munganpeynircioglu.pdf

7/29/2019 munganpeynircioglu.pdf

1/13

Levels-of-Processing Effects on Remember Responses in Recognition for Familiar andUnfamiliar TunesAuthor(s): Esra Mungan, Zehra F. Peynirvioglu and Andrea R. HalpernReviewed work(s):Source: The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 124, No. 1 (Spring 2011), pp. 37-48Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0037 .

Accessed: 16/01/2013 06:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:04:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinoishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0037?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0037?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois


2/13

American Journal of Psychology

Spring 2011, Vol. 124, No. 1 pp. 748 2011 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Levels-of-Processing Effects on Remember

Responses in Recognition for Familiar

and Unfamiliar Tunes

ESRA MUNGANBogazici University

ZEHRA F. PEYNIRCIOGLUAmerican University

ANDREA R. HALPERNBucknell University

We investigated the effect of level-of-processing manipulations on remember and know re-

sponses in episodic melody recognition (Experiments 1 and 2) and how this effect is modulated

by item familiarity (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants performed 2 conceptual and 2

perceptual orienting tasks while listening to familiar melodies: judging the mood, continuing the

tune, tracing the pitch contour, and counting long notes. The conceptual mood task led to higher

d' rates for remember but not know responses. In Experiment 2, participants either judged

the mood or counted long notes of tunes with high and low familiarity. A level-of-processing

effect emerged again in participants remember d' rates regardless of melody familiarity.

Results are discussed within the distinctive processing framework.

The level-of-processing (LOP) eect (Craik & Lock-hart, 1972) is one of the most researched eects inmemry literture. Prcessig items deeply, r se-

mticlly, leds t better memry perrmce th

prcessig them t shllw level r with respect

to their physical or perceptual properties (Craik &Tulving, 1975; Craik & Watkins, 197; Friedman &Bourne, 1976; Jacoby, Craik, & Begg, 1979). Interest-igly, this memry dvtge r deeply prcesseditems ver shllwly prcessed es ccurs regrd-

less whether memry test is expected (Hyde,197; Hyde & Jenkins, 197), suggesting that semanticprcessig seems t be suciet r lerig t ccur(cf. Craik, 2002).

The LOP eect in episodic recognition memoryhs bee shw r bth verbl d vrius ver-

bal materials such as faces (Bower & Karlin, 1974;Warrington & Ackroyd, 1975), pictures (Gardiner,Gregg, & Karayianni, 2006; Marks, 1991), and voices

(Church & Schacter, 1994; Schacter & Church, 1992).Hwever, r musicl mterils, ly e study hsshown an LOP eect (Peretz, Gaudreau, & Bonnel,1998), and a few have failed to show such an eect(Halpern & Mllensiefen, 2008; Warker & Halpern,2005).

I their 1998 study, Peretz, Gudreu, d B-el preseted musicis with mixed list -

milir d umilir tues t be prcessed either

AJP 124_1 text.indd 37 1/27/11 1:16:30 PM

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

by rtig their milirity level (milirity ecdigtask) or by noting their timbre (instrument encod-ing task). The former task was assumed to be a deepprcessig tsk i tht it cused the prticiptstteti the mre bstrct, cceptul spects

the mteril, wheres the ltter ws ssumed t be

shllw prcessig tsk i tht it cused prtici-

pts tteti the mre physicl spects thematerial. The ndings revealed an LOP eect in theexpected directi but ly with milir meldies.In the Warker and Halpern (2005) study, participantshad to rate either the pleasantness (semantic task)or the rhythmic regularity (nonsemantic task) of aset bscure lk tues. Fidigs did t revel LOP eect, thus replicating Peretz et al.s (1998) nd-ing for unfamiliar tunes. Halpern and Mllensiefen(2008) also failed to nd an LOP eect for unfamil-ir tues. Thus, umilir music ppers t be theonly type of material in the LOP memory literaturetht csistetly des t shw this efect. Becuse

LOP eects occur with both high- and low-frequencywords (Duchek & Neely, 1989; Mandler, Goodman,& Wilkes-Gibbs, 1982), legal and illegal nonwords(Bowers, 1994), and famous and nonfamous faces (acloser analogy to familiar and unfamiliar tunes; Wig,Miller, Kingstone, & Kelley, 2004) the goal of ourresearch was to address why LOP does not seem toiuece music, especilly umilir music, the wy

it des ther mterils.I the preset study, we tk er mesures rec-

giti memry by usig remember d kwjudgments. Tulving (1985) dierentiated between thesubjective stte beig ble t csciusly retrievethe mmet whe criticl item ws ecutered

(remember) and the subjective state of retrievingirmti withut recllectig detils but whe itwas rst encountered (know). LOP manipulationstypically aect remember (R) but not know (K)responses (Gardiner, 1988; Gregg & Gardiner, 1994;

Yonelinas, 2001), presumably because the remem-berig experiece is mre clsely liked t episdic

memry prcesses d therere is sesitive t dis-

tictive prcessig, wheres the kwig experiece

is mre clsely liked t semtic memry prcessesd therere is sesitive t perceptul uecy-relted

factors (cf. Rajaram, 1998; Rajaram & Geraci, 2000).This mechism might serve t lest s prximteexplanation for the LOP eect in episodic memory

becuse i cceptul prcessig icreses recgi-

ti perrmce i R- but t K-type respses,

it must be the R respses tht crete the geerlLOP eect in memory performance. Therefore, usingR and K measures in LOP studies with music mayhelp us uderstd why the efect seemigly ccurs

with milir but t with umilir music. Tht is,perhps deep prcessig tsks re ble t crete su-

ciet distictiveess t icrese R respses with

milir music but t with umilir music.In Experiment 1, participants listened to famil-

ir tues while egged i diferet rietig tsks

(OTs). During the ensuing recognition test, remem-ber d kw mesures were tke i dditi tyes and no responses. OTs used in LOP researchc be brdly clssied s cceptul prcessig

tsks (e.g., givig plestess rtigs r judgig -

miliarity of items) and perceptual processing tasks(e.g., cutig the umber vwels r dig rhym-

ing words of items), a distinction that has come tobe preerred ver the erlier, smewht prblemtic

disticti betwee deep d shllw prcessigtasks. Most research uses one of each type of taskto demonstrate LOP eects; however, because thecceptulperceptul disticti my be mre cm-plicated when it comes to music (cf. Halpern & Ml-lensiefen, 2008), we decided to use two conceptualand two perceptual OTs. The four OTs were judgingwht kid md the meldy cveys (CceptulTask 1), continuing the melody by imagining the nexttwo to three notes (Conceptual Task 2), tracing themelody contour (Perceptual Task 1), and countingthe number of long notes (Perceptual Task 2). Theltter tw tsks were expected t ivlve mre dt-

drive prcessig, wheres ctiuig meldy d

judgig its md were expected t ivlve mre c-ceptual processing. For instance, Meyer (1956) wrotebut musicl stimuli s ctivtig expecttis d

tesis but their ctiuti tht, depedig

whether ullled r t, rm its fective c-tet. Give tht cceptul prcessig is deed

s prcessig i which e egges i iterpretive

prcesses d thus ges beyd wht is immeditelypreset, ur rst tw tsks shuld quliy s such (c.

Palmer, 1997; Repp, 1992). However, because none ofthese OTs have been researched extensively withinthe LOP framework in music recognition, we wantedt ls lk t the efect ech tsk seprtely.

38 Mungan et al.

AJP 124_1 text.indd 38 1/27/11 1:16:30 PM



4/13

Thus, we hypthesized tht the cceptul tskscmpred t the perceptul tsks wuld led t mre

distictive prcessig d thus icrese the recgi-

ti sesitivity i R respses i the subsequet rec-giti test. We were ls curius s t whether ur

LOP eect on recognition sensitivity in R responseswuld be strg eugh t crete e i verll rec-

giti sesitivity mesures.In Experiment 2, we explored how familiarity

might modulate the eects of LOP on recognitionsesitivity R d K respses i music. We sus-

pected tht the ilure previus reserch t dLOP eects with unfamiliar music might have result-ed from the ineectiveness of LOP manipulations inicresig recgiti sesitivity i R respses tbegi with. I ther wrds, umilir music, ulike

unfamiliar faces (Mntyl, 1997), may simply be a type mteril tht is t meble t the rmti

distictive episdes.T summrize, the gls the preset study were

twofold. First, we examined the elusive nature of LOPefects i music by usig R d K respses t serves er mesures episdic recgiti memry

d greter rge ptetilly mre pure ccep-

tul d perceptul tsks cmpred with the tsksused so far with music (Experiment 1). Second, weexmied hw meldy milirity might mdulte

such eects (Experiment 2). We conned our inves-tigti t musicis bth becuse we were iter-ested i the memry experieces rdiry listeers

d ls becuse pilt wrk idicted tht musicl

experiece did t iterct with ur ther mesures

iterest.

eXperiMent 1

METHOD

Participants

Thirty-tw musicis, wh were udergrdutestudets Bgzii Uiversity d received extr

credit i psychlgy curses, served s prticipts.

All hd hd less th 1 yer musicl triig d

culd t red music. T be eligible, prticipts hd

t pss trspsiti test, i which they hd t di-

eretite betwee mir d mjr trid itervl.

This test ws ecessry becuse ur recgiti test

ctied lures tht were te very similr t the tr-

gets i terms pitch sequece. Six prticipts wh

did t pss the trspsiti test were excluded d

replced t rech smple size 32 prticipts.

Materials and Design

The mterils were excerpts rm clssicl music,sudtrcks, dce music, d sgs. They hd ei-

ther lyrics (e.g., excerpt rm the sudtrck the mviePulp Fiction r rmA Little Nightmusicby Mozart) or their lyrics were not commonly known(e.g., excerpt rm Carmen by Bizet).

Thrugh extesive piltig 173 meldies

grup 51 prticipts, grup highly milir

excerpts ws selected. These were 48 excerpts rm

39 diferet pieces. The excerpts were yked s tht

r ech trget excerpt, there ws similr-sudig

lure excerpt i the recgiti test. I 10 the 24

trgetlure pirs, bth excerpts were rm the smepiece; in the remaining 14 pairs, they were from dif-

eret pieces. Becuse sme the lures were lsrm the sme pieces s the trgets, kwig r re-

hersig the me the piece wuld be elimited

s ctr i the prticipts perrmce. The

excerpts verged but 11.3 s, with rge rm

7 t 21 s, d the lures d trgets were similrduration on average. Two study lists (A and B), eachwith 24 excerpts, d e cmm recgiti test

with ll 48 excerpts were recrded r presetti.

Fr e grup prticipts, the A list cmprised

the trgets d the B list the lures d vice versr the ther grup. All excerpts were plyed

Yamaha S0 keyboard and recorded as MIDI les inpiano timbre. The MIDI les were then transformedit WAV les d recrded tw CDs t serve s

Study List A d Study List B. The 48-item recgi-

ti test CD ws cstructed by rdmly shuig

the 24 A d 24 B excerpts. The iterstimulus i-

tervls betwee excerpts i bth study d test lists

were 4 s.Four OTs (counting, contour tracing, continu-

ation, and mood judgment) were counterbalancedcrss meldies i blcks six. Thus, ur diferet

versis study lists were cstructed s tht ech

block of excerpts would be studied with each OTeqully te crss ur subgrups prticipts.Each study list sheet was numbered 1 through 24, toreer t the meldies tht the prticipts were butto hear. Each number was followed by the particu-lar OT indicator. Participants received a booklet ofthree pges durig the listeig phse, icludig e

prctice pge d tw study pges.

A prctice CD ws prepred t milirize prtici-pants with the dierent OTs. The CD contained two

levels-oF-processing eFFects in Music 39

AJP 124_1 text.indd 39 1/27/11 1:16:30 PM



5/13

practice trials for each of the four OTs. None of theprctice meldies were rm the experimetl sets.

The recgiti test sheet csisted 48 lies

spred ver ur clums umbered 1 thrugh 48,

with Yes d N ext t ech umber. Theremiig hduts were musicl bckgrud

questiire d milirity rtig sheet whicht give milirity rtigs t ll 48 meldies the

recgiti test.The overall design was a two-factor 4 (OT: mood,

continuation, contour, counting)3 (respsetype: remember, know, guess) within-participantdesig. The depedet mesure ws recgiti

sesitivity (d').

Procedure

Bere the experimet, prticipts wet thrugh tw-tril trspsiti test recrded CD. First,

they herd exmple crrect trspsiti, withTwikle Twikle Little Str plyed strtig C(CCGGAAG) and then from F (FFCCDDC) and anicrrect trspsiti rm F (FFCCDbDbC). Theywere the tld tht they wuld her tw diferet tri-

ls tw 3-te sequeces d tht e tril the

tw sequeces wuld be like (i.e., crrectly trs-posed), and on the other they would be dierent fromeach other (i.e., incorrectly transposed). They thenheard Trial 1 as CEDFAbG (incorrect transposition)and Trial 2 as CEDFAG (correct transposition). Forech tril they hd t idicte whether they thught

the secd sequece suded the sme s r difer-et rm the rst. Ater prticipts were remided

tht i e cse they were the sme d i the ther

diferet, the tw trils were repeted.

Prticipts were tld tht they were gig t lis-

te t vrius meldies which they wuld hve t

perrm certi percepti tsks. T better llw theinstructions, participants were given their OT book-let with the prctice pge tp. They were tld thtfor some of the melodies (counting task) they shouldtry t cut the umber lg tes d the write

dw tht umber i the slt prvided ext t the

trial number (1. ___ long notes). Instructions em-phsized tht this tsk ws ls purely subjective

tsk becuse lg is reltive term. Therere, they

shuld set up i dvce their w subjective crite-

ri lg te d the cut the tes tht

t their criteri s the meldy wet lg. I the

ctur tsk they were sked t try t trce the me-lodic contour (increases and decreases in pitch) ofthe meldy. We explied tht the symbl llwed

by the hriztl lie ext t the tril umber repre-

seted the pitch height the rst te i the meldy

(7. ___________). Listeners were asked to puttheir pecils t the br bere the meldy strted

d t trce, s best s they culd, the chges i

pitch height s the meldy wet lg. I the mdtsk, they hd t idicte the type md tht the

meldy cveyed by circlig y the give ptis(sad, happy, angry, depressive, dramatic),d i they ud e the give ptis dequte,they should circle the other: ___________ optiond write dw wrd tht r them best described

the md the meldy. Filly, i the ctiuti

tsk prticipts were sked t try t thik hw

the meldy culd ctiue. I prticulr, they hd

t idicte wht the ext tw r three tes culd

be t llw the sequece. They were tld tht the

symbl tht preceded the hriztl lie represetedthe pitch height the lst te the meldy (18.

___________) and that it was there as a roughguide r them t guge the pitch height the ext

tw tes they wuld imgie (i the meldy ws -

milir t them they were tld they culd use the ctulcontinuation of the melody). Instructions emphasizedtht they shuld use the lie just s reerece tmark approximate pitch relations. Other than thectur trcig tsk, there were right d wrganswers; therefore, we scored only that one task.

Ater these istructis, prticipts cmpleted

prctice trils r the diferet tsks util they eltt ese with the tsks bere gig t the ctul

study. At this stge, meti ws mde ymemry test t llw. Ater the listeig phse ws

ver, prticipts were surprised with recgiti

test. They were hded swer sheets d tld tht

their memries wuld be tested r the 24 meldies

they hd just herd. Fr ech meldy they wuld hve

t idicte whether it ws e the 24 meldies

they hd listeed t, by circlig yes r . They

were the give the stdrd istructis r re-

member, kw, d guess respses. They were

tld tht i they were sure they recgized the tue

d remembered t lest e thig but the preced-

ig episde durig which they hd ecutered thetue (e.g., they my remember which tsk they per-

rmed while listeig t it r remember tht whe

herig tht tue persl memry cme t theirmind) they were to mark an R next to their yesrespse. I they were sure they hd herd the tue

i the precedig phse but culd t cme up with

y specic detil but tht istce ecuter,

they were t mrk K ext t their yes respse.

I they were t sure but hvig herd tht tue

40 Mungan et al.

AJP 124_1 text.indd 40 1/27/11 1:16:30 PM



6/13

durig the rst phse but elt s i they hd, they were

t mrk G ext t their yes respse. Guess

respses were tke i rder t prevet ctmi-

ti K respses with guessig. It ws pited ut

tht they shuld liste creully bere mkig theirdecisi becuse there might be cses i which the

lure meldy might be very similr t the e they hdherd, diferig rm the ltter i ly ew tes.

Prticipts the cmpleted questiire but

their musicl bckgrud, their pprximte mut

weekly expsure t music, d their musicl preer-

eces. Filly, prticipts listeed t ll 48 excerpts

the recgiti test ce gi d rted ech e i

terms milirity. A piece s milir tht they culd

esily hve sug it themselves d ls its ctiuti

(regrdless whether they culd cme up with thename of the piece) was rated 10 (highly familiar). Mel-dies they elt they hd ever herd bere were rted

1 (very unfamiliar). Intermediate numbers indicateditermedite degrees milirity. Prticipts were

tested idividully r i grups up t six peple.Each session lasted about 5 min.

RESULTS

Prticipts milirity rtigs r the 48 meldiesused in Experiment 1 were in line with the pilot famil-iarity rating results; on a 10-point scale they averaged ahighly milir rtig 8.5 (SD = 1.9), and there were difereces betwee the tw presetti lists.

Recognition Sensitivity Analyses

We did tw sets lyses with respect t recg-

iti sesitivity. I the rst e, we simply lked

t prticipts verll d' scres irrespective theirrespse types, wheres i the secd lysis we

icluded their R, K, d G judgmets.

Fr the rst set lyses, recgiti dt werecverted it d' scres, usig ech prticipts

OT-specic hit rates and their OT-nonspecic falselrm rtes. A e-ctr anoa these d' scres re-vealed a signicant main eect for OT,F(, 9) = 2.88,MSE= 0.99;p < .05, prtil = .09. A subsequentpired ttest comparing the two conceptual OTs withthe two perceptual OTs was signicant, with the for-mer yieldig higher d' rtes (M= 1.57,SD = 0.64) thanthe ltter (M= 1.18, SD = 0.58), t(1) = 2.72,p < .05.

Fr the secd set lyses, recgiti dt

were cverted it d' scres, usig ech prticiptsOT-specic R, K, and G hit rates and their condition-specic R, K, d G lse lrm rtes, thus bti-

ig R, K, d G d' scores across four OT conditions.As c be see i Figure 1, this led t lwer d' vlues,becuse ttl hit scre ws split it its respective

R, K, d G cmpets.A 4 (OT: mood, continuation, contour, count-

ing) (response type: R, K, G) repeated-measuresanoa d' rates yielded no main eect for OT,F(3,9) = 1.28, MSE= 0.7; p > .10, prtil = .04.There ws ls mi efect r respse type,

F(2, 62) = 2.27,MSE= 2.01,p > .10, prtil = .07.Hwever, there ws sigict itercti betwee

OT and response type,F(6, 186) = 2.66,MSE= 0.81,p > .05, prtil = .08. When we look at Figure 1,we see tht bth R d G d' scores change across OTcditis, d the md tsk ppers t crete the

Figure 1.d' values with SEs as a function of orienting task and response type, Experiment 1


AJP 124_1 text.indd 41 1/27/11 1:16:30 PM



7/13

lrgest discrepcy. Gd' scres ctully seem t mim-ic Rd' scres but i ppsite wy. Cmpred with

R d G d' scres, Kd' scres pper t be miimllyinuenced by OT condition. Separate one-factoranoas perrmed R, K, d G d' scres shwed

signicant or nearly signicant OT main eects for Rd G d' scres,F(, 9) = 4.89,MSE= 0.56,p < .01,prtil = .17 and F(, 9) = 2.56, MSE= 0.59,p = .06, partial = .08, respectively, but not for Kd' scres,F(, 9) < 1,p > .10. Berri pst hctests cmpris with p vlue set t .05 reveled

tht the md tsk prduced sigictly higher Rd' scres th y the ther tsks.

Recognition Bias Analyses

Fr ske cmpris, we lyzed prticipts rec-

giti bis tedecies s mesured by c. Negtivecscres sigiy yes bis, wheres psitive essignify a no bias (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999).

Icscores using OT-specic hit rates and OT-non-specic lse lrm rtes while disregrdig respsetype, we found a similar OT main eect in responsebis, F(, 9) = 2.88, MSE= 0.25, p < .05, prtil = .09. A subsequent paired ttest cmprig the twconceptual OTs with the two perceptual OTs revealed strger bis r cceptully prcessed tues

(M= .29, SD = .49) than for perceptually processedes (M= .10, SD = .40), t(1) = 2.72,p < .05.

The cscores using OT-specic R, K, and G hitrates and OT-nonspecic R, K, and G false alarmrates in a 4 (OT) (response type) anoa reveledneither a main eect of OT nor a main eect of re-spse type (ps > .10). However, there was a sig-nicant interaction between OT and response type,F(6, 186) = 2.66,MSE= 0.20,p < .05, prtil = .08.Subsequet e-ctr anoas revealed no OT ef-fect on K, a marginal OT eect on G response biases(p = .06), but a signicant OT eect on R responsebises,F(, 9) = 4.89,MSE= 0.14,p < .05, prtil = .09, with Bonferroni post hoc tests showing thatthe md tsk prduced lesser yes bis i R re-

spses (M= 0.85) than the continuation and count-ig tsks (M= 1.17 andM= 1.15, respectively).

DISCUSSION

I ur rst study we ud tht, whe gruped tgeth-

er, the mre cceptully drive tsks led t higher

recgiti sesitivity rtes th the mre perceptu-

lly drive tsks. This dig is i lie with Peretz etal.s (1998) LOP nding with familiar tunes.

However, the primary purpose of Experiment 1was to explore LOP eects on dierent types of rec-ognition responses. We did indeed nd an LOP eecton recognition sensitivity of R but not K responses;iterestigly, the md tsk seemed t std ut rmthe rest by prducig the highest Rd' rtes. We did

t bserve similr efect with ur ther cceptul

tsk, the ctiuti tsk. Tw pssible expltiscome to mind. One is that the continuation task, eventhugh thught s cceptul tsk (i.e., tsk tht

egged the listeer i iterpretive, semtic-like pr-cessing) was not in fact conceptual. This possibility isurther crrbrted by the ct tht the ctiuti

tsk ws the ly e the ur tsks tht prduced

thugh sigictlyhigher K th Rd' rtes (.82vs. .41). Another possibility is that whether or not atask is conceptual may not predict LOP; instead, thedegree distictive prcessig it ivlves my be the

criticl spect. I tht sese, ur md tsk, whichivlved cgitive pprisl the md experieced

whe herig the meldy, might hve bee bth c-

ceptul d distictive, wheres ur ctiuti tsk

might hve bee cceptul but t distictive. Thedig tht the md tsk ws uiquely successul i

icresig recgiti sesitivity i R respses will

be discussed urther lter .The absence of an LOP eect on Kd' scres ws

i lie with erlier digs usig musicl mteri-als (e.g., Gardiner, 1988; Gregg & Gardiner, 1994;Yonelinas, 2001) because K responses are believed tobe mre sesitive t perceptul uecy-relted c-

trs such s sme versus diferet mdlity betwee

study d test rther th distictive prcessig-re-lated processes (cf. Rajaram, 1998; Rajaram & Geraci,2000). An interesting nding was the reverse LOPtred i G d' scres, shwig the ppsite efect tht

ws bserved i Rd' scores. Perhaps an OT thatdecreses distictiveess icreses the sesitivity

of G type responses, and vice versa for an OT thaticreses distictiveess.

Iterestigly, prticipts bis scres reveled

verll bis whe ld respses were cmbied

d verll yes bis whe these were seprted

it R, K, d G judgmets. I either cse, cmpredwith the ther tsks, the md tsk std ut i pr-

42 Mungan et al.

AJP 124_1 text.indd 42 1/27/11 1:16:30 PM



8/13

ducig the highest bis whe respse type wsigred (M= 0.47 as opposed to 0.5, 0.1, and 0.21for continuation, contour, and counting, respectively)d the lwest yes bis i R (M= 0.85 as opposedt 1.17, 1.07, d 1.15 r ctiuti, ctur, d

counting). In other words, participants appeared to bemre creul t sy yes r meldies prcessed with

the md tsk d be mre pre t syig whegivig R judgmets t recgiti.

eXperiMent 2

Because LOP eects have so far not been obtainedwith unfamiliar musical stimuli (Peretz et al., 1998;Warker & Halpern, 2005), Experiment 2 testedwhether and how the LOP effect on recognitionsesitivity i R respses wuld chge depedig

meldy milirity. By usig tw diferet levels familiarity (high and low) and two OTs (mood judg-met d cutig lg tes, the tw tsks tht

prduced the mst extreme recgiti sesitivitylevels in R responses in Experiment 1), we exploredwhether the LOP eect on recognition sensitivity inR respses ws limited t milir musicl mteri-ls r whether erlier ull digs with umilir

music were due to the specic OTs (Halpern & Ml-lensiefen, 2008).

Mntyl (1997) found that distinctive processing

umilir ces icresed the umber crrect Rrespses. We were curius whether we, t, wuld

bti such beet i recgiti sesitivity i R

respses s result cceptul prcessig ever lw-milirity meldieseve i tht icrese ws

not sucient for an overall LOP eector whetherunfamiliar music would be immune to any LOP eect,icludig e i R sesitivity. As is usully the cse, we

did not expect the OT manipulation to have an eect recgiti sesitivity K respses. I dditi,

becuse meldy milirity ws vried betwee lists3 it

ws ecessry t switch t itetil memry pr-cedure, with istructis tht irmed prticipts i

dvce tht memry test wuld llw.

METHOD

Participants

Frty-eight musicis, wh were udergrdute

studets Bgzii Uiversity d received extr

credit i psychlgy curses, served s prticipts. All

prticipts hd hd less th 1 yer musicl tri-

ig d culd t red music. Nie prticipts wh

did t pss the trspsiti test were excluded d

replced t rech smple size 48 prticipts.

Materials, Design, and Procedure

The materials were the same as in Experiment 1 ex-cept tht i dditi t the 24-meldy study list

high-familiarity melodies used in Experiment 1, andditil 24-meldy list lw-milirity meldies

ws cstructed. The lw-milirity list ls hd tw

versis r trgetlure cuterblcig purpses.

All lw-milirity meldies were chse rm the

sme pl 173 meldies tht hd bee pilted rExperiment 1, so they had roughly the same musicalprperties (ll keybrd-recrded, sigle-lie music

excerpts, mstly rm istrumetl pieces, similrtune lengths). The high-familiarity melodies were

thse tht hd verge milirity rtig betwee9 d 10 (M= 9.,SD = 1.7) on a 10-point scale. Low-milirity meldies were thse tht hd verge

milirity rtig betwee 1 d 4 (M= .0,SD = 2.7).There were tw recgiti tests, e tht csisted

48 high-milirity meldies d e tht csisted

48 lw-milirity meldies, with 24 trgets d 24

lures i ech cse. Fr hl the prticipts, List A

meldies served s the trgets d List B meldies s

the lures, d vice vers r the ther hl.The study booklets were the same as in Experi-

met 1, with the excepti tht they were gruped

ccrdig t the eight cuterblcig cditis,list type (List A vs. List B), familiarity order (highfamiliarity rst vs. low familiarity rst), and OT taskorder (counting rst vs. mood rst), and the recog-iti test sheets required R, K, r G respses reach yes response. The overall design was a 2 (OT:mood judgment vs. counting long notes)2 (meldyfamiliarity: high vs. low)3 (respse type: R, K,G) within-participant design with d' s the mi de-pedet mesure. The prcedure ws the sme s iExperiment 1 except that participants went throughtw studytest phses, e r high-milirity mel-

dies d e r lw-milirity meldies. The cttht ech study list csisted meldies difer-

et level milirity ws t explicitly metied.

Prticipts were tested i grups up t ur. The

experimet ws cducted i tw sessis. The rst

sessi lsted r but 55 mi d icluded the tw

studytest phses, which were dmiistered succes-

sively withut dely. I the secd sessi, prtici-

pts listeed t ll 96 meldies d rted their mil-

irity. The secd sessi tk but 1520 mi.


AJP 124_1 text.indd 43 1/27/11 1:16:30 PM



9/13

RESULTS

The subjective milirity rtigs were similr tthe ratings obtained during pilot testing; the high-milirity meldies were give verge rtig 9.1 (SD = 2.1) and the low-familiarity melodies .9(SD = 2.5). There were also no signicant dierencesbetwee the subjective milirity rtigs r the twlists (M= 9.1 and M= 9.1 for high-familiarity melo-dies of List A and List B, respectively; M= .7 andM= 4.1 for low-familiarity melodies of List A and ListB, respectively).

Recognition Sensitivity Analyses

We ce gi did tw sets lyses with respect

t recgiti sesitivity. I ur rst set lyseswe converted all OT-specic and familiarity-specichit rates and their OT-nonspecic and familiarity-specic lse lrm rtes it d' scres, disregrdig

respse type. Becuse list rder (high-miliritylist rst vs. low-familiarity list rst) did not showsigict efects, we cllpsed ll dt crss thisfactor. The resulting 2 (OT)2 (meldy milir-

ity) anoa these d' scres reveled ly miefect r meldy milirity, shwig tht sesitivity

levels were higher r high-milirity tues (M= 1.8,SD = 0.64) than for low-familiarity tunes (M= 1.11,SD = 0.64). All other effects were nonsignificant(ps > .10).

Fr the secd set lyses, ll recgiti dtwere cverted it d' scres, this time usig ech

participants R, K, and G hit rates for each OT andmeldy milirity cditi d their respective R,

K, d G lse lrm rtes, thus btiig R, K, d Gd' scores across two OT and two melody familiarityconditions (Figure 2).

List rder did gi t shw sigict efects(ps > .10), so we collapsed all data across this factor.An OT (mood vs. counting)meldy milirity(high vs. low)response type (R, K, G) repeated-mesures three-wy anoa the d' rtes reveled mi efect r respse type, F(2, 94) = 10.27,MSE= 1.15,p < .001, prtil = .18, indicating thatprticipts recgiti sesitivity ws higher r

R (d' = .79) and K (d' = .65) than for G (d' = .1)respses.

Figure 2.d' values with SEs as a function of orienting task, melody familiarity, and response type, Experiment 2

44 Mungan et al.

AJP 124_1 text.indd 44 1/27/11 1:16:31 PM



10/13

As in Experiment 1, we also found a signicantinteraction between OT and response type, F(2,94) = 10.27, MSE= 0.42,p < .001, prtil = .16.Whe we lk t Figure 2, we see ce gi tht

regrdless meldy milirity bth R d G butt Kd' scores change greatly across OT conditions.G d' scres gi seem t mimic Rd' scres but i

lmst ppsite wy. Pired t tests cirmedthat the LOP eect in Rd' scres ws sigict rbth high- d lw-milirity meldies, t(47) = 2.7,p < .01 d t(47) = 2.17,p < .05, respectively. Piredttests also conrmed a reverse LOP eect in G d'scres r high-milirity meldies, t(47) = 2.78,p < .01, d mrgilly r lw-milirity meldies,t(47) = 1.84,p = .07.

