11

I'm not familiar with the paper Ofri cites, but will agree with the OP that recognition is generally considered to be an easier task than recollection, and successful recognition considered weaker evidence for any particular memory phenomenon. One common explanation is that recognition can manifest psychologically simply as a result of the increased ...


11

It is not. At least not always: In this famous experiment Tulving and Thomson show that under certain circumstances recall can be better than recognition. It seems that the reason why recognition is usually more accurate than recall, is the context. Usually, the context in the recognition test is very similar to the conditions in the learning phase - the ...


7

The preference for mother's voice over a stranger's voice has been show in utero by Kisilevsky et al. (2003) by measuring the fetus' heart rate. It increased in response to mother's voice and decreased in response to a stranger's voice compared to baseline. Kisilevsky and Hains (2011) followed up the earlier study, and determined that the onset of ...


5

A quick explanation for why recognition may seem easier than recall is due to advantages that come into play for recognition that aren't present for recall. In particular, on a recognition test, subjects are presented with what are called "copy cues" -- in other words, duplicates of studied items. When studied items actually show up on the test, subjects are ...


5

There is a lot of evidence that our brains work most fundamentally as pattern-matching engines ( simplistic, but sufficient for the purpose ). Which would definately favour recognition, because this involves matching a newly perceived pattern with an already stored one, something that we do well. Recall, OTOH, involves keyed data access - that is, ...


4

This may not totally match your description (the person's worldview, the evilness of the viewed objects), but it's quite analogous to the table of style of attachment, so I put it here. I do notice that the major topic in the attachment theory is about relationship, while the topics in your description seem to be about moral in general, but I suspect that ...


4

I would suggest you start with the Wikipedia articles on Categorization and more specifically Prototype theory. While the Categorization article gives a number of branching points for you to drill down on and hone in and/or prime your thinking for further searches, the Prototype theory topic is where my mind went upon first reading your question Even ...


4

Your experiment is most similar to those in categorization research. For example, Wills et al (2013)* argued that single-dimension classification (one-feature analysis) is less effortful, than multidimensional with more than one dimension, and omni-dimensional, where you process and categorize the stimuli as a whole. They used the match-to-standard procedure,...


4

People are generally faster to find a dissimilar stimulus when it differs along two dimensions (color+shape) from the rest, but only if they are looking for those dimensions (e.g. find all objects that are red diamonds is faster than find all objects that are red). However, if they are looking for dimensions which are not present, this effect reverses (e.g. ...


3

In a study by Pelphrey et al., 2002 the authors show that when people are asked to scan a face, they spend about 80% of the time looking at the eyes, about 10% on the nose region, and a few percents on the mouth (the remaining few percentages were spent on other non-core features such as ears, forehead etc). Hence, the eyes by far draw the most attention and ...


2

It seems apparent that generating and hearing self-directed speech during discriminatory listening would inhibit said discrimination. This is because auditory processing of self-directed speech and audio processing in discriminatory listening would have to compete for resources in decoding auditory information, leading to poorer decoding of the already low-...


2

In your experiment you are directing participants attention to a sepcific feature, in order to accomplish a difficult task. This experiemnt in my humble opinion does not test your hypothesis, probably it will replicate the findings of the invisible gorilla experiment. Particiapnts will not pay attention to any other irrelevant features. An experiment that I ...


2

The ability of people to better recognise and distinguish faces of their own race has been well studied. For a general discussion, see Cross-race effect where a range of hypotheses have been proposed.


2

I am currently reading a book called "Snoop", written by researcher Sam Gosling (I recommend this very interesting book!). He's doing just the kind of research I am looking for, and thus I've found tons of research documents on these things: Our research focuses on the following issues: Everyday manifestations of personality – Which cues are reliably ...


1

Short answer According to a study by Boutsen et al. Thatcherization of objects (houses in this study) did not reveal the Thatcher effect, while faces did. Background The Thatcher-face illusion (Fig 1) is, in my opinion, not really an illusion. Instead, it is a phenomenon where in-congruent features are more apparent when observed in their normal everyday ...


1

I think you will want to look into ecological psychological models for perception. Some cornerstones include 'the gorila study' show inattentional blindness Others are among the many sub-phenomenon with Persistence of Vision studies, many of which now focus on the a concept called Iconic Memory. These matters deal with misapprehension of (usually ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible