Cogprints

Response probability and latency: a straight line, an operational definition of meaning and the structure of short term memory

Tarnow, Dr. Eugen (2007) Response probability and latency: a straight line, an operational definition of meaning and the structure of short term memory. [Preprint]

Warning

There is a more recent version of this eprint available. Click here to view it.

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
 PDF
147Kb

Abstract

The functional relationship between response probability and time is investigated in data from Rubin, Hinton and Wenzel (1999) and Anderson (1981). Recall/recognition probabilities and search times are linearly related through stimulus presentation lags from 6 seconds to 600 seconds in the former experiment and for repeated learning of words in the latter. The slope of the response time vs. probability function is related to the meaningfulness of the items used. The Rubin et al data suggest that only one memory structure is present or that all memory structures probed show the same linear relation of response probability and time. Both sets of data also suggest that the memory items, presumably in the neocortex, have a finite effective size that shrinks in a logarithmic fashion as the time since stimulus presentation increases or the overlearning decreases, away from the start of the search. According to the logarithmic decay, the size of the memory items decreases to a couple of neurons at about 1500 seconds for recall and 1100 seconds for recognition – this could be the time scale for a short term memory being converted to a long term memory. The incorrect recall time saturates in the Rubin et al data (it is not linear throughout the experiments), suggesting a limited size of the short term memory structure: the time to search through the structure for recall is 1.7 seconds. For recognition the corresponding time is about 0.4 seconds, to compare with the 0.243 seconds given by the data analysis of Cavanagh of Sternberg-like experiments (1972).

Item Type:Preprint
Keywords:short term memory, reaction time, search time, search speed, response time, response probability, response latency, meaning
Subjects:Neuroscience > Brain Imaging
Psychology > Applied Cognitive Psychology
Neuroscience > Neurology
Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
Psychology > Perceptual Cognitive Psychology
Neuroscience > Neuroanatomy
ID Code:5366
Deposited By: Tarnow, Dr. Eugen
Deposited On:19 Jan 2007
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:56

Available Versions of this Item

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Anderson, J. R. (1981). Interference: The relationship between response latency and response accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 326-343.

Anderson, J.R. (1995). Learning and Memory. New York: Wiley.

Brewer, N., Caon, Alita, Todd, Chelsea, Weber, Nathan (2006). “Eyewitness Identification Accuracy and Response Latency”, Law and Human Behavior 30, p. 1.

Cavanagh, J. Patrick (1972). “Relation between the Immediate Memory Span and the Memory Search Rate”, Psychological Review, 79, 525- 530.

Clark, S. E., Gronlund, S.D. (1996) “Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3(1), 37-60.

Cowan, N (1993). “Activation, attention and short term memory”, Memory & Cognition 21(2):162-7.

Eichenbaum, H, (2000). A cortical-hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience (1), 41-50.

Eimas. P.D. and D. Zeaman, 1963. Response speed changes in an Estes’ paired-associate ‘miniature’ experiment. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1, 38`4-388.

Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91, 1–67.

Gray, C. M., König, P., Engel, A. K. & Singer, W. (1989) “Oscillatory responses in cat visual cortex exhibit inter-columnar synchronization, which reflects global stimulus properties. “Nature 338:334–37.

Jensen, O., Lisman, J.E. (1998). “An Oscillatory Short-Term Memory Buffer Model Can Account for Data on the Sternberg Task”. J. Neuroscience, 18, p. 10688-10699.

Kahana, M, Loftus, G. (1999). “Response Time versus Accuracy in Human Memory”.

MacLeod, C., Nelson, T. (1984). Response latency and response accuracy as measures of memory. Acta Psychologica 57, 215-235.

Neath, I (1998). “Human Memory”. Brooks/Cole. Pacific Grove. P. 253.

Nobel, P. A., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Retrieval processes in recognition and cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 384–413.

Peterson, L.R., & Peterson, M.J. (1959). Short-term retention of individiual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193-198.

Ratcliff, R. (1978). “A theory of memory retrieval.” Psychological Review, 85, 59-108.

Gronlund, S.D., Ratcliff, R. (1989) “Time Course of Item and Associative Information: Implications for Global Memory Models”, Journal of Experimental Psychology 15, 846-858.

Rodriguez, E., George, N., Lachaux, J.-P., Martinerie, J., Renault, B. & Varela, F. J. (1999) “Perception’s shadow: long-distance synchronization of human brain activity.” Nature 397:430–33.

Rubin, D.C., Hinton, S., Wenzel, A., (1999), “The Precise Time Course of Retention”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol 25, No. 5, 1161-1176.

R. Shadmehr, and T. Brashers-Krug (1997). ”Functional Stages in the Formation of Human Long-Term Motor Memory.” J. Neurosci. 17: 409-419.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.