Furthermre, we ud sigict itercti

betwee meldy milirity d respse type,F(2,

94) = 5.56, MSE= 0.75, p < .001, prtil = .11.Pired ttests cmprig R d Kd' scres shwed

tht r high-milirity tues Rd' scres were sigi-ctly higher th Kd' scres (M= .9 andM= .57,respectively, t(47) = 2.44,p < .05), whereas for low-milirity tues, we bserved slightly higher K th

Rd' scres (M= .92 andM= .78, respectively), butthis diferece did t rech sigicce (p > .10). Allremiig mi d itercti efects were sig-

ict (ps > .10).

Recognition Bias Analyses

A 2 (OT)2 (melody familiarity) anoa cscresusing OT- and familiarity-specic hit rates and OT-specic, milirity-specic lse lrm rtes, dis-regrdig respse type, reveled efect meldy

milirity, tht is, high-milirity meldies led t

bis (M= 0.28), whereas low-familiarity melo-dies led t yes bis (M= 0.28),F(1, 47) = 59.20,MSE= 0.26,p < .001, prtil = .56.

A 2 (OT)2 (melody familiarity)3 (respsetype) anoa cscores using OT- and familiarity-specic R, K, d G hit rtes d their respective R,K, d G lse lrm rtes reveled gi milir-

ity mi efect,F(1, 47) = 51.14,MSE= 0.0,p < .001,prtil = .52, showing that high-familiarity melo-dies led t lesser yes bis (M= 1.11) than low-milirity meldies (M= 1.41). There were also twosigict itercti efects: itercti betweeOT and response type,F(2, 94) = 8.94,MSE= 0.11,p < .001, prtil = .16, and one between familiar-

ity d respse type,F(2, 94) = 29.00,MSE= 0.51,p < .001, prtil = .8. With respect to the rst in-tercti, we bserved tht the md tsk resulted i

lwer yes bis i R respses th the cutigtsk (M= 1.19 andM= 1.2, respectively); no suchchge ws bserved i K respses (M= 1.7 andM= 1.6, respectively). With respect to the seconditercti, we bserved prticulrly lw yes bisi R respses r high-milirity tues (M= 0.80)cmpred with lw-milirity tues (M= 1.71).Yes bis diereces betwee high- d lw--

milirity tues were less drmtic r K (M= 1.24d M= 1.50, respectively) and G (M= 1.0 andM= 1.10, respectively) responses.

DISCUSSION

We ud tht the md judgmet tsk cmpred

with the cutig lg tes tsk yielded higher rec-giti sesitivity rtes R respses t ly r

high-familiarity (1.04 vs. 0.77, respectively) but alsofor low-familiarity tunes (0.80 vs. 0.54, respectively).We also replicated the curious reverse LOP eectin G responses, which we observed in Experiment 1,tht is, the cutig tsk yielded higher recgiti

sesitivity i G respses th i the md tsk, pr-

ticulrly r high-milirity meldies. It is likely thtR and G responses act in antagonism because if LOPmipultis wrk R- but t K-type recgitisesitivity, the whtever mipulti bsts R se-sitivity shuld be expected t ecessrily decrese G

sesitivity, which reects guessig behvir.

We were slightly surprised by the ct tht eve

thugh the recgiti sesitivity rtes R re-spses r the md tsk were lmst ideticl r

Experiments 1 and 2 (1.05 in Experiment 1 and 1.04in Experiment 2), those for the counting task werequite dierent (0.45 in Experiment 1 and 0.77 in Ex-periment 2). It could be that the counting task in thectext three ther tsks resulted i less distictiveprcessig th whe egged i the presece lye ther tsk.

Filly, ur digs regrdig the efect mel-

dy milirity R d K respses were i liewith the literature. Gardiner and Radomski (1999)hve shw tht listeers reprt mre R th K re-

spses r milir tues d vice vers r umil-

ir tues. We, t, ud higher R th K d' scres


AJP 124_1 text.indd 45 1/27/11 1:16:31 PM



11/13

r high-milirity tues d reverse tred r lw-familiarity tunes. Because we found an LOP eect inR respses r bth high- d lw-milirity mel-

dies, it ppers tht cceptul prcessig did t lestprtly cuterct the lwerig R respses due t

lw milirity.

We ce gi bserved verll bis whe

lkig t geerl yes respses while disregrdigR, K, d G judgmets d verll yes bis whe

lkig t the yes respses tgether with their

R, K, d G judgmets. High- cmpred with lw-

milirity tues prduced bis i geerl rec-giti respses d lwer yes bis i R-type

recgiti respses. Bth idepedet vribles,OT and melody familiarity, exerted their inuencesprimrily R rther th K respse bises.

general discussion

Our two studies found a consistent eect of OT onR-type recgiti sesitivity r bth high- d lw-familiarity tunes. In Experiment 1, we found that themd tsk ws sigulrly efective i cretig higherRd' rtes cmpred with y the ther tsks. I

Experiment 2, we replicated this mood eect, and,mre iterestigly, we ud tht it ccurred r bthhigh- d lw-milirity tues.

Our main goal was to take a closer look at LOPefects i episdic meldy recgiti by usig ermesures recgiti. A lrge bdy literture recgiti memry suggests tht recgiti judg-

mets re bsed prtly recllective wreess

previusly ecutered evet, whe peple ctully

remember the episde hvig ecutered thtevet, d prtly sese milirity, whe

prticulr item mg set trgets d lures simplyseems to stand out as an old item (Gardiner, 1988;Tulving, 1985). LOP is cited as one of the prominentvribles tht fects the rst but t the secd cm-

ponent. A semantic OT, for example, increases theprprti recllecti-bsed recgiti, wheresa perceptual OT does not. Furthermore, neither taskfects milirity-bsed recgiti judgmets (Gr-diner, 2001; also see Wagner & Gabrieli, 1998). In hisextesive 2002 review, Yelis ccluded tht the

tw cmpets, recllecti d milirity, pper

t be idepedet d tht recllecti is liked t

threshld-type retrievl prcess wheres milirity

ppers t be liked t mre sigl detectitypeprocesses (cf. Donaldson, 1996). Yet other research-ers believe recllecti d milirity t be guided

by sigle sigl detecti prcess (e.g., Du,2008; Rotello, Macmillan, Hicks, & Hautus, 2006).Hwever, this ctrversy is beyd the scpe this

rticle becuse ur primry iterest ws t simply seewhether LOP manipulations in music show dieringefects R d K sesitivities t begi with.

Studies using LOP and music have so far lookedly t verll mesures recgiti sesitivity. Frthe very reason that LOP manipulations seem to af-ect e but t the ther the tw cmpets

recgiti, we believe tht the use remember

d kw judgmets is crucil t the uderstd-ing of why LOP eects have been so elusive withmusicl mterils. As metied erlier, remember

experieces i memry re believed t be iueced

by mipultis tht fect items distictiveess,wheres kw respses re believed t be iu-

eced by mipultis tht fect items percep-tual uency (Rajaram & Geraci, 2000). We thereforeexpected that our LOP manipulations using musicwuld similrly shw their efects prticiptsR responses rather than their K responses. In Ex -periment 1, we used four OTs, two conceptual andtw perceptul es. Becuse cceptul tsks re

deed s tsks tht require iterpretive prcesses

i the sese gig beyd the immeditely give,we expected thse tsks t icrese item distictive-

ess, cmpred with ur perceptul tsks tht simply

sked prticipts t prcess certi physicl spectsof the tunes. Our ndings showed that, comparedwith the ther tsks, the md tsk prduced the

highest recgiti sesitivity i R respses, which

might suggest tht this tsk ws uique i icresig

item distictiveess.In addition, because so far no LOP eects have

bee ud with tues tht were t milir, we were

curius s t whether this usul ull efect might bedue t the diculty estblishig distictiveess with

such materials. Results of Experiment 2 revealed thatthe md tsk led t higher recgiti sesitivity i

R respses with lw-milirity tues just s much swith high-milirity tues. Nevertheless, t dig

an LOP eect at the level of overall recognition sen-sitivity with lw-milirity musicl stimuli (c. Peretz,Gaudreau, & Bonnel, 1998; Halpern & Mllensiefen,

46 Mungan et al.

AJP 124_1 text.indd 46 1/27/11 1:16:31 PM



12/13

2008) no longer comes as a surprise. Because low-fa-miliarity items, be they words (Gardiner & Java, 1990)or music (Gardiner & Radomski, 1999), are known toprduce ewer R-type respses, i the cse musicwe would have to come up with an LOP manipulationtht is strg eugh t verride this disdvtge

lw-milirity tues cmpred with high-miliritytunes. Our two studies also showed that even withhigh-familiarity tunes, LOP manipulations, thoughsuciet t shw sigict efects recgiti

sesitivity i R respses, my t be efective eugh

t shw difereces t crser level mesuremet,such s verll recgiti sesitivity.

Studies hve shw tht it is ideed t s much

the cceptulperceptul cmpet but the dis-tictiveess cmpet tht is crucil i whether we

see icrese r decrese i recllecti-bsed rec-

ognition (Mntyl, 1997; Rajaram & Geraci, 2000).The distictiveess cmpet is especilly crucili ur cse becuse ur lures shred bsic etures

with the trgets. Thus, rm distictiveess per-

spective, the ctiuti tsk, i which prticiptshd t thik the ext tw r three tes high-

milirity tues, my t hve prduced s distic-

tive prcessig s the md tsk. The cutig

tsk, the ther hd, merely sked prticiptst cut the lg tes i tue, which is rte tsk

ulikely t prduce elbrte, distictive prcess-

ig. Hwever, it is ucler hw the ctur trcigtsk shuld be cceptulized. Are we icresig the

tues distictiveess by trcig its pitch ctur?Or are we increasing its perceptual uency, or both?Our R and Kd' rtes d t suggest icrese iperceptul uecy becuse therwise, cmpred with

the ther three tsks, we shuld hve see bst i

Kd' rtes r the tues prcessed with the ctur

tsk. A iterestig uture study wuld be t use setof OTs that are either all conceptual or all perceptualbut difer i their distictiveