Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-nzk4m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T06:50:16.787Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of a Trace Model to the Retention of Information in a Recognition Task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Roger N. Shepard
Roger N. Shepard*
Affiliation:
Bell Telephone Laboratories
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A stochastic model is proposed to account for the behavior of subjects in recognition tasks in which stimuli are presented, one at a time, in a protracted sequence. The basic assumption is that the memory trace resulting from the presentation of a particular stimulus not only fades away during the presentation of subsequent stimuli but also “diffuses” in such a way as to become decreasingly stimulus specific. An account is thereby provided for both (a) the increase in the probability of false recognition with the total number of stimulus presentations and (b) the departure of curves of forgetting from the previously proposed simple exponential decay functions. An expression for the amount of information carried along when the number of stimulus presentations becomes large is then derived for subjects who conform with the model.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 1961 , pp. 185 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © 1961 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author has benefited from discussions of this work with J. W. Tukey, J. R. Pierce, E. N. Gilbert, and D. Slepian of the Bell Telephone Laboratories and with G. A. Miller of Harvard University.

References

Bachem, A. Time factors in relative and absolute pitch determination. J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 1954, 26, 751–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, J. M. and Shaw, W. J. Memory for square-size. Psychol. Rev., 1895, 2, 236–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bower, G. H. A theory of serial discrimination learning. In Bush, R. R. and Estes, W. K. (Eds.), Studies in mathematical learning theory. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 1959, 76–93..Google Scholar
Egan, J. P. Recognition memory and the operating characteristic, Indiana Univ.: Hearing and Communication Lab., 1958.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. Statistical theory of spontaneous recovery and regression. Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gantmacher, F. R. The theory of matrices, New York: Chelsea, 1959.Google Scholar
Gnedenko, B. V. and Kolmogorov, A. N. Limit distributions for sums of independent random variables, Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. Introduction to difference equations, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Hanawalt, N. G. Memory trace for figures in recall and recognition. Arch. Psychol. N. Y., 1937, No. 216.Google Scholar
Harris, J. D. The decline of pitch discrimination with time. J. exp. Psychol., 1952, 43, 96–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, J. G. and Dallenbach, K. M. Oblivescence during sleep and waking. Amer. J. Psychol., 1924, 35, 605–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leyzorek, M. Two-point discrimination in visual space as a function of the temporal interval between the stimuli. J. exp. Psychol., 1951, 41, 364–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
London, I. D. An ideal equation for a class of forgetting curves. Psychol. Rev., 1950, 57, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, R. D. Individual choice behavior, New York: Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
Luh, C. W. The conditions of retention. Psychol. Monogr., 1922, No. 142..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. The mathematical theory of communication, Urbana: Univ. Illinois Press, 1949.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Stimulus and response generalization: a stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 1957, 22, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Stimulus and response generalization: deduction of the generalization gradient from a trace model. Psychol. Rev., 1958, 65, 242–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperling, G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychol. Monogr., 1960, 74, No. 11 (whole No. 498)..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, E. K. The effect of time-interval upon recognition memory. Psychol. Rev., 1913, 20, 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Foerster, H. Quantum mechanical theory of memory. In von Foerster, H. (Eds.), Cybernetics, transactions of the sixth conference, New York: Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, 1950.Google Scholar
Widder, D. V. The Laplace transform, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1941.Google Scholar
Williams, O. A study of the phenomenon of reminiscence. J. exp. Psychol., 1926, 9, 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, R. S. A stimulus-trace hypothesis for statistical learning theory. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 57, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed