More on Recognition and Recall in Amnesics

William Hirst, Elizabeth Phelps, Marcia K. Johnson, Bruce T. Volpe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Hirst et al. (1986) reported that amnesic forced-choice recognition was relatively preserved when compared with amnesic recall. They equated normal recognition and amnesic recognition by extending exposure time for the amnesics and then comparing amnesic recall and normal recall. Amnesic recall was worse than normal recall, despite equated recognition. We conducted two experiments to extend that result. Experiment 1 established that the findings of Hirst et al. are not paradigm specific and hold when amnesic recognition and normal recognition are equated by increasing the retention interval for normals. In Experiment 2 we further established the generality of the result by examining yes-no recognition. Findings further specify the selective nature of the direct memory deficit in amnesics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)758-762
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition
Volume14
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 1988

Fingerprint

Memory Disorders
experiment
deficit
paradigm
Experiment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

More on Recognition and Recall in Amnesics. / Hirst, William; Phelps, Elizabeth; Johnson, Marcia K.; Volpe, Bruce T.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, Vol. 14, No. 4, 10.1988, p. 758-762.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hirst, William ; Phelps, Elizabeth ; Johnson, Marcia K. ; Volpe, Bruce T. / More on Recognition and Recall in Amnesics. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition. 1988 ; Vol. 14, No. 4. pp. 758-762.
@article{88002e6754b148db990188c3ea8c08f2,
title = "More on Recognition and Recall in Amnesics",
abstract = "Hirst et al. (1986) reported that amnesic forced-choice recognition was relatively preserved when compared with amnesic recall. They equated normal recognition and amnesic recognition by extending exposure time for the amnesics and then comparing amnesic recall and normal recall. Amnesic recall was worse than normal recall, despite equated recognition. We conducted two experiments to extend that result. Experiment 1 established that the findings of Hirst et al. are not paradigm specific and hold when amnesic recognition and normal recognition are equated by increasing the retention interval for normals. In Experiment 2 we further established the generality of the result by examining yes-no recognition. Findings further specify the selective nature of the direct memory deficit in amnesics.",
author = "William Hirst and Elizabeth Phelps and Johnson, {Marcia K.} and Volpe, {Bruce T.}",
year = "1988",
month = "10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "758--762",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0278-7393",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - More on Recognition and Recall in Amnesics

AU - Hirst, William

AU - Phelps, Elizabeth

AU - Johnson, Marcia K.

AU - Volpe, Bruce T.

PY - 1988/10

Y1 - 1988/10

N2 - Hirst et al. (1986) reported that amnesic forced-choice recognition was relatively preserved when compared with amnesic recall. They equated normal recognition and amnesic recognition by extending exposure time for the amnesics and then comparing amnesic recall and normal recall. Amnesic recall was worse than normal recall, despite equated recognition. We conducted two experiments to extend that result. Experiment 1 established that the findings of Hirst et al. are not paradigm specific and hold when amnesic recognition and normal recognition are equated by increasing the retention interval for normals. In Experiment 2 we further established the generality of the result by examining yes-no recognition. Findings further specify the selective nature of the direct memory deficit in amnesics.

AB - Hirst et al. (1986) reported that amnesic forced-choice recognition was relatively preserved when compared with amnesic recall. They equated normal recognition and amnesic recognition by extending exposure time for the amnesics and then comparing amnesic recall and normal recall. Amnesic recall was worse than normal recall, despite equated recognition. We conducted two experiments to extend that result. Experiment 1 established that the findings of Hirst et al. are not paradigm specific and hold when amnesic recognition and normal recognition are equated by increasing the retention interval for normals. In Experiment 2 we further established the generality of the result by examining yes-no recognition. Findings further specify the selective nature of the direct memory deficit in amnesics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024095169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024095169&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 758

EP - 762

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

SN - 0278-7393

IS - 4

ER -