a s i st b r b e e n c o r r e c t l l r g e n e r a t e t J
prittr to heing
p r e d i c t i n gt h a t r e a d i n ga w o r d w i l l e n h a n c e r e a d .
O f p a r t i c u l a ri n t e r . e ) i tn t h c c t l n t c r r _
i t s s u b s e q u e nitd e n t i f r c a t i o n
m o r e t h a n w i l l p r e s e n tc o n d i t i o nw e r . eo c c a s i o n s( ) n r vh i en
g e n e r a t i n gt h e w o r d b u t p r . o v i d e sn o b a s i s s u b j e c t sg e n e r u t e d
u r v o r . ctlh l r t r v t r : n ( ) t t h c
INTERACTIVE PROCESSES
.189
antonymthat they later read.On theseoc- appear with a high frequency in
the lan_
casions. the context was apparentlymis- guage(A and AA) as indexed
by Thorn_
leading so that the word that was read was dike and Lorge (1944): the average
frenot the word that subjectsexpectedto read. quency of occurrenceof the remaining
24
Readinga word that is counterto expecta- words was 23.2 per million. A
set of 60
tions may require the processingoi more additionalwords was used in procedure
a
visual information than would reading the to determine,for each subject,
the durasame word with no context and, conse_ tion at which words would be presented
quently, further enhancelater perceptual for the test of perceptual
identification.
identification.Evidence in line with this and as practice items for the
test of perpossibility is provided by Experiment 3. ceptual identification.
The 50 words used
Experiment4 furtherexaminedthe effectof to set a presentationduration were
all
reading a word in a misleadingcontext. high frequency while the
l0 words emAcross experiments,it is shown that read_ ployed as practice items included
5 high
ing a word in context can produce either and 5 low frequencywords.
better or poorer later perceptualidentifica_ The set of antonym pairs was
divided
tion than does reading the word without equally among four experimental
condicontext,dependingon whetherthe conte.rr tions that were representedwithin
subaccuratelypredictsor is misleadingwith re- jects, and differentiatedby
details of the
gard to the word that is to be read.
presentationof words during the first
phase of an experiment. In the first experimental condition (no context), only
E x p e n r u e x r sl _ 3
the
second member of an antonym pair
Method
was presented,preceded by a series of
SLtbjects.Subjects in all experimenrs X's, both membersof a pair
were prewere volunteersenrolled in an introduc_ sented in the second
condition (contexr
tory psychologycourse at McMaster Uni_ present)and only the first
memberof a
t'r cvr
" c Jr!,
itrr
Qi-+^-. rr^lssrr
st-ibjects served in the
pair foiloweci by a series of question
first experiment,40 in the secondexperi- marks was presen_ted
in the rhird ccndi_
ment (24 received both a test of percep_ tion (generate).In a
fourth condition
tual identificationand one of recognition (new),neithermember
of an antonympair
memory while l6 receivedonly the test of was presented,so words
from this condi_
recognitionmemory), and 24 in the third tion were new on the
test. For all condiexperiment.
tions, the secondmemberof each antoDesign und ,muteriul:;. Sixty pairs of nym pair was presented
for a test of
antonymswere selectedfrom a reference perceptualidentification
and a test of rec_
book. An attempt was made to select ognitionmemory. For
both forms of test.
pairs such that the first memberof a pair words were presented
in an order that
was unambiguouswith regardto its mean_ was randomexcept
for the restrictionthar
ing and would easily allow subjects to words representing
each of the four ex_
generatethe secondmemberof the pair as perimental
conditionswere spreadevenly
its antonym.Owing to problemsencoun- through the list.
Four formats were con_
tered by subjectsattemptingto generate structed by
rotating antonym pairs
the secondmemberof a pair, a few of the through
experimental
conditionssuch that
pairs employed in the first experiment across
formatseach pair representedeach
were replacedby new pairs in the second condition
equally often. Further, two
experiment. The target word (second ordersof presentation
of itemsin rhe first
word) in antonym pairs varied from 4 to 6 phase
of each experiment were conlettersin length.Of thesetargetwords, 36 structed.
Theseorderswere randomwith
490
LARRY L. JACOBY
the restrictionthat items representingthe
different conditions were distributed
equally through the list. Each of the eight
combinationsof list format and presentation order was used equally often in each
of the experiments.
The experimentwas describedto suo_
jects as being concernedwith the
effects
of context on reading speed. Subjects
were informed that there would be three
types of event in the first phaseof the ex_
periment. In some instances,a series of
X's would appearon the screenand then
Procedure
be replacedby a word. They were to read
An Apple computer interfacedwith a the
word as rapidly as possible.As a sec_
televisionset having a l4-in. screen was
ond type of event, a word would appear
employed to present stimuli. Characrer
on the screenand be replacedby the an_
size produced on the television screen
tonym of that word: they were instructed
was approximately5.7 x 6.6 mm; words
to read the second word (antonym) as
were presentedin all lower case letters.
rapidly as possible. As a third type of
Subjectswere seatedsuch that their view_
event, a word would appearon the screen
ing distancewas 70 to 75 cm.
and be replaced by a series of question
The index of perceptual identification marks;
they were to say the antonvm of
was the probability of identification of the presented
words as rapidly as possible
words exposedfor a brief interval"the in_ when
the question marks appeaied. In
terval being set individually for each sub- Experiment
3, the instructions were
ject. An experimentalsessionbeganwith
changedso that for the latter two types of
a test of perceptualidentificationthat was event
subjectswere required to generare
employed to set a presentationduration an antonym
and say it alcud prior to the
for each subjectthat would yield a desired presentation
of the word that was to be
probabilityof correcr identification.A list read
or the seriesof questionmarks. If a
of 50 words was presentedas 5 blocks of series
of question marks appeared.they
l0 words each. Words in the first block were
to repeatthe antonym that they had
were presentedfor a duration of 40 milli_ just
said. If a word appeared,they were
secondsrwhile words in later blocks were to read
the word aloud as rapidly as pos_
presentedat either shorter or longerdurar
sible regardlessof whether or nor rhe
tions as requiredto obtain a duraltionthat word was
the antonym that they had just
would produce the desired level of per_ said.
Subjects were informed rhat their
formance. The presentationduration de_ speed
of respondingwas of primary intertermined in this original test was em_ est and
that latencieswere beingrecorded
ployed for the later critical test of
by meansof a voice key. Latency of reperceptual identification. The intended sponding
was not actuallyrecorded.
probability of correct perceptualidenrifi_
The sequenceof events that comprised
cation was .50 in the first and third ex_ the presentation
of stimuli in ths first
perimentsand .60 in the second exoeri_ phase
of the experimentwas as follows,
ment.
F i r s t , t h e m e s s a g e . . p r e s sr e t u r n w h e n
I The presentation
ready"
appearedon the screen, and re_
durationand other intervalswere
only approximaledue to the screennot beingdirecrly mainedthere until the subject pressed
the
c.ontrolled
by the computer.so the .'refresh.icycleof "return" buttonon the
computer
terminal
the screenwas a sourceof error. This source
oi.rroIkeyboard. After the return button wirs
resultedin the large majority of events being
of near pressed" the
original message left rhe
the intendedduration. but the true duration of
some
screenand two setsof markers(two short
events was a maximum of plus or minus 17
miili_
s€condsfrom rhe intendedduration.This variabilitv
horizontallines) appearedon the screer,
of
the presentationduration was random so does
nor for one secondwith one set of markers
compromisethe results.
beingabove the other. The setsof mark_
INTERACTIVE
PROCESSES
491
ers surroundedthe location in which a seconds. surrounding the location in
context word or a seriesof X's would be which the word would be presented. Impresented.Next. the contextword or se- mediately after presentation of the word.
ries of X's appearedsurroundedby the a mask (a series of ampersands of the
top set of markers and remainedon the same length as the word) appeared in the
screen for one second while the space same location as had the word. and resurroundedby the bottom set of markers mained on the screen for one second.
remainedempty. The context word or se- This sequence of events was then reries of X's was then removed, and the peated until the entire test list had been
space surroundedby each of the sets of p r e s e n t e d . F o r t h e m a i n t e s t l i s t . w o r d s
markers was empty for one second. At were presented for a duration that was dethe end of this interval,a clickingsound termined separately for each subject by
occurred coincident with the appearance means of the initial test of perceptual
crf either a word that was to be read or a identification that was described earlierseries of question marks surroundedby B e f o r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e m a i n t e s t I i s t . a
the bottom set of rnarkers.The spacesur- p r a c t i c e l i s t t h a t e o n t a i n e d l 0 w o r d s t h a t
rounded by the top set of markers was d i d n o t a p p e a r e l s e w h e r e i n t h e e x p e r i empty during this latter interval. The ment was presented at the same duration
clicking sound was to further attract sub- a s t h e w o r d s i n t h e m a i n t e s t l i s t .
jects' attention to the occurrenceof the
A t e s t o f r e c o g n i t i o nm e m o r y w a s g i v e n
target word or series of question marks, to subjects in Experiments 2 and 3. For all
and was used in Experiments2 and 3 but subjects in Experiment 3 and one group of
not Experiment l. The target word that subjects in Experiment 2. the test of recogwas to be read aloud or the series of nition memory followed that of perceptual
question marks that signaledsubjectsto identification. A second group of subjects
say the antonym of the context word re- i n E x p e r i m e n t 2 r e c e i v e d o n l y t h e t e s t o f
mained on the screen for one second. recognition memory. The test of recogniNext, the message" Press return when t i o n m e m o r y c o n t a i n e d t h e s a m e w o r d s a s
ready" againappeared,and the sequence d i d t h e t e s t o f p e r c e p t u a li d e n t i f i c a t i o nb u t
was repeateduntil the list had been pre- w a s p r e p a r e d a s a t y p e d s h e e t w i t h t h e
"old" and the "new" words being intersented.
A test of perceptualidentificationwas m i x e d . S u b j e c t s w e r e i n s t r u c t e d t o c i r c l e
given to all subjectsin ExperimentsI and words that they had either read or gen3, and to one group of subjectsin Experi- e r a t e d i n t h e f i r s t p h a s eo f t h e e x p e r i m e n t .
ment 2. Prior to the test of perceptual In Experiment 2. subjects were also reidentification,subjectswere informedthat quired to indicate whether they had read a
words would be flashedon the screenand word or generated the word in the flrst
that they were to report each word imme- p h a s eo f t h e e x p e r i m e n t .N e x t t o e a c h w o r d
diately after its presentation. Subjects o n t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t s h e e t w e r e t h e
were encouragedto respondto each test l e t t e r s " R " a n d " G " . S u b j e c t sw e r e t o c i r item. guessingif necessary.
The sequence c l e t h e l e t t e r " R " i f t h e y h a d r e a d t h e w o r d
of events in the test of perceptualidentifi- in the first phase of the experiment or the
cation was as follows. The message letter "G" if they had generated that word
"Press return when ready" appearedon i n t h e f i r s t p h a s eo f t h e e x p e r i m e n t b u t n o t
the screen and remained there until the read it. Subjects were required to circle one
subject pressedihe "reiurn" button. The of the two letters tbr each of the words in
original messagethen left the screenand a t h e t e s t l i s t r e g a r d l e s so f w h e t h e r o r n o t
set of markers(two short horizontallines) t h e y h a d c i r c l e d t h e w o r d a s b e i n g o n e t h a r
appeared on the screen for 500 milli- t h e v r e c o s n i z e d a s h a v i n s e n c o u n t e r e d i n
492
LARRY L, JACOBY
the first phaseof the experiment.For each Experiment3, the probability of an antoof the experiments,the test of recognition nym beingcorrectlygeneratedwas .78 and
memorywas subjectpaced.
.81in the Contextand Generateconditions.
respectively.Some of the predictionsthat
Rr,sulrs nxo Dtscusslox
were made rely on subjectshaving been
For eachexperiment"an analysisthat in- able to predict the word that was to be read
ciudedeachof the four presentationcondi- prior to its presentation,or on their ability
tions as a within-subjectfactorwas done as to generatethat word. When possible,the
a means of obtaining an estimateof the probabilityof correct perceptualidentificaerror variance,MS". This estimateof the tion or recognitionmemoryconditionalized
variancewith its corresponding
dl'was then on an antonymhaving been correctlygenemployedto compute the least significant erated, as well as the unconditionalized
difference,the smallestdifferencebetween probabilities,will be reported.
two probabilitiesthat was significantat the
Perceptttal identificuti<ur.The exposure
.05 level when assessedby a r test. These duration employedfor the test of percepvalueswere computedfor one-tailedtests tual identificationin Experiment I ranged
sincethe directionof all differencesthat are from 15 to 38 millisecondsand had a mean
of interest were predicted on a priori of 23.7milliseconds.
In Experiment2, the
grounds. Rather than the results of tests rangewas from 15to 32 millisecondswith a
beingreportedseparatelyfor eachcompari- meanof 22.13milliseconds.
The rangein
son. the estimatesof M.S"alongwith d/are exposuredurations in Experiment 3 was
reportedin the text of the paperwhile the from 15 to 35 millisecondswith a mean of
leastsignificantdifference(lsd) is reported 20.8milliseconds.
in the final column of tables that display
The probabilityof perceptualidentificaprobabilitiesthat are beingcompared.Un- tion in Experimentsl-3 is displayedsepaless noted as being otherwise, all differ- rately for each experimentalcondition in
encesthat are commentedon in the text of Table l. The MS,,for ExperimenlsI -3 was
the paperwere significant.It is recognized .017,.010,and .014,while the df were 45.
that the procedureof employingt testsfor 69, and69, respectivety.
The lsd for signifimultiplecomparisonsis not a conservative canceat the .05 [evelin eachof the experione
Flowevpr
anv lqck nf cnnserwef icm in
ments is displayedin the last cclurnn in
the statisticaltests employed is compen- Table l.
satedfor by replicatingthe resultsthat are
Readinga word without contexr(XXX
of interestacrossexperiments.
COLD) enhancedthe subsequenr
percepThe rationaleof the experimentsmadeit tual identificationof that word as compared
importantto establishthat rhe relationship to both new words and words that had been
betweenthe antonymsthat were employed generatedin the first phaseof the experiwas sufficiently apparent to subjects to ment (HOT 'l'l?). The differencesamong
allow one memberof a pair to serveas an theseconditionswas consistentacrossthe
effective context for presentationof the three experiments"Readinga word in the
other memberof the pair. The probability contextof an antonym(e.9.,HOT COLD)
of the antonymof a contextword beingcor- produceda level of subsequent
identificarectly generatedin the first phaseofthe ex- tion performancethat was intermediatebeperimentwas .83 in both ExperimentI and tweenthe levelsproducedby the other two
in the group that receiveda test of percep- conditions.The differencein the probabilitual identificationin Experiment2; the cor- ties of later identification produced by
respondingprobability for subjectsin the havingreada word without contextrather
group that receivedonly a test of recogni- than in context was significantin E.rperition memory in Experiment2 was .89. In ments2 and 3 and approachedsignificance
493
INTERACTIVE PROCESSES
T A B L EI
PnogegrLrrrEs
op L.ltEn PencgrrueLloexrrrrcrrroN As A Fuxcrrox oF THETne,lrN{exr
or Wonostx PsaseI
Phase I
Experiment
i
2
J
No context
.620
.822
.655
Context
.755
.583
in Experimentl. Readinga word in context
produceda significantlyhigherprobability
of subsequent perceptual identification
than did generatingthat word in eachof the
three experiments.
Percep t uaI ident ifi cation contlitio netIi zed
on generating.In Experiment3, subjects
were requiredto generatean antonym of
the context word and say it aloud prior to
the presentation
of the antonymthat was to
be read. It was thought that this procedure
would produce a further reductionof datadriven processingand, consequently,less
enhancement of subsequent perceptual
identificationthan found in Experiments
I and 2 where sayingan antonymprior to
presentationof the word to be read was not
required. However, the magnitudeof the
differencein perceptualiderrtificationproduced by readinga word in context rather
than out of contextwas only slightlylarger
in the third experiment(.08)thanin the first
two experiments(.07). The procedurein
the third experimentallowsone to compute
the probabilityof identificationconditionalizedon an antonymhavingbeencorrectly
generatedprior to its presentationto be
read. These conditional probabiiitiesrevealed that subsequentidentificationof a
word that had been correctly generated
prior to beingread was substantiallylower
(.56) than that of words that had not been
generated prior to being read (.68),
t(23) : 2.55, SEM : .045.On .57 of the
occasions,an error in generatingan antonym in the first phaseof the experimentinvolved subjectssaying a word other than
the word that was presentedto be read,
Generate
.156
.669
.525
New
lsd
.466
.600
.078
.048
.058
All
while on the remainingoccasionsthe errors
were ones of omission.When subjectsdid
generatea wrong word prior to presentation of the antonymthat was to be read.the
probability of later identificationof the
word that had beenreadwas .74.This probability of identificationis higher than that
producedby readinga word without context in the first phase of the experiment
(.66). Similar resultsare presentedin Experiment4 where words were intentionally
presentedin a misleadingcontexlto be read
and then presentedfor a test of perceptual
identification.
Effects oJ'generutingu n,ord on perceptuul identiJicution.Generatinga word as an
antonymof a contextword wasexpectedto
involve only conceptually driven processingand, due to the lack of data-driven
processing,have no effect on subsequent
identification.However, the effect of generatinga word was inconsistentacrossthe
three experiments.Words that had been
generatedas antonymsbut not presentedto
be read held an advantageover new words
that was significantin Experiment2 and
that approached significancein Experiment 3. In Experimentl, the probabilityof
identifyingwords that had beengenerated
was identical to that of new words. For
each of the experiments,it was possibleto
comparethe probabilityof perceptualidentification conditionalized on the tested
word havingbeencorrectlygeneratedwith
that when the target word was not generatedin the first phaseof the experiment.
probabilities.
To computetheseconditional
two subjectshad to be dropped from the
494
LARRY L. JACOBY
second experimentand one subject from By that comparison,
then, readinga word
the third experimentdue to their not pro_ in contextcan
involve almostas little dataducing any errors in generating^ntonym. driven processing
as does generatinga
and" thereby, not providing a meaningfui word.
basisfor computinga probabi.lityof percipThe perceptualidentificationresultscan
tual identificationconditional on the test be readily
summarizedby saying that the
word not havingbeengenerated.In eachof effectsof encountering
a word on its subse_
the experimenrs,the probabilityof percep- quent perceptual
identificationdependon
tual identification,given that the tarset the amount
of data-drivenprocessingin_
word had been correcrly generatea,*ts volved in that prior
encounter.A reduction
greater than that given that the word had in subjects'
relianceon the processingof vi_
not beengenerated:.48 versus.42, .6g ver_ sualinformation
in the first phaseof the exsus.64,.55versus.44,in Experimentsl_3, perimentresulted
in poorersubsequent
per_
respectively. The variability was quite ceptual identification
performance.
high, however, so that the differencebe_ Recognition
memory. The probabilityof
tween these conditionalizedprobabiiities recognitionmemory
is displayedin Table 2
approachedsignificanceonly in Experi_ separately
for eachof the conditionsin Ex_
ment 3, t\22) : 1.16,SEM : .08g.
periments2, 2R, and 3. In terms of proceAlthoughthe effectmay be a smallone. it duresemployed,
Experiments2 and 2R dif_
seemslikely that generatinga word can in- fered from
one another in that in
fluence its subsequentperceptualidentifi_ Experiment 2
the test of recognitionfoi_
cation. Generatinga word may sometimes lowed a test of perceptual
identification
provideaccessto informationthat is similar while
in Experiment2R only a restof recog_
to that typically gained by meansof data_ nition memorywas given.
In Experiment-.
driven processing.As well as generatinga the test of recognition
memory followed
phonologicalrepresentation
of the antonvm one of perceptualidentification.The MS,.in
to allow the word to be saidaloud,subjects E x p e r i m e n t s
2 , 2 R , a n d 3 w a s . 0 1 g .. 0 1 9 .
may sometimesgenerateinformationabout and .028,while the
df were 46, 30. and 46.
the typical appearance or constituent respectively.
The lsd's betweenprobabili_
lettersof the word, and this latter form of ties required
for significanceat the .05level
information may serve as a basisfor trans- for each
of the experimentsare displayedin
fer to subsequent
perceptualidentification- the last column of Table 2.
In this vein, Finke (19g0)has arguedrhar
imagingis sometimesfunctionallyequival_ent to perception. An experiment by
TABLE 2
Seidenberg
and Tanenhaus(1979)providei
PnogegtLtrlesor RecocNtrtox MeLronv as .\
evidencethat, although words were Dre_
Fuxcrtox oF THE Tnent.uexl or Wonos
rx psese I
sentedauditorily,subjectsgainedo...r, to
informationaboutthe orthographiccharac_
PhaseI
teristicsof the words. In general.the ef_
No
fects of generaringon later identification
Experiment context Context Cenerate Isd
are likely to dependon what is beinggen_
2
.558 . 7 t 9
erated.
. 7 8 0( . 8 1 ) . 0 6 5
2R
.400
.654
. 7 0 0( . 7 5 ) . 0 8 2
In Experiment 3, rhe conditionalized
3
.372 :741(.741 .fg17t.6gt .0{tl
probabilitiesrevealedthat correcrly geniVare. The numbers in parenthesesrefer to
erating a word produced essentiallythe
the
probability
of recognition
conditionalized
sarne probabilityof perceptualidentificaon rheturser
word havingbeengeneratedin rhe first phase
oi ihe
tion (.55)as did readinga word immediatelv
experiment.
The lsd's are for unconditionaiized
pn:b_
after it had beencorrecrlygeneratedt.56i. a b i l i r i e s .
INTERACTIVE PROCESSES
Across the experiments, the ordering of
conditions in recognition memory was
largely the opposite of that produced by the
test of perceptual identification. Consistent
w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f p r i o r e x p e r i m e n t s( e . g . ,
Jacoby, 1978:Slamecka & Graf. 1978),generating a word as an antonym of a context
word produced a higher probability of later
recognition memory than did reading that
word out of context. Further, reading a
word in context produced a higher probability of recognirion memory than did reading a word without context. Preceding the
test of recognition memory with one of perceptual identification increased the overall
probability of recognition memory but left
the pattern of results largely unchanged.
Analyses of the overall probabilities of
recognition failed to reveal a significant advantage of generating a word as compared
to reading the word in context. However,
when the probability of recognition.memory was conditionalized on a word having
been generated in the first phase of the experiment, generating a word produced a
higher probability of recognition than did
reading the word in context in both Experiments 2 and 2R; t(23) = 4.20.SEM : .02'1,
, ( 1 5 ) : 2 . 2 7 , S E M : . 0 4 2f o r E x p e r i r n e n t s
2 a n d 2 R , r e s p e c t i v e l y .T h e c o n d i t i o n a l i z e d
probabilities seem mofe appropriate than
unconditionalized probabilities for assessing effects on recognition memory. If
subjects did not generate a target word in
the generate condition. they had no experience with that word prior to the restof recognition memory and, consequently,had
n o b a s i s f o r r e c o g n i z i n gt h e w o r d . C o n d i t i o n a l i z e d p r o b a b i l i t i e sa r e p r e s e n r e da l o n g
with unconditionalized probabilities in
Table 2. [n contrast to the procedure emp l o y e d i n t h e e a r l i e r e x p e r i m e n t s ,s u b j e c t s
in Experiment 3 were required to generate
an antonym of the context word and say it
aloud prior to readingthe word in context.
W i t h t h i s a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t .r e a d i n ga
word in context produced a higher probability of recognitionmemory than did simp l y g e n e r a t i n gr h e w o r d . A l t h o u g h t h e d i -
495
rection of this difference was maintained.
the difference was no longer significant
when recognition memory was conditionalized on subjects having generated the correct antonym in the tirst phase of the experiment.
B e c k e r ( 1 9 8 0 ) d i s t i n g u i s h e sb e t w e e n a
specific prediction strategy and a general
expectancy strategy for the use of context
in a lexical decision task. By this distinction" subjects predict the specific word that
is to be presentedwhen a word is presented
in the context of its antonym. In contrast.
the recognitionmemory resultsof E.rperiments 2 and 2R lead to the conclusionthat
antonyms were not tully generated (predicted) prior to their presentationto be read
in the context presentconditions. If antonyms had been fully generated, one would
expect recognition memory performance in
those conditions to be equal to that in the
c o n t e x t - p r e s e n tc o n d i t i o n i n E x p e r i m e n t 3 .
and to be equal or superior to the level of
r e c o g n i t i o n m e m o r y i n c o n d i t i o n st h a t o n l y
generated a word but did not read it. Despite a word not having been fulty generated prior to its presentation, reading a
word in context produced less enhancem e n t o f s u b s e q u e n tp e r c e p t u a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t h a n d i d r e a d i n ga w o r d w i t h o u t c o n text in Experiments 2 and 2R. Specific
p r e d i c t i o n o f a w o r d i s a p p a r e n t l yn o t n e c essary to produce an effect of prior context
on later perceptual identification of the
word.
T h e r e c o g n i t i o nm e m o r y r e s u l t s a r e e a s ily summarized by claiming that the increase in conceptually driven processing
t h a t c o m e s f r o m p r o v i d i n g s u b j e c t sr v i t h a
b a s i s t b r e x p e c t i n ga w o r d p r i o r t o i r s p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d t h e f u r t h e r i n c r e a s ei n c o n ceptually driven processing that comes
from requiring subjects to generate a word
lead to an enhancement of recognition
m e m o r y . T h e r e m a y b e t w o b a s e so f r e c o g nition memory so that recognition sometimes relies on memory for perceptual
characteristics {gained by data-driven
p r o c e s s i n g )o r f a m i l i a r i t y r a t h e r t h a n m e a n -
496
LARRY L. JACOBY
ing (e.g.,Atkinson& Juola,1974:Jacoby&
Dallas,l98l: Mandler,1980):however,in
the presentexperimentsit was clearly difprocessing
ferencesin conceptually-driven
t.hatwerethe primarydeterminantof recognition memoryperformance.
Realitlt monitoring. In Experiments
2 and 2R, subjectshad to indicatefor each
word on the recognitiontest whetherthey
thought that word had been read or had
beengeneratedduringthe first phaseof the
experiment.For words that were correctly
recognizedas being old, Table 3 presents
the probability of subjects judging that
words had beenreadin the first phaseofan
experimentseparateiyfor eachconditionin
Experiments2 and 2R. As an indicationof a
bias toward responding that a word had
been read"the probabilityof subjectsindicatingthat words that they correctlyrecognized as beins neur were read in the first
phaseof the ei.perimentwas .72 in Experiment 2 and .57 in Experiment 2R. The
strongerbiastoward indicatingthat a word
had beenreadin Experiment2 is likely due
to performingthe testof perceptualidentification that preceded that of recognition
memory.
Subjectswere relativelyaccuratein their
judgmentsof whethera word had beenpreviously reador only generated.Words that
had been read without context were much
more likely to be judged as having been
read than were words that had only been
generated.When a word had been read in
context,however,subjectsweresomewhat
less likely to judge that they had actually
read that word than they were when the
word had been read without context:
TABLE ]
Pnoe,\erLt,rlEs
or Juocrlrc rHAT A Recocxtzeo
Wono Heo Beex Re,co
PhaseI
Experiment No context
2
2R
82
79
Context
Cenerate
.76
.71
.38
.2'7
t(23): 1.92. SEM = .032. and l(15) :
1.80. SEM : .048 in Experiments 2 and
2R, respectively.
A reduction in data-driven processing
due to the provision of context can be held
responsible for subjects' poorer ability to
remember that a word had actually been
read when that word was read in context
r a r h e rt h a n w i t h o u t c o n t e x t . I t s e e m sl i k e l y
that it is memory for data-driven processing
that allows a person to be certain of having
actually read a word. Johnson and Raye
( 1 9 8 1 )h a v e m a d e a s i m i l a p c l a i m i n t h e i r
discussion of how peopie are able to ciiscriminate between memory for having engaged in a particular task as compared to
having simply thought about engaging in
that task.
Summury. Perceptual identification in
the first three experiments reflected differences in data-driven processing while recognition memory performance reflected ciifferences in conceptually driven processing.
That is, increasingthe subject's reliance on
context produced opposite effects on the
two measures. In line with the claim that
providing context allows conceptually
d r i v e n p r o c e s s i n ga n d . t h e r e b y , r e d u c e st h e
reader's relianceon the analysisof visual
i n f o r m a t i o n( e . g . . E h r l i c h & R a y n e r , l 9 8 l ) ,
reading a word in context did less to enhance later perceptual identification but
more to aid later recognition memory than
did reading a word without context.
