Abstract The time required to identify a common object depends on several factors, especially pre - existing knowledge in semantic memory, and episodic representations newly established as a result of a prior study. We report three experiments that investigated the relative contribution of these factors to implicit and explicit memory test performance. In each experiment, subjects were shown color photos of objects and memory was assessed either with an old/new recognition test or with a test that required them to identify objects that were slowly faded in on a computer monitor. The critical variables were the type of photo -- each showing either an object with a predominant or cardinal orientation (e.g., helicopter) or a non - cardinal object (e.g., pencil), and the orientation at which the photos were displayed at study and at test (e.g., on the plane of the page at 0degree, 120degree, 180degree, 240degree). For each subject, half of the targets were shown at study and all appeared on the test, with targets displayed either in the same orientation as at study or in a different orientation. For non - studied targets (i.e., in the baseline condition), identification test performance showed a huge effect due to display orientation, but only for cardinal objects. For studied targets, identification test performance showed substantial priming in all conditions, with more priming on cardinal than non - cardinal targets, especially when their display orientation at test was unusual (i.e., 120degree, 240degree) and the same as at study. We use these findings to discuss the extent to which orientation information is coded in the semantic and episodic memory representations of different kinds of objects. Dissociations between implicit and explicit memory test performance have been investigated by means of many different strategies. The earliest, often cited studies compared amnesic patients and matched control subjects, revealing that the patients can show entirely normal priming or implicit memory test effects for recently studied materials despite profound deficit in their ability to recall or recognize the same materials (for recent reviews see Cohen & Eichenbaum, 1993; Moscovitch, Vriezen, & Goshen - Gottstein, 1993; Squire, 1992). Related studies used a developmental strategy and focused on subjects from different age groups; they compared children versus adults or young versus older adults and reported that even though explicit recall and recognition performance change -- showing an increase and then a decrease -- across the life span, implicit memory and priming seem to function normally from early childhood on into late adulthood (e.g., Graf, 1990; Howard, 1988, 1991; Naito & Komatsu, 1993; Mitchell, 1993; Parkin, 1993; La Voie & Light, 1994). By far most often used, however, is an experimental strategy by which one or more variable(s) is manipulated, including materials (e.g., type font, modality of presentation, size, display orientation), how materials are studied (e.g., incidental versus intentional, semantic versus non - semantic processing), or the delay between study and testing (minutes, hours, days, or weeks), and the goal is to assess how these manipulations affect implicit and explicit memory test performance. The findings from studies that used this kind of strategy have been summarized in a number of recent reviews (e.g., Graf, 1994; Graf & Masson, 1993; Roediger, 1990; Roediger & McDermott, 1993; Schacter, Chiu, & Ochsner, 1993; Shimamura, 1993). The experiments reported in this article used a materials - manipulation strategy in order to investigate further the different kinds of memory representations that mediate performance under various implicit and explicit test conditions. We built on several widespread theoretical assumptions about memory. Specifically, we assumed that all memory processing (at study and at test) is interactive, involves both data - and conceptually - driven components (Bartlett, 1932; Norman & Bobrow, 1975), and we considered test performance as in index of the processing overlap between study and testing (Graf, 1994; Graf & Ryan, 1990; Masson & MacLeod, 1992; Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977; Roediger, 1990; Roediger, Srinivas, & Weldon, 1989). …
Read full abstract