| Title |
Feature and conjunction effects in recognition memory: Toward specifying familiarity for compound words
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, July 2007
|
| DOI | 10.3758/bf03193471 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Todd C. Jones, Alan S. Brown, Paul Atchley |
| Abstract |
In three experiments, we evaluated potential sources of familiarity in the production of feature and conjunction errors with both word (Experiments 1 and 3) and nonword (Experiment 2) stimuli and related this work to various dual-process models of memory. The contributions of letter, syllable, lexical morpheme, and conceptual information were considered. Lexical morpheme information was consistently more potent than syllable information in leading to feature and conjunction errors across Experiments 1 and 2, and a word length explanation did not account for this consistent finding. In addition, there was no impact of conceptual information on these errors (Experiments 1-3). The results support a familiarity-based interpretation of feature and conjunction errors and a lexical morpheme basis for the familiarity in compound words. In order to be more comprehensive, memory models may need to account for a lexical morpheme source of familiarity. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cyprus | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 75% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 5% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2011.
All research outputs
#7,454,427
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#491
of 1,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,581
of 68,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 68,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.