A p o s s i b l ea l t e r n a t i v ea c c o u n t o f t h e r e s u l t s i s t h a t s u b j e c t sd i d n o t a l w a y s a c t u a l l y
r e a d w o r d s t h a t w e r e p r e s e n t e di n c o n t e x t
but. rather, sometimes only generated
those words, fully ignoring their visual
p r e s e n t a t i o n .S u c h a n a c c o u n t w o u l d b e i n
l i n e w i t h a c l a i m t h a t c o n t e x t i n c r e a s e sr e dundancy and allows less sampling of visual information by allowing the visual
p r e s e n t a t i o no f s o m e w o r d s t o b e f u l l y i g n o r e d ( e . g . , G o o d m a n " 1 9 6 7 ) .A g a i n s t t h i s
a c c o u n t "t h e r e c o g n i t i o nm e m o r y r e s u l t sr e v e a l e d t h a t . i n E . r p e r i m e n t s2 a n d 2 R . s u b j e c t s d i d n o t f u l l y g e n e r a t ea n t o n y m s i n t h e
c o n t e x t - p r e s e n tc o n d i t i o n . y e t r e a d i n g a
INTERACTIVE PROCESSES
497
word in contextstill did lessto enhanceits periment 3 provided some evidence that
later perceptual identification than did "cost" in processingtime is at least parreadingthe word without context.Further, tially due to a more extensivevisual analthe context word did not perfectlypredict ysis being carried out to read an unthe word that was presentedto be read.On expected word. Reading a word in the
a substantialproportionof the occasionson context-present
conditionafter havinggenwhich subjectsgeneratedan antonym and erated a different word produced higher
said it aloud, the word that they generated later perceptual identification rhan did
was not the antonym that was presentedto readinga word without context. Costs in
be read in the context-presentcondition. processingthat result from presentingan
Since there were essentiallyno errors in item in a misleadingcontext were further
readingwords in the first phaseof the ex- investigatedin the presentexperiment.The
periments.subjectsmust have consistently procedurewas identical to that of earlier
made some use of the visual information experimentswith the exception that the
providedby words that were presentedin "generate"conditionin thoseexperiments
context. Rather than being all or none in was replacedby an "incongruentcontext"
that a word is either lookedat or ignored,ir condition. In the incongruentcontext conappearsthat the analysisof visualinforma- dition, the target word that subjectsread
tion variescontinuouslywith the extent of was unrelatedto the antonymthat they had
that analysisbeing dependenton context. just generatedfrom the context word. The
Furtherevidencethat this is the caseis pro- conte.\t-present
condition from earlier exvided by the conditionalizedprobabilities perimentswas retainedas a congruentconof perceptualidentificationfrom Experi- text condition in which subjects read a
ment 3. When subjects incorrectly gen- word immediatelyafter having generated
eratedand said a word that was not the tar- that word as an antonym.The manipulation
get word, reading the target word in the of conditionswas within subjectsso thar,
context-presentcondition did more to en- given a context word, subjectscould not
hance later perceptualidentificationthan predict rvhether the word that would be
did readingthe word without context. A presentedto be readwould be congruentor
misleadingcontext may result in the visual incongruent
with the context.
analysisof a word being more extensive
Modifying the procedureof the earlier
than would be carried out if the word was experimentsto include the incongruent
readwithout
This possibilityis fur- context conditionin Experiment4 consti"ont.!,t.
ther investigated
in Experiment4.
tutesa reductionin the overallprobability
that a context word will be a valid cue for
Expe,RrtreNr4
the word that is to be read.Reductionin the
The resultsof the first threeexperiments validityof a cue hasbeenshownto resultin
highlightthe beneficialeffects of conrext. a reductionin both costsand benetitsassoAs well as benefits,however,inhibitoryef- ciatedwith "priming" tPosner& Snyder,
fects of contexthave been reported(e.g., 1975).With regard to the benefirsof conPosner& Snyder, 1975;Stanovich,l98l). text, Tweedy, Lapinski,and Schvanevelclt
Contextcan be misleadingwith regardto an (197'7)
reportedthar the facilitativeeffectof
item that is to be presented,and resultin it semanticcontextin a lexicaldecisiontask
taking longerto identify the item or to rec- can be reducedby decreasingthe proporognizeit as beinga word than if no context tion of pairsin a list that are comprisedof
had been provided.Although this increase relatedwords.therebyreducingthe overall
in processingtime may largelyreflecttime probabilityof the meaningof one member
spent resolvingan incongruity at the se- of a pair beingcongruenrwith that of the
manticor syntacticlevel,the resultsof Ex- other memberof a pair. Resultsfrom ex-
498
LARRY L. JACOBY
perimentsthat have variedcue validity can in the contextof words that were not their
be used to suggestthat the visual pro- antonyms(incongruentcontext).
cessingof words read in a congruent conMuteriuls and procedrrre.With the extext will be influencedby includingwords ception of a few antonym pairs that were
that are read in an incongruentcontext in replaceddue to one memberof the pair not
the same list. Due ro the reductionin the reliably leadingto generationof the other
probability of context being a source of memberof the pair, the materialswere the
valid cues. subjectsmight engagein less same as employed in prior experiments.
conscious.attention-demanding
processing Four setsof 15antonympairswere formed
of a sort that is importantfor gainingbene- such that the sets were balancedwith refits frorn context (Posner& Snyder, 1975: gard to the lengthof targetwords and their
Stanovich.1981).Conceptually-driven
pro- frequencyin the language"For the inconcessingcould not be fully avoidedby sub- gruent context condition. pairs were
jects in E.rperiment4 since they were re- formed by re-pairingmembersof antonym
quired to generatean antonym of each pairs.This re-pairingwas done in a random
context word and say it aloud prior to the fashionwith the restrictionsthat there was
presentationof the targetword that was to no obvious relationshipbetweenmembers
be read. However, even if the amount of of the new pairs, and that no two pairs
conceptuallydriven processingis not re- could coincidewith regardto the antonyms
duced,subjectsmight be lesswilling to rely that they contained.For example."HOT
on information gained from conceptually DOWN" could not constituteone pair
driven processingand so require more vi- while "UP COLD" constitutedanorher.
sual information to be confident in their Four formatswere constructedby rotating
readingof a word presentedin a congruent the sets of antonym pairs through expericontext when the overall cue validity of mentalconditionssuch that acrosstbrmats
context is reduced.The decreasein overall eachsetof pairsrepresented
eachcondition
cue validitymightresultin a congruentcon- equally often. Two orders of items were
text producinga smallerreductionin visual employedfor the tirst phaseof rhe experiprocessingand. consequently.
less disad- ment:withineachorder,itemsrepresenting
vantagein later identificationthan was ob- each of the experimentalconditionswere
servedin earlierexperiments.
spreadevenlythroughthe list. For words
representing
the incongruent
conte.\tcondiMetlrcd
tion. the memberof an antonympair that
Subject.rund design. The subjectswere was presentedto be read had to appear
24 studentsenrolledin an introducrorypsy- equally often before and atter. and be
chology course at McMaster University widely separaied
from the memberof thar
who served in the experimentfor course pair that was presented
as a contextword_
credit.
Otherwise,the orderof itemswas random.
The design was identical to that em- Three subjectsreceivedeach of the eighr
ployedin Experirnenrs
I -3 with the excep- listsformedby combiningthe four tbrmars
tion that the "generate"conditionin those and two ordersof items presentedin the
experimentswas replacedby an incongru- first phaseof the experiment.
ent contextcondition.For the test of perAn initialrestof perceprual
identification
ceptual identificationand that of recosni- was givento determinea presentation
duration memory, then, there were fiur tion tbr each subject thar would yield a
conditions:new words, words that had probabilityof correctperceptualidentitlcabeenreadwithoutcontext,wordsthat were tion that was near .50.The procedureand
readin the conte,rtof their antonyms(con- apparatus
employedfor presenting
itemsin
gruent context),and words that were read the first phaseof the experimentwereiden-
INTERACTIVE
499
PROCESSES
without context. Perceptual identification
in both of these conditions was poorer than
that produced by reading words in an incongruent context. In the congruent context condition, a comparison of conditional
probabilities produced results that parallel
the difference in overall probabilities bet w e e n t h e c o n g r u e n t a n d i n c o n g r u e n tc o n text conditions. Although the difference
was not significant, the probability of perceptually identifying words that had been
generated prior to being read in the congruResults nNo DtscusstoN
ent context condition (.67) was lower than
The probabilityof subjectscor.rectlygen- that of perceptually identifying words in
erating the antonym of the context word that condition that had not been generated
was .79 in the congruentcontext condition p r i o r t o b e i n g r e a d ( . 7 5 ) . T h e c o n d i t i o n and .87 in the incongruentcontext condi- a l i z e d p r o b a b i l i t i e si n t h e i n c o n g r u e n tc o n tion. The presentationduration employed t e x t c o n d i t i o n p r o v i d e d n o e v i d e n c e t h a t
tor the test of perceptual identification g e n e r a t i n ga w o r d a s a n a n t o n y m . w i d e l y
rangedfrom l5 to 40 millisecondsand had a separated in time tiom the reading of that
The probabili' antonym, had any effect on its subsequent
mean of 26.7 milliseconds.
ties of perceptual identificationare pre- p e r c e p t u a li d e n t i f ic a t i o n .
The concern with cue validity makes it
sentedin Table4 separatelyfor eachof the
w
o
rthwhile to compare the results of the
experimentalconditions. An analysis of
p
r
e
s e n te x p e r i m e n t w i t h t h o s e o i p r i o r e x variancethat includedall four experimental
=
Perceptual identification of
periments.
conditionsyielded MS,. .010with 69 d/.
h
ad been read with no context
w
o
r
d
s
t
h
a
t
Employingthat estimateof the error varin
e
w w o r d s i n t h e p r e s e n te x p e r i t
h
a
t
o
f
ance, the differencebetweenprobabilities a n d
w
a
s
c
o
m
parable to that observed in
m
e
n
t
that is requiredto revealsignificanceat the
p
r
i
o
r
e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
nts. However. reading a
.0-5level when a one-tailedt test is emc
o
n
gruent context produced
w
o
r
d
i
n
a
ployed is .049.
perceptual
identification pertbrmhigher
word
in
Regardless
of context, readinga
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
x p e r i m e n tt h a n i n p r i o r
i
n
t
h
e
a
n
c
e
the first phaseof the experimentenhanced
p
robability of percepT
h
e
e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
s
.
later perceptualidentification.Unlike the
words
that were read in
identifying
results of prior experiments, however, tually
(
.
74) was higher in
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
a
n
i
n
c
o
n
g
r
u
e
n
t
reading a word immediatelyafter having
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
t
h
an that in other
(cone
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
generatedthat word as an antonym
the conditional
i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
t
o
a
n
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
of
gruentcontext)did not producea level
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
3
o
f perceptuully
i
n
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
was
later identificationperformancethat
was
read
in the conword
that
a
identifying
word
lower than that producedby readinga
tical to that in prior experiments.As in Erperiment3, subjectswere instructedto generate an antonymof the context word and
say it aloudprior to the presentationof the
word that wasto be read,and thenreadthat
laterword aloudwhen it appeared.The details of the presentationof stimuli. including the timing of events,the test of perceptual identification, and the test of
recognitionmemory were the same as in
prior e.rperiments.
TABLE 1
P n o g n g t l t r t e so n L , l r e n P e n c E r r u . q lt o- e x r t F t c . r T t o N\ s . \ F u l c r t o N o n
Cor.rre.xrtx PH,rseI
Context
No context
Probability
Congruent
669
lncongruent
736
New
521
500
LARRY L. JACOBY
text-presentcondition after an incorrect parently conceptually
driven processing
word had beengenerated.
The resultsof the that provideda basisfor recognitionmemperceptualidentificationtest provide evi- ory since the incongruent
context condidencethat the visualanalysisof words read tion did not hold any advantage
over the
in an incongruentcontextis moreextensive (y.vnrnr oo r^i l psnvt r r ! av vn rnrt!cvv t ! vn vatnt Ju il +! ri v^ l-t
:-^^^--;
rrr
rcL:uglll_
than that of words read without contexr. tion memory. Conditionalizing
recogniion
Further,the reductionin relianceon visual memory on a word
having been correctly
informationthat is gainedwhen a word is generatedin the
first phaseof the expenread in a congruentcontext apparentlyde- ment did not change
the patternof results.
pendson the overallprobabilityof the con_
text word providinga valid cuefor the word
GexeRnLDrscusslow
that is to be read.Even when subjectswere
The resultsweighon a numberof issues.
requiredto fully generatea word prior to The conclusions
that I draw are ( I ) percepreadingthat word in a congruenicontext, tion, like recognition
memory, relies on
reducingthb probabilitythai the cues pro- memory for prior
episodes,so the two can
vided by context were valid largelyelimi- be describedwithin
the confinesof a sinele
nated the difference in later perceptual model;(2)generating,
as comparedto rei,lidentificationbetweenwords that had been ing, a word dces
not producea betier ment_
read in a congruentcontext and those read ory but, rather,_produces
a difference in
without context. subjectswere apparently what is remembered:
(3) perceptualidentifi_
less willing to rely on informationgained cation and recognition
memory utilize dit-from conceptuallydriven processingano, ferent forms of information
rather than reccnsequently,relied more heavily on an flectingthe operation
of
different
memory
a
a .l Jr r s irc. u
n
r, r i . . ' . t
:-f^*^':^.^
--- r
* ^n. E
v rf
rou4r
rltrvr
rtt4llull
tu
I gau
a
sysiems:ancit4)'finaliy,etl-ectson visual
word when cue validity was decreased.
perceptualidentificationret'lectthe extenRecognitionmemory performancewas sivenessof prior visual
analysis,and are
expectedto reflectconceptuallydrivenpro- useful for analyzing
interactiveprocessing
celsing and, consequently.not reveal any in reading.
differencebetweenthe congruentand inPerception, like retttllnitittn memor\.
congruent context conditions. Concep_ relies on memorv.for
prior epi.rtttlc;;,.y,tthe
tually driven processingshould have been ttt'ocutrhe desc.rihed
n'ithinthe t.ttttJinc:o.lapproximatelyequal in the congruentand tt .singlemodel.
The presentresults show
lncongruentcontext conditions" In both that perceptual
identificationis not only
conditions"targetwords were generatedal- sensitiveto a word
having been read bur
though the word that was generatedwas also reflectsdifferences
in the types of in_
then immediately read only in the congru- formationutilized
duringthat prior readins.
ent contextcondition.Analysesof the rec- By current
models of word recognitio-n
ognition memory data revealed that the (McCIelland&
Rumelhart,lggl: fulorton.
congruentand incongruentcontext condi_ 1979),in contrasr,
identification
of a word
tions produced nearly identical probabili- utilizesan abstract
representation
suchas a
ties of recognitionmemory(.733 and "725), logogenthat serves
to representonty detin_
and each produceda higherprobabilityof ing or typical
featuresof the word. presen_
recognition memory than did reading a tation of the word
serves to lower the
word without conrext(.38), r(46): 10.24 thresholdof
that abstract representation.
and 9.06,SEM : .034and .039.Alrhough therebyreducing
the amountof information
perceptualidentificationperformancere- that must
laterbe collectedfor the subiecr
vealedthat subjectsreadingwords in an in- to decidethat
the word has occurred.To
congruentcontextrelied more heavilyon accountfor the
lackof transferbetweenau_
analysisof visual information,it was ap- ditory presentation
of a word and its later
INTERACTIVE
PROCESSES
501
visual perceptual identification, Morton context or if word identificationwas inter(1979)has postulatedseparatevisual and fered with by presentingwords in a mixed
auditory logogen systems. The present typecase. Drewnowski and Healy argue
findingof effectsof the context in which a that letters are embeddedin words when
word was readon its laterperceptualidenti- subjectsattend to units at the word levei
fication poses a more serious problem for and that words, in turn, can be embeddedin
the logogenmodel. The diffrculty is that the larger units when subjectsattend to those
activationof a logogenthat is said to be higherlevels.To accountfor the presentrethat contextdegainedby readinga word is ahistoricin that sults,it could be suggested
that is prothe
unit
level
of
the source of that activation is not pre- terminesthe
word
is
readin the
when
a
served;the thresholdof a logogendoesnot cessed.Possibly,
word
and its
the
an
antonym,
reflect the amount of data-driven pro- context of
that
fails to
unit
a
larger
cessing separatelyfrom that of concep- antonymcomprise
that
is later
word
unit
with
single
the
tually driven processinginvolved in the match
as a
perceptual
identification:
presented
for
prior readingof a word. The loweringof the
By
this
performance
suffers.
thresholdof a logogendependsonly on a consequence,
conword
in
an
incongruent
sufficient total amount of information view, readinga
having been obtained to allow the prior text requiresthat subjectsatterrdto the inof the con- dividuallettersof the word, and it is inforreadingof the word. Regardless
text in which a word was read,it must have mation at that level that is most usefulfor
beenthe visuallogogensystemthat was in- later perceptualidentificationof words prevolved so equaleffectson later perceptual sentedin isolation.
This notion of units at different levels
identificationmust be predicted.
One way of accountingfor the presentre- could be usedto retainthe spirit of the logosults is to assume that the level of the gen model by claiming that potentialunits
"unit" that is representedis determinedby of perceptionare representedat different
context.Osgoodand Hoosain(1974)report levels and that units at each of the levels
that presenting wordlike nominal com- have correspondingthresholdsthat can be
pounds such as "peanut butter" does not temporarily lowered by their prior use.
enhancelater perceptualidentificationof Memory for an event would be distributed
at difthe individualwords in the compound,and amonga number of representations
and
recorded
be
abstraction
levels
of
argue that this is becausethe meaningof ferent
the individual words is lost in the larger by loweringthe thresholdof units at some
unit, and perceptualidentificationutilizes of those levels. By postulatingunits at a
feedback from centrai mediational pro- numberof differentlevels,one would have
cesses concerned with meaning. Drew- to greatlyincreasethe numberof represennowski and Healy \1977) used a letter tationsthat are postulatedand decreasethe
searchtask to attemptto specifyunits that generalityof at least some of those repreare at a higher level than the individual sentations,decreasingthe attractive simword but emphasizedeffects on the pro- plicity of the model. One also encounters
cessingof visual information rather than difficultiesassociatedwith postulatingthe
appealing to an effect of feedback from temporary lowering of thresholds.Rather
meaning.They found a disproportionately than beingtemporary,the effectsof a prior
largenumberof detectionerrorswhen sub- presentationare so persistentas to cause
jects were searchingfor lettersthat appear p r o b l e m sf o r a l o g o g e nm o d e l ( J a c o b y .
in the common function words "the" and 1983).Further,detailsof the visualappear"and." The number of errors on these anceof a word that is readare remembered
function words was reduced if the words and influencelaterperceptualidentification
were placed in an inappropriatesyntactic (Jacoby & Witherspoon,1982).Since a
s02
LARRY L. JACOBY
word can assume an essentiallyinfinite ther, the episodicview
dictatesthat siminumber of different appearances,effects of larity mustbe specified
in termsof the simi_
this sort are porentially damaging for a iarity of processing
of eventsratherthan, as
thresholdmodel. prior to the presentation is often done,
in terms of the similarity of
of a word thereis potentiallyno representa- literal representations
of words.
tion of its word shapewhosethresholdcan
If the episodic view of perception is
be lowered.
adopted,the distinctionbetween episodic
The conclusionI preferis that perceptual and semantic
memory (Tulving, 1972)
identification reflects memory for the pro- Iargelydisappears,
as does the distincrion
cessingof episodes.The choice between betweenperception
and memory(Jacoby&
representations
is similarto that considered Witherspoon,1982).Whethera word
fragby Glushko(1979)and Brooks fl97g) when ment, for example,
is calleda retrievalcue
they advocateactivation of whole words (Nelson& McEvoy,
1979)or is treatedas a
rather than abstractspellingto soundrules perceptualstimulus (Broadbent
& Broadas a basis for pronunciation.They argue bent, 1975)becomes
largelyarbitrary. For
that an accountin termsof abstractspelling both memory and perception,
the inter_
to sound rules requiresa proliferationof action between
constraintsprovidedby the
rulesin the hundredsor thousandsand thar stimulus(cuesprovided
by the test) and
a sizablenumberof theseruleswould have those coming
from memory for prior epi_
to be so specificto particularwords as to no sodes, determines
performance.The pri_
longer be abstract across word identity. mary difference
betweena test of memory
McClellandand Rumelharr(l9gl) incorpo_ and one of perception
is likely to be in the
rate thesesuggestions
by postulatingwhole type and amountof constraintimposed
by
words as being the unit of representation the cuesprovided
at test. For a test of recand accounting for word perception in ognitionmemory,
fewer prior episodesare
termsof the numberof ..friends" and ..ene- potentiallyrelevant
than would be relevant
mies" that are recruitedon the basisof sim_ for a test of perception.
Memory and per_
ilarity when a particularword is presented. ception can also
differ in the aspectsof
The form of modelI preferis similarro rhar prior episodesthat
they rely on most heavproposedby McClellandand Rumelhartbut ily. In the present
experiments,effecisin
utilizes memory for the processingof a perceptionreflectedprior
data-drivenpro_
word duringparticularencounterswith thar cessingwhile
recognitionmemoryretlecteci
word ratherthan someabstractrepresenta_ prior conceptually
driven processing.
The
tion of the word. The level of activation memory underlyingperception,
as well as
that is postulated by McClelland and that underlyingperformance
on recognition
Rumelhart as being a property of an ab_ or recalltasks,however,
is apparentlydis_
stract representation
of a word can be seen tributed acrossmemory for prior episodes
as being a summury stetisticthat reflects rather than being
fully centralizedin ab_
the number and similarity of remembered stract representations.
Models of the tbrm
prior episodesthat representoccasionson proposed
by Ratcliff0978) providea promwhich the particularword was read.predic_ ising lead toward
specifyinghow asiumo_
tions madein termsof differencesin mem- tions about a distributed
memorli system
ory for episodeswill often not differ from can be linked to performance
in a mrrnner
those that could be derived by postulating that makes quantitative
predictionspos_
abstract representationsthat differed in sible.
their levelof activation.The primarydiffer_
The issueshereare identicalto thosein_
ence is that the episodicview of perception volved in a choice
between..instances..
p r e d i c t s m o r e s p e c i f i c a n d p e r s i s t e n t and "abstractionist"
viewsof conceDrtbr_
e f f e c t s o f a p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e( J a c o b y , mation (Brooks.
1978:Medin & Shaffer.
1983;Jacoby& Wirherspoon,1982).Fur- 1978).A logogenmodelcorresponds
ro an
INTERACTIVE
PROCESSES
503
abstractionistview, whereasa model that found using a variety of other tasks. The
emphasizes
memoryfor prior episodescor- prior presentationof a word enhancesperrespondsto an instancesview of concept formancewhen subjectsare later askedto
formation. The relationship between read an inverted version of the word
theoriesof concepttbrmationand thoseof (Kolers, 1976),make a lexical decisionby
perception and memory is more fully dis- judging that a repetition of the item is a
cussedby Jacobyand Witherspoon(1982). word (Forbach, Stanners, & Hochaus,
The datafrom the presentexperimentscan I9'74; Scarborough" Cortese, & Scarbe interpretedas being in line with an in- borough, 1977),completea word fragment
stancesview of concept formation. That that requiresthe previouslypresentedword
data supportingan instancesview can be as a solution(Tulving,Schacter,& Stark,
gained in a word perceptiontask is im- 1982),or use a word fragment(endingcue)
pressivesincethe greatdeal of experience as an explicit cue for recall(Nelson& Mcthat subjectshave had readingwould seem Evoy. 1979).That the effect of a prior preto favor the abstractionand consistentuse sentationin each of these tasks relies, at
of a general (abstract)representationof leastpartially,on memoryfor prior percepwords"
tual processingis evidencedby the effectof
Generating as compared to reoding ct changingthe modality of presentationbeword does not produc'eu better memory tweenstudyand test. As hasbeenfound for
but, rather,producesu dffirence in u,hatis the perceptualidentificationtask employed
rememhered.If only the recognitionmem- in the presentexperiments,hearinga word
ory results were examined, one would or generatingthat word is less effective
agreewith others (e..g.,Craik & Lockhart, than is readingthe word for eithera latervi1972:Sachs,1967)that it is primarilymean- sual test that requires lexical decisions
ing, the semanticinterpretationof an event, (Kirsner & Smith, l9'74, Scarborough.
that is rememberedover the long term. By Gerard,& Cortese,1979),or for a latertest
this view, perceptualdata are usedonly to that involvesvisual presentationof a word
arrive at the interpretationof an event and fragment as a cue for recall (Nelson &
are rapidly forgotten.Resultsproducedby McEvoy. 1979).As well as an effectof mothe perceptualidentiticationtest. however. dality, Kolers and his colleagueshave
provide evidencethat the perceptualdata found effectsof changesin the visual apare rememberedalso. Memory for the per- pearanceof items(e.g.,changingtypeface)
ceptualdata was revealedby presentation on the amountof transfergainedfrom prior
of a word enhancingits subsequent
percep- practicein readingan invertedtext (e.g..
tual identification.The resultsof the pres- Kolers & Perkins.1975:Kolers. Palef.&
ent experimentsupport the claim that the Stelmach.1980).
cuesprovidedfor retrievalby a test.or the
That the effectsof generatinga word are
operationsemployedto processan item specific to the form of test that is usec
duringa test. must be compatiblewith the weighson the interpretation
of experiments
prior processing
of that item for evidenceof that have beendesignedto determinewhy
memory to be obtained (e.9., Jacoby, generatingas comparedto readinga word
Craik,& Begg,1979;Kolers, 1979;Tulving enhancesits memory (e.g., Donaldson&
& Thomson, 1973\.The effectsof encoding Bass, 1980:Graf, 1980:McElroy & Slaconditionson recognition
memorywerethe mecka. 1982).A popular accountof the
opposrteof those on perceptualidentifica- "generation" effect is that generatingprotion so that conclusions
drawnaboutmem- ducesbettermemoryby forcingsubjectsto
ory dependedon the form of test that was deal with the meaningof the to-be-rememexamined.
beredmaterial.In contrast.the presentreEffects that partially reflect memory for sultslead to the conclusionthat generating
prior perceptualprocessing
havealsobeen doesnot producebettermemorybut rather
<n/
LARRY L" JACOBY
producesa differencein what is remem_ memory systems: perceptual
a
or perform_
bered.The benefitsof generatinga word for ance basedmemory
systemand a separate
recognitionmemory in the presente.rperi_ episodicmemory system
upon which recments can be describedin terms of an in_ ognitionmemoryis based.
Ratherthan concrease in conceptuallydriven processing; cludingthat thereare
two memorysystems,
however,thosebenefitswereoffsetby a re- eachidentifiedwith
a type of task, I wanr to
ductionin benefitsfor laterperceptualiden_ emphasizethe difference
in the type of intification. Graf (1980)offered similarcom_ formation employed
by the two types of
ments on the specificityof the generation task. The test of recognition
memory used
effect by employinga distinctionbetween information for which prior
conceptually
interword and intraword organizationpro- driven processingwas important,
whereas
pcseCby llandler ( i980).lnierwordorsani_ percepruaiidentification
used information
zauoncan be seenas corresponding
to con- for which data-drivenprocessingwas more
ceptually driven processing. Intraword important.
organization(integration)is describedas
By concentratingon the type of informareflecting memory for the perceptualchar- tion used by a task" highly
variable relaacteristics of a rvord, data-driven Dro_ tions among the tasks
can be predicted.a
cessing,and was proposedby Mandler as result that would be awkward
for a theory
servingas one basisfor recognitionmem_ that identifiedthe types
of task with indeory. Graf useda recognitionmemorytest to pendentmemorysystems.
It is likely that
measureeffectson memory for perceptual the independence
of effects on perceptual
characteristics.The present perceptual identificationand recognition
memory can
identificationmeasureseemsto more truly be removed by altering
the detailsof the
reflect differencesin prior perceptualpro- testingproceduresso that.
both testsrely on
cessing than does a test of recognition the sametype of information.
In the present
memory, and has the additionaladvantage experiments,words were presented
withof encouraging
greatercontactwith the per- out contextfor the test of perceptual
identi_
ceptionliteraturethandoesthe notionof in_ fication so only prior data-driven
protraword organization.
cessing was important. E.xperimentsthat
Ruther thun reJlecting the operution of have reinstatedstudycontext
at the time of
dilferent memory qlstems,perceptu(tliden- test have found that performance
on a per_
tificution und recognitionmemoryc.ttnuti- ceptual task relies on prior
conceptually
Iize diffe rent typ es of infbrmut ir.rn. Finding driven processing(Franks, plybon.
&
variablesthat have oppositeeffectson the Auble, 1982).Similar
effectsof reproviding
performanceof two tasksis a standardcri- context can probably
be found for visual
terion for assertingthe independence
of the perceptualidentification,makingit possible
tasks.By this criterion,perceptualidentifi- to removethe independence
of recognition
cation and recognitionmemory are inde- memory and perceptualidentification
by
pendent of one another: increasing allowingboth rasks
to usememoryfor prior
data-drivenprocessinghad an oppositeef- conceptually driven processing.
Con_
fect on the two tasks. Other experiments versely,recognition
memorycanrely either
have also revealedevidencethat the effect on memory for perceptual
characteristics
of prior experienceon the performanceof a lfamiliarity)or on memory gained
by properceptualtask can be independentof rec_ cessingmeaning(e.g.,
Jacoby & Dallas.
ognitionmemory(Jacoby& Dallas,lggl; I98l; Mandler, 1980).There
is evidence
Jacoby& Witherspoon,
1982;Kolers,1976; that the independence
of perceptualidenti_
Tulving,Schacter,& Stark"1982).Tulving ficationand recognitionmemory
can be reet al. (1982)inrerpreted
their resultsas evi- moved by insuringthat both forms of test
denceof the existenceof two independent use memory gainedfrom
data-drivenoro_
INTERACTIVE PROCESSES
505
cessing (Jacoby & Witherspoon, 1982). processingand memory of objectspictured
Given that perceptual identification and in a scene. For exampie, if a refrigerator
recognition memory can be made depen- was picturedin a familiar contextsuch as a
dent or independentof one anotherby ma- kitchenscene,fewer eye fixationswere lonipulatingfactors that influencethe type of calized on the refrigerator and memory for
informationthat they employ, it seemsun- it was poorer than if the object had beeninwise to identifythe taskswith independent congruousin the context in which it was
pictured.When an objecthad appearedin a
memorysystems.
familiarcontext, subjectswere lessable to
systems
Postulatingseparate memory
between the object that had
justified
discriminate
if perceptual identificawould be
in the picture and other
appeared
actually
tion and recognition memory employed
class.Memory for picthe
same
of
objects
amount
representationsthat differed in the
differencesin datareflected
prior
tured
objects
preserved
about a
of detail that they
if an object was
that
processing
so
driven
a
comexperience.As discussedearlier,
visualinformaprocessing
of
less
expected,
perception
on
relies
mon assumptionis that
its
identification
allow
to
was
required
tion
not
an abstract representation that does
was reprocessing
in
this
reduction
proand
particular
preservethe detailsof any
performance.
In
memory
in
later
flected
memcessingepisode,whereasrecognition
in
perceptual
identification
as
in
study,
this
Alternaory relieson memoryfor episodes.
conceptually
paper,
present
increasing
the
of
the
forms
tively, it could be claimedthat
memory underlying the two types of task driven processing reduced performance
differ in that the memory revealedby per- on a later "data-oriented" measure of
ceptualtasks is gained in a more passive, memory.
Studiesof reading have also employed
automatic fashion and preservesall of the
perceptualdetails of the prior event. Re- on-linemeasuresof processingsuchas eye
sultsof the presentexperimentsprovideno movementsto irivestigateinteractiveprosupport for either of these alternatives. cessesbut have lackeda measureof memBoth perceptualidentification and recogni- ory to provide convergingevidenceof ef(e.g..
tion memorywere influencedby the encod- fectsof conte.{ton visualprocessing
conlack
of
l98l).
The
Rayner.
prior
presentation
a
Ehrlich
&
of
the
ing conditionsof
w o r d . O t h e r e x p e r i m e n t s( J a c o b y ,1 9 8 3 ) verging evidence has been problematic
have revealedthat variablesinfluencingre- sinceit is difficult to specifythe locusof et'trievalof memoryfor episodeshaveeffects fects by usingon-linemeasures.A reducon both typesof task. Althoughperceptual tion in processingtime that comes from
identificationand recognitionmemory can providingcontextcan ret'lecta reductionin
differ in terms of the type of information the amountof time requiredto gain a synthat they use, it seemsthat both types of tactic or semanticinterpretationof a word
task rely on memory for prior processing ratherthan a reductionin the reader'srelianceon visual information(McConkie&
episodes.
Effects on perceptltal identiJic'tttittnure Zola, 1981).However,total relianceon onusefirlJbr etnulyzing
inteructiveprocessittg. line measureshas been encouragedby the
present
itemswere pre- view that readingusesabstractrepresentathe
experiments.
In
in
the perceptual tions, making memory data uselessfor recontext
sented out of
provide
test
evidenceof vealing differences in data-driven proto
identification
processing.
The cessing.
differencesin data-driven
The use of effectson perceptualidentifiways
in
to
those
results are similar some
as a convergingmeasureof differcation
for
obtained in investigationsof memory
(1979)
prior processing
restson the same
in
ences
effects
pictures.Friedman
reported
(e.g.. 1976)work
Kolers'
visual
rationale
as
does
of subjects'expectationson both the
506
LARRY L. JACOBY
on readinginvertedtext, but removesthe lidity of context is high,
and is increased
worry that due to the task beingan unusual when the word
is .."d in an incongruent
one, reading inverted text might reveal context. Of course, prove
to
the utility of
practiceeffectsthat are more specificthan the perceptual
identificationmeasureas a
those that could be found in normal read- *"un, of analyzing
interactiveprocessing
ing' words were presentedin a normalori- in readingit must
be shown that the meaentationat a leisurelyrate in the first phase sure is sinsitive enough
to reveal differof the presentexperiments.Effectson later encesin the reading
of ionnecteddiscourse
perceptualidentificationrevealedconverg- at normalrates.
An encouraging
note in this
ing evidencefor the claim that providing regardis that the present
effectswere obcontextreducesthe reader'srelianceon the tained with words that
appearwith a high
analysisof visualinformation(e.g.,Ehrlich frequencyin the natural
languageand the
& Rayner, 1981)rather than having its ef- ef'fectsoiapriorpresentarion
are largerfor
fect totally through a reduction in the time low frequen"y tt,"n
for high freqir-"ncy
requiredfor higherleverprocessingsuchas words
te.g., Jacoby& Daltasl rggr). There
dealing with the meaning of a word are,at reait, means
by which the magnitude
(Mcconkie & zola, l98l). The resultsare of the
effectscan be increased.
also ptrientialiy relevant to theories deConcltttling comments. Among the
scribingthe effectsof conte,xton lexicalde- claims that liave served
as cornerstonesof
cisions'Ratherthan emphasizing
effectson the cognitiverevolutionare the claims that
data-driven processing,Becker (Becker. it is primarily
meaningthat is remembered
1980;Eisenberg& Becker, 1982)has sug- overthe longterm,
and rhat muchof behavgested that the effects of context on the ior is
rule-governedor guided by abstract
speedofiexicaldecisions
is largelyattribut- concepts.As an example,Bruner (1966)
able to a reductionin the sizeof the verifi- was ,o i-p..r."d
by what has come to oe
cation set that subjectssearchthrough to called conceptually
driven br top-down
explicitly identify a stimulus.The general processingth;t
he recommended..discovnotion is that rudimentaryvisual informa- ery learning" as primary
a
procedurefor
tion is gainedfrom a word that is to be read, education.bir.ou.ry
learningrequiresthat
and that the readerthen searchesthrougha the learnergenerate
a solutionto a problem
verificationset of variablelengthfor a rep- ratherthanits
beingpresentedin a more inresentationof a word that matchesthe vi- tact form and is saii
to, thereby. enhance
sual information.The p-rocedurefior pre- memory. Results
of the p.r..nt
senting stimuli in the first phase of the mentsrevealedthat "conceptually "*p".idriven..
presentexperimentsis similar to that em- processing
enhancedrecognitionmemory
ployed in experimentsinvestigatingthe ef- 6ut
reduced*.111o.yperformance
fects of context on lexical decision.How- when
""tuully
a tesi of perceptualidentificationwas
ever, effects on
later perceptual employed. performance on perceptual
identification revealed that context can tasks is probably
equallyimportantto that
have a substantialinfluenceon the amount on other tasksbut
relevantro differenteduof data-drivenprocessing.
cational objectivesthan those considered
The presentresultsare most easilysum- by Bruner. Rather
than a procedurepro_
marizedby claimingthat the effectof con- ducing good or poor
memory, it depends
text is to determinethe amount of visual criticattyon how
memory is testedor utievidencethat a readerrequiresto be confi- lized. Further, the
claim that performance
dent in his or her readingof a word. The is governedby abstract
conceptsor rules
amount of evidencethat is requiredis re- has come uni., uttu.k.
It has been sug_
ducedwhen the word is readin a congruent gestedthat concept
formation ,11oy,rilir"
context, particularlywhen the overall va- memoryfor particilar
instancesof ihe con-
INTERACTIVE PROCESSES
507
cept ratherthan a representation
that is at a Bnuxen, J. S. Someelementsof discovery.In L. S.
Shulman& E. R. Kiesler (Eds.'t,Learning by dishigherlevel of abstractionand that encomcoverv.Chicago:Rand-McNally, 1966.
passesall of the instancesof the concept
Cn,rrr, F. I. M., & LocrHent, R. S. Levelsof pro(e.g., Brooks, 1978; Medin & Schaffer,
cessing:A framework for memory research.Jorrr1978:Vokey & Brooks, in press). In the
nal oJ- Verbul Learning and Verbal Behuvior.
t912. rt, 67I -684.
presentexperiments,it was the processing
C
n
e
r x ,F . I . M . , & T u L v r w c ,E . D e p t ho f p r o c e s s i n g
of an item on its particularprior presentaand the retention of words in episodic memory.
tion, ratherthan someabstractrepresentaJournal of Experimental Psychology: General.
tion that remainedinvariant across situa1975,1or,26E-?94.
tions, that was important for later DoxeLosox. W., & Bess, M. Relationalinformation
and memory for problem solutions. Journul oJ
performance. Perceptual identification reVerbalLearningand Behuvior,19E0,f9, 26-35,
lied on memoryfor the processingof a prior
presentation,as did recognitionmemory, Dnewxowsrr, A," & Herly, A. F. Detectionerrors
on rlre and zrnd.Evidencefor readingunits larger
althoughthe two forms of test employed
than the word,. fulemory & Cognition, 1977.5,
differenttypesof information.As research
636-&1.
progresses,
it seemslikely that distinctions Exnlrcx, S. F., & Rrvxen, K. Contextualeffectson
word perceptionand eyc movementsduring readbetweenmemory and perceptionrvill coniog. Journal oJ Verbal Leurning and Verbul Be(Jacoby
tinue to blur
& Witherspoon,
havior, 1987,20, 641-655.
1982).Both perceptionand memory seem ErsrNgenc.P., & Becren. C. A. Semanticcontextin
to rely on memoryfor prior episodes,and,
visualword rccognition.sentenceprocessing.
and
reading: Evidence for semantic strategies-Jorrrconsequently,
the two types of testscan be
n il oJ-Experi men i aI Ps-,-chol<;gv: H unun Perc epdescribedwithin the confinesof a single
tion und Perlbrmance, 1982.8, 139-756.
model.In any case,comparisonsof effects
FtNxr, R. A. Levels of equivalencein imageryand
on recallor recognitionmemorywith those
perception.
Psyt'hologicul
Revlex,.1980,87, I l3on performance of perceptual tasks may
132.
prove useful for further analyzingthe read- F o n s n c s ,G . , S r e x x e n s .R . . & H o c s e u s , L . R e p e t i tion and practiceeffectsin a lexicaldecisiontask.
ing processas well as for analyzingproMemom & Cognitbn. 19'74.2, 337-]39.
cessingin a variety of other situations.
FnnNxs,
Plygox.
J. J..
C . , & A u a l e . P . M . U n i t so f
episodicmemoryin perceptualrecognition.
,VemRerg,Rr,xces
ttry & Cognition.1982,10, 62-68.
A N D E R S o N ,J . R . , & R p o e n , L . M . A n e l a b o r a t i v e FnteoptrN, A. Framingpictures:The role of knowlp r o c e s s i n ge x p l a n a t i o n o f d e p t h o f p r o c e s s i n g . I n
edge in automatizedencodingand memory for
L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik tEds.). Levels oJ
gist. Journul oJ' E.rperimentulPs;-chologr:Gcnprocessing in human memory. Hillsdale. N.J..
erul. 19'79.108,316-355.
Erlbaum, 1979.
GLusnro. R. J. The organization
and activationof orA"rxlNsox, R. C., & Juor-e, J. F. Searchand decision
thographicknowledgein readingaloud.Jrturnulrtl'
processes in recognition memory. In D. H.
E.rperimentul Psvchol<tgy: Humun Perception
Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes
und PerJitrntunt'e.
1979.5, 674-691.
\Eds.\, Conremgtrary develttpnents in mutheguessGooot"{ex,K. S. Reading:A psycholinguistic
maticul psvc'hology(Vol. l): Leurning, memory
inggame.Journulrt.lthe ReudingSpeciulisr,1967.
tnd thinking. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman,
6 , 1 2 6 -1 3 5 .
l9'74.
Ganr, P. Two consequences
of generating:lncreased
B e c r e n , C . A . S e m a n t i cc o n t e x r e f f e c r s i n v i s u a l w o r d
inter- and intraword organizationof sentences.
recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies.
Jourruil ttJ Verhul Leurninqund VerhulEehuyior.
Memory & Cognirion, 1980, E, 493-512.
1 9 8 01
. 9 .3 t 6 - 3 2 7 .
B n o n o s E . N r .D
, . 8 . , & B n o e o s e x r , M . H . P . S o m e Jrcoev, L. L. On interpreting
theeffectsof repetirion:
further data concerning the word frequency efSolvinga problemversusremembering
a solution.
fect. Journal oJ' Experimental Psyc.hology: GenJournul uJ Verbul Leurning und Verbul Beltuvittr,
erul. l9'75,lO4, 297-308.
1978.17. &9-67.
B n o o x s , L . R . N o n - a n a l y t i c c o n c e p t f o r m a t i o n a n d Jecosv, L. L. Perceptual
enhancement:
Persisrenr
efmemory for instances. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd
fects of an experience.
Jottrnulrl E.rperimentul
(Eds.). Coenirion und calegoriaution. Hillsdale,
P s v c l r o l t t g: :L' e u r n i n q , , V e t n o r u
vnd Ct)(niti()tl
N.J.: Erlbaum. 1978.
r983.9.:r-18.
508
LARRY L. JACOBY
Jecoev, L. L., Cnerr. F. I. M.. & Beac, L Effectsof Oscooo, C. E., & Hooselx, R. Salience
of the word
decisiondifficulty on recognitionand recall.
as a unit in the perceptionoflanguage.perception
"/oarnal o.f Verbal Learning und Verbal Behavior,
and Psychophysics.
1974.15, 168-192.
1979,18, J86-600.
Posxen,M. I., & Sxyoen, C. R. R. Facilitationans
Jecoev, L. L., & Dnrres, M. On the relationship
beinhibition in cheprocessingof signals.In p. M. A.
te/een autobiographicalmemory and perceptual
Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Arrenrron and perlearning. Journal of E.rperimentalpsychology:
formance 7. New York: Academicpress. 197_5,
General,1981,3, 306-340.
RtrcLtrp. R. A theoryof memoryretrieval.psvchoJrcosy, L" L., & Wrrsenspoox. D. Remembering
logicalReview,t978,85,59-t0E.
without awareness.CanadianJournaloJ'psychol- Sncxs,J. S- Recognition
memoryfor syntacticand seog_v,1982,36(2),100-324.
mantic aspectsof connecteddiscourse.perceoJosNsox, M. K., & Reye. C. L. Realitymonitoring.
tion and Psyclrophysics,1967,2, 43j-142.
PsychologicalRer.iew,t981, 88, 67-85.
S c e n e o n o u c H .D . L . , C o n r e s e , C . , & S c r n a
'
KIRsNER"K.. & Sr'rrrn. M. C. Modality effectsin
BoRoucH,H. Frequencyand repetitioneffectsrn
word identificatioo.tUemory& Cognition, 1974,
lexical memory. Journal of Experimental psv2,637-640.
chology: Human Perception und perJbrmunte,
Kolens. P. A. Rememberinga year later.Journal of
lq11 7, t -t1
ExperimentalPsychology:Human Learning and SceneonoucH,D. L., Geneno, L.,
& Con-rese,C.
M emory. 1976,2, 554-565.
Accessinglexical memory: The transfer of word
Kolrns, P. A. A pattern-analyzingbasisof recognirepetitioneffectsacrosstask and modality.Memtion. In L. S. Cermak& F. I. M. Craik (Eds.).
ory & Cognitir,tn,
1979,7,3-12.
Levelsof processingin humun memory.Hillsdalc, Seroexsenc, M. S.. & Ter.iexxeus,
ivl. K. OrthoN.J.: Erlbaum.1979.
graphic effects on rhyme monitoring.Journul uJ'
Kolens, P. A., Per-er. S. R., & Srer_,vrecH.
L. B.
ExperimentalPsychology:Humun Leurnina und
Gr-aphemicanalysisunderlyingliteracy.M emory
Memory, 1979,5, 546-554.
& Cognition. 1980,8, 122-329.
Slnrqecre, N. J.. & Gner', P. The generation
effecr:
Kolens, P. A., & Ppnxrxs,D. N. Spatialand ordinal
Delineationof a phenomenon.Journul ol'E.rpericomponcntsofform perceptionand literacy.Cogmentul Psychology:Humun Ledrnins und Llem_
nitive Psycholoqy, l9'l5, 7, 22g-267.
ory, 1978,4,592-ffi4.
Mnxolen, G. Recognizing:
Thejudgmentof previous Srnxovrcn, K. E. Attentionaland automaticcontexr
occurrence.PsychologiculRevien,,1980,82. 252_
effectsin reading.In A. M. Lesgold& C. A. per2 7t .
fetti (E,is.), interuc.tit.epro('es.tesin reudinc
McCreLlexo, J. L., & Ruurlxenr, D. E. An interH i l l s d a l eN
, . J . : E r l b a u m .1 9 8 1 .
active activationmodelof context effectsin letter T H o n x o r r e , E . L . , & L o n c E ,l . T h e
r e u t h e r. s* , o r r l
perception:Part I. An accountof basic findings.
book of 30.000ryorc./.r.
New york: Columbia Unr_
PsychologitulRey'iew,1981.88, j75-407.
versityPress.1944.
McCoxrre. C. W.. & Zote, D. Language
constraints T r r r r r r r r - LC. LEp- ;, r. .v^ui,:!^ o^ -, , d s e m a n t i c m e m o r y . [ n E .
and the functional srimulusin reading.In A. M.
Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Or!.!uni:.ution ol
Lesgold& C. A. Perferti(Eds.),Inreructivepromemory. New York: Academic Press. 1972.
cessing in reoding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. T u r - v r N c , E . , S c n e c r e n , D .
L., & Sr,rnx. H. A.
l 9 8 l.
Priming effects in word-fragment compietion are
McErnoy, L. A., & SLeuscxe, N. J. Memorialconindependent of recognition memory. Journul ol
sequencesof generatingnonwords: Implications
E.rperimentul Ps1-thologv: Leurninll, Memorv
for semantic-memoryinterpretationsof the genund Cogniriotr, 1982, 8, 376-342.
€ration effect.Journal oJ'Verbul Leurninpund T u r - v r N c , 8 . , & T H o v s o N , D . M .
E n c o d i n gs p e c i f i c _
Verbal Behuyior. 1982.21, 249-259.
i t y a n d r e t r i e v a l p r o c e s s e si n e p i s o d i c m e m o r y .
M e o r x , D . L . , & S c x n r r e n , M . M . C o n r e xtth e o r yo f
P s v c ' h o k t g i c L tR
l e y i e * ' . 1 9 7 3 ,8 0 , 3 S Z - j 7 3 .
classification learning. Psycholttgitul Review. T w e e o y . J . R . , L e p r N s r l . R . H . . &
ScsvnxeveLor.
1978,85, ?07-238.
R . W . S e m a n r i c - c o n t e x te f f e c t s o n w o r d r e c o g n i _
Monrox, J. Interactionof informationin word recoglion: Influence of varying the proportion of items
nition. Ps.vclologic.ul
Review, 1969,i6, 165- 178.
presented in an appropriate context. ,llemort, tk
Monrou, J. Facilitarionin word recognition:ExperiC o g n i t i o n . 1 9 7 7 ,5 , 8 4 - 8 9 .
ments causingchangein the Iogogenmodel. In V o K E y , J . , & B n o o r s . L " R . T a m i n g
the cleveruncon.
P. A. Kolers. M" E. Wrolstad, & H. Bouma
s c i o u s : A n a l o g i c a n d a b s t r a c t i o n s t r a t e g i e si n u n i (Eds.), Procelsing oJ' r'isiblelungtutge/. New
ficial grammar learning.Cognirion. in press.
York: Plenum.1979.
W r x r u r c K .W . A . . & D r r r e L , S . A . T w o k i n d s o f r e Nelsox, D. L.. & McEvov. C. L. Effectsof rerention
sponse priming in tachistoscopic recognirion.
lnterval and modalityon sensoryand semanlic
Jotrrnal oJ E.rperimentul Psvthrtktg,-, 1970. 94,
traceinformation.iUemory& Cognitiltn,1979,7,
7.1_81.
257-?62.
(Received
July 13, I98?)