Abstract
Rare words are usually better recognized than common words, a finding in recognition memory known as theword-frequency effect. Some theories predict the word-frequency effect because they assume that rare words consist of more distinctive features than do common words (e.g., Shiffrin & Steyvers's, 1997, REM theory). In this study, recognition memory was tested for words that vary in the commonness of their orthographic features, and we found that recognition was best for words made up of primarily rare letters. In addition, a mirror effect was observed: Words with rare letters had a higher hit rate and a lower false-alarm rate than did words with common letters. We also found that normative word frequency affects recognition independently of letter frequency. Therefore, the distinctiveness of a word's orthographic features is one, but not the only, factor necessary to explain the word-frequency effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Criss, A. H., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2002).Context noise and item noise jointly determine recognition memory: A comment on Dennis and Humphreys. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Dennis, S., &Humphreys, M. S. (2001). A context noise model of episodic word recognition.Psychological Review,108, 452–478.
Gillund, G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall.Psychological Review,91, 1–67.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory.Memory & Cognition,13, 8–20.
Glanzer, M., &Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 5–16.
Hunt, R. R., &Elliott, J. M. (1980). The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 49–74.
Kucï era, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Joordens, S., &Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1534–1555.
Landauer, T.K., &Streeter, L.A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 119–131.
Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user's guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maddox, W. T., &Estes, W. K. (1997). Direct and indirect stimulusfrequency effects in recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 539–559.
Malmberg, K. J., &Murnane, K. (2002). List composition and the word-frequency effect for recognition memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 616–630.
Malmberg, K. J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2002).The effect of study time on implicit and explicit memory: The “one-shot” hypothesis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
McClelland, J. L., &Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory.Psychological Review,105, 724–760.
Schooler, L. J., Shiffrin, R. M., &Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2001). A Bayesian model for implicit effects in perceptual identification.Psychological Review,108, 257–272.
Schulman, A. I. (1967). Word length and rarity in recognition memory.Psychonomic Science,9, 211–212.
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,6, 156–163.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—Retrieving effectively from memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 145–166.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Steyvers, M. (1998). The effectiveness of retrieval from memory. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.),Rational models of cognition (pp. 73–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steyvers, M., Malmberg, K. J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2002).The effect of contextual variability on recognition memory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wixted, J. T. (1992). Subjective memorability and the mirror effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 681–690.
Zechmeister, E. B. (1969). Orthographic distinctiveness.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,8, 754–761.
Zechmeister, E. B. (1972). Orthographic distinctiveness as a variable in word recognition.American Journal of Psychology,85, 425–430.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
NIMH Grant 12643 and an NIMH Mathematical Modeling Training Grant to Indiana University supported the work of K.J.M. NIMH Grants 12717 and 63993 supported the work of R.M.S. K.J.M.
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193232.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Malmberg, K.J., Steyvers, M., Stephens, J.D. et al. Feature frequency effects in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition 30, 607–613 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194962
Received:
Accepted:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194962