» Articles » PMID: 16447386

What is Preexisting Strength? Predicting Free Association Probabilities, Similarity Ratings, and Cued Recall Probabilities

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2006 Feb 2
PMID 16447386
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Measuring lexical knowledge poses a challenge to the study of the influence of preexisting knowledge on the retrieval of new memories. Many tasks focus on word pairs, but words are embedded in associative networks, so how should preexisting pair strength be measured? It has been measured by free association, similarity ratings, and co-occurrence statistics. Researchers interpret free association response probabilities as unbiased estimates of forward cue-to-target strength. In Study 1, analyses of large free association and extralist cued recall databases indicate that this interpretation is incorrect. Competitor and backward strengths bias free association probabilities, and as with other recall tasks, preexisting strength is described by a ratio rule. In Study 2, associative similarity ratings are predicted by forward and backward, but not by competitor, strength. Preexisting strength is not a unitary construct, because its measurement varies with method. Furthermore, free association probabilities predict extralist cued recall better than do ratings and co-occurrence statistics. The measure that most closely matches the criterion task may provide the best estimate of the identity of preexisting strength.

Citing Articles

Accumulating evidence for myriad alternatives: Modeling the generation of free association.

Fradkin I, Eldar E Psychol Rev. 2022; 130(6):1492-1520.

PMID: 36190752 PMC: 10159868. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000397.


Reactivity from judgments of learning is not only due to memory forecasting: evidence from associative memory and frequency judgments.

Maxwell N, Huff M Metacogn Learn. 2022; 17(2):589-625.

PMID: 35505852 PMC: 9051498. DOI: 10.1007/s11409-022-09301-2.


Modeling the Structure and Dynamics of Semantic Processing.

Rotaru A, Vigliocco G, Frank S Cogn Sci. 2018; 42(8):2890-2917.

PMID: 30294932 PMC: 6585957. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12690.


Scaling laws in emotion-associated words and corresponding network topology.

Takehara T, Ochiai F, Suzuki N Cogn Process. 2014; 16(2):151-63.

PMID: 25399403 DOI: 10.1007/s10339-014-0643-z.


How activation, entanglement, and searching a semantic network contribute to event memory.

Nelson D, Kitto K, Galea D, McEvoy C, Bruza P Mem Cognit. 2013; 41(6):797-819.

PMID: 23645391 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0312-y.


References
1.
Fischler I . Semantic facilitation without association in a lexical decision task. Mem Cognit. 2013; 5(3):335-9. DOI: 10.3758/BF03197580. View

2.
Nelson D, Zhang N . The ties that bind what is known to the recall of what is new. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 7(4):604-17. DOI: 10.3758/bf03212998. View

3.
Nelson D, McKinney V, Gee N, Janczura G . Interpreting the influence of implicitly activated memories on recall and recognition. Psychol Rev. 1998; 105(2):299-324. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.105.2.299. View

4.
Steyvers M, Tenenbaum J . The large-scale structure of semantic networks: statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cogn Sci. 2011; 29(1):41-78. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2901_3. View

5.
Maki W, McKinley L, Thompson A . Semantic distance norms computed from an electronic dictionary (WordNet). Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2005; 36(3):421-31. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195590. View