Remembering “primed” words: A counter-intuitive effect of repetition on recognition memory.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines the effect of immediate repetition on recognition memory. In a series of 4 experiments, the study phase task was to name aloud a word that was immediately preceded by either the same word (repeated trials) or a different word (not-repeated trials). Across experiments, performance in the study phase demonstrated the anticipated benefit in naming times for repeated trials. More important, performance in the test phase revealed greater sensitivity for not-repeated than repeated trials. This effect was observed even when repetitions at study were separated by an unrelated word (Experiment 3), and was eliminated only when participants named both words in succession at study (Experiment 4). These findings fit nicely with the desirable difficulty principle (R. A. Bjork, 1994), as they demonstrate that items more easily processed at study (i.e., repeated items) are not as well-encoded as items that are more difficult to process at study (i.e., not-repeated items). Furthermore, the current study points to the possibility that attentional orienting in response to processing difficulty may constitute a broadly important cognitive control adaptation that impacts memory encoding. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".