We examined whether processing fluency contributes to associative recognition of unitized pre-experimental associations. In Experiments 1A and 1B, we minimized perceptual fluency by presenting each word of pairs on separate screens at both study and test, yet the compound word (CW) effect (i.e., hit and false-alarm rates greater for CW pairs with no difference in discrimination) did not reduce. In Experiments 2A and 2B, conceptual fluency was examined by comparing transparent (e.g., hand bag) and opaque (e.g., rag time) CW pairs in lexical decision and associative recognition tasks. Lexical decision was faster for transparent CWs (Experiment 2A) but in associative recognition, the CW effect did not differ by CW pair type (Experiment 2B). In Experiments 3A and 3B, we examined whether priming that increases processing fluency would influence the CW effect. In Experiment 3A, CW and non-compound word pairs were preceded with matched and mismatched primes at test in an associative recognition task. In Experiment 3B, only transparent and opaque CW pairs were presented. Results showed that presenting matched versus mismatched primes at test did not influence the CW effect. The CW effect in yes-no associative recognition is due to reliance on enhanced familiarity of unitized CW pairs.
AhmadF. N., FernandesM., & HockleyW. E. (2015). Improving associative memory in older adults with unitization. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22, 452–472.
2.
AhmadF. N., & HockleyW. E. (2014). The role of familiarity in associative recognition of unitized compound word pairs. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 2301–2324.
3.
AlterA. L., & OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.
4.
BastinC., DianaR., SimonJ., ColletteF., YonelinasA. P., & SalmonE. (2013). Associative memory in aging: The effect of unitization on source memory. Psychology and Aging, 28, 275–283.
5.
BastinC., & van der LindenM. (2003). The contribution of recollection and familiarity to recognition memory: A study of the effects of test format and aging. Neuropsychology, 17, 14–24.
6.
DewI. T. Z., & CabezaR. (2011). The porous boundaries between explicit and implicit memory: Behavioral and neural evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224, 174–190.
7.
DienesZ. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non–significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–17.
8.
GiovanelloK. S., KeaneM. M., & VerfaellieM. (2006). The contribution of familiarity to associative memory in amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1859–1865.
9.
GrafP., & SchacterD. L. (1989). Unitization and grouping mediate dissociations in memory for new associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 15, 930–940.
10.
GreveA., van RossumM. C. W, & DonaldsonD. I. (2007). Investigating the functional interaction between semantic and episodic memory: Convergent behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for the role of familiarity. NeuroImage, 34, 801–814.
11.
HanY.-J., HuangS.-C., LeeC.-Y., KuoW.-J., & ChengS.-K. (2014). The modulation of semantic transparency on the recognition memory for two–character Chinese words. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1315–1324.
12.
HaskinsA. L., YonelinasA. P., QuammeJ. R., & RanganathC. (2008). Perirhinal cortex supports encoding and familiarity–based recognition of novel associations. Neuron, 59, 554–560.
13.
HockleyW. E., & ConsoliA. (1999). Familiarity and recollection in item and associative recognition. Memory & Cognition, 27, 657–664.
14.
HumphreysM. S. (1978). Item and relational information: A case for context independent retrieval. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 175–187.
15.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.
16.
JacobyL. L., & DallasM. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 306–340.
17.
JacobyL. L., & WhitehouseK. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 126–135.
18.
JiH., GagnéC. L., & SpaldingT. L. (2011). Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 406–430.
19.
JonesT. C. (2005) Study repetition and the rejection of conjunction lures. Memory, 13, 499–515.
20.
JonesT. C., & JacobyL. (2001). Feature and conjunction errors in recognition memory: Evidence for dual–process theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 82–102.
21.
KurillaB. P. (2011). Enhanced processing fluency leads to biases in source memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1609–1631.
22.
LanskaM., OldsJ. M., & WestermanD. L. (2014). Fluency effects in recognition memory: Are perceptual fluency and conceptual fluency interchangeable?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1–11.
23.
LibbenG., GibsonM., Yeo BoomY., & DominekS. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84, 50–64.
24.
LloydM. E., HartmanA., NgoC., RuserN., WestermanD. L., & MillerJ. K. (2015). Not enough familiarity for fluency: Definitional encoding increases familiarity but does not lead to fluency attribution in associative recognition. Memory & Cognition, 43, 39–48.
25.
MalmbergK. J., & XuJ. (2007). On the flexibility and on the fallibility of associative memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 545–556.
26.
MassonM. E. J. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null–hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690.
27.
MurrayB. D., & KensingerE. (2013). A review of the neural and behavioral consequences of unitizing emotional and neutral information. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 1–9.
28.
ParksC. M., & YonelinasA. P. (2015). The importance of unitization for familiarity–based learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 881–903.
29.
PattersonM. M., & HertzogC. (2010). The effects of age in four alternative forced choice item and associative recognition tasks. Psychology and Aging, 25, 235–238.
30.
PereaM., & PollatsekA. (1998). The effects of neighborhood frequency in reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 767–779.
31.
QuammeJ. R., YonelinasA. P., & NormanK. A. (2007). Effect of unitization on associative recognition in amnesia. Hippocampus, 17, 192–200.
32.
RajaramS. (1993). Remembering and knowing: Two means of access to the personal past. Memory & Cognition, 2, 89–102.
33.
RajaramS., & GeraciL. (2000). Conceptual fluency selectively influences knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1070–1074.
34.
ReinitzM. T., LammersW. J., & CochranB. P. (1992). Memory-conjunction errors: Miscombination of stored stimulus features can produce illusions of memory. Memory & Cognition, 20, 1–11.
35.
ReinitzM. T., VerfaellieM., & MilbergW. P. (1996). Memory conjunction errors in normal and amnesic subjects. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 286–299.
36.
RhodesS. M., & DonaldsonD. I. (2007). Electrophysiological evidence for the influence of unitization on the processes engaged during episodic retrieval: Enhancing familiarity based remembering. Neuropsychologia, 45, 412–424.
37.
RhodesS. M., & DonaldsonD. I. (2008). Electrophysiological evidence for the effect of interactive imagery on episodic memory: Encouraging familiarity for non–unitized stimuli during associative recognition. NeuroImage, 39, 873–884.
38.
WagenmakersE.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.
39.
WagnerA. D., & GabrieliJ. D. E. (1998). On the relationship between recognition familiarity and perceptual fluency: Evidence for distinct mnemonic processes. Acta Psychologica, 98, 211–230.
40.
WestermanD. L. (2001). The role of familiarity in item recognition, associative recognition, and plurality recognition on self-paced and speeded tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 723–732.
41.
WestermanD. L., MillerJ. K., & LloydM. E. (2003). Change in perceptual form attenuates the use of the fluency heuristic in recognition. Memory & Cognition, 31, 619–629.
42.
WhittleseaB. W. A., JacobyL. L., & GirardK. (1990). Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 716–732.
43.
WhittleseaB. W. A., & WilliamsL. D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy–attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 3, 3–13.
44.
WhittleseaB. W. A., & WilliamsL. D. (2001). The discrepancy–attribution: II. Expectation, uncertainity, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 14–33.
45.
WixtedJ. T. (2007). Dual–process theory and signal–detection theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 114, 152–176.
46.
WongM., & RotelloC. M. (2010). Conjunction errors and semantic transparency. Memory & Cognition, 38, 47–56.
47.
YonelinasA. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441–517.
48.
ZhengZ., LiJ., XiaoF., BrosterL. S., & JiangY. (2015). Electrophysiological evidence for the effects of unitization on associative recognition memory in older adults. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 121, 59–71.
