Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Models for Recall and Recognition

Models for Recall and Recognition Research on learning and memory has been driven by models since at least the 1940s. Over the years, the emphasis in mathematical modeling has shifted 0066-4308/92/020 1 -0205$02.00 RAAIJMAKERS & SHIFFRIN from precise fitting of single experiments to what might be best described as semi-quantitative fitting of a wide variety of phenomena from a number of experimental paradigms [compare for instance Bower's one-element model (Bower 1961) to any of the current models such as ACT* (Anderson 1983b), SAM (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin 1981; Gillund & Shiffrin 1984) or TODAM (Murdock 1982)]. The complexities of recent models contributes to the apparent impossibility of deciding between them. Although couched in quite different terms, they often make very similar predictions, at least under appropriate choices of parameters. This makes it difficult to generate critical empirical tests. On the other hand, the similarity of predictions suggests real progress in theory development, forced by the necessity to account for a standard and agreed upon corpus of findings. In this chapter, we review a number of the most important contemporary models of memory, trying to highlight the similarities and differences in the way they handle basic facts about recall and recognition. Space limitations prevent us http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Annual Review of Psychology Annual Reviews

Models for Recall and Recognition

Download PDF
30 pages

 
/lp/annual-reviews/models-for-recall-and-recognition-i0g2e0AC0r

References (59)

Publisher
Annual Reviews
Copyright
Copyright 1992 Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
Subject
Review Articles
ISSN
0066-4308
eISSN
1545-2085
DOI
10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.001225
pmid
1539943
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Research on learning and memory has been driven by models since at least the 1940s. Over the years, the emphasis in mathematical modeling has shifted 0066-4308/92/020 1 -0205$02.00 RAAIJMAKERS & SHIFFRIN from precise fitting of single experiments to what might be best described as semi-quantitative fitting of a wide variety of phenomena from a number of experimental paradigms [compare for instance Bower's one-element model (Bower 1961) to any of the current models such as ACT* (Anderson 1983b), SAM (Raaijmakers & Shiffrin 1981; Gillund & Shiffrin 1984) or TODAM (Murdock 1982)]. The complexities of recent models contributes to the apparent impossibility of deciding between them. Although couched in quite different terms, they often make very similar predictions, at least under appropriate choices of parameters. This makes it difficult to generate critical empirical tests. On the other hand, the similarity of predictions suggests real progress in theory development, forced by the necessity to account for a standard and agreed upon corpus of findings. In this chapter, we review a number of the most important contemporary models of memory, trying to highlight the similarities and differences in the way they handle basic facts about recall and recognition. Space limitations prevent us

Journal

Annual Review of Psychology – Annual Reviews

Published: Feb 1, 1992

There are no references for this article.