Target similarity effects : Support for the parallel distributed processing assumptions

• Published in: Memory & cognition Vol. 28; no. 5; pp. 798 - 811
• Main Authors: HUMPHREYS, M. S, TEHAN, G, O'SHEA, A, BOLLAND, S. W
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Austin, TX Psychonomic Society 01-07-2000; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Association; Biological and medical sciences; Cognition & reasoning; Cues; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Human; Humans; Learning. Memory; Memory; Memory - physiology; Mental Recall - physiology; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Random Allocation; Word Association Tests; Human; Implicit memory; Word; Free association; Cognition; Experimental study; Cued recall; Verbal memory; Language; Information processing; Parallel processing; Stimulus similarity; Repetition
• ISSN: 0090-502X; 1532-5946
• DOI: 10.3758/BF03198415

Recent research has begun to provide support for the assumptions that memories are stored as a composite and are accessed in parallel (Tehan & Humphreys, 1998). New predictions derived from these assumptions and from the Chappell and Humphreys (1994) implementation of these assumptions were tested. In three experiments, subjects studied relatively short lists of words. Some of the lists contained two similar targets (thief and theft) or two dissimilar targets (thief and steal) associated with the same cue (robbery). As predicted, target similarity affected performance in cued recall but not free association. Contrary to predictions, two spaced presentations of a target did not improve performance in free association. Two additional experiments confirmed and extended this finding. Several alternative explanations for the target similarity effect, which incorporate assumptions about separate representations and sequential search, are rejected. The importance of the finding that, in at least one implicit memory paradigm, repetition does not improve performance is also discussed.