Interactive processes in an instance model of memory: A computational analysis of Jacoby’s (1983) dissociation between perception and recognition.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a classic and well-cited work, Jacoby (1983) demonstrated an important dissociation in which conceptual processing at study resulted in high performance on a standard memory test but low performance on a perceptual test. Perceptual processing at study resulted in the opposite pattern. I simulated the dissociation in MINERVA2, a classic instance model of memory. I assumed that stimulus representations are composed of perceptual and contextual features and that different study tasks favor the encoding of some features over others. I also assumed that different test tasks utilize some features more than others. The model successfully produced the dissociation. The simulations provide a formal account of a core principle of memory: Performance is determined by the appropriateness of processing at encoding given the demands of retrieval. In conjunction with previous work, I conclude that the result emerged from the same mechanisms that underlie empirical regularities from other areas of memory research (e.g., the production effect) and argue in favor of incorporating converging evidence across multiple modelling frameworks to provide stronger theoretical foundations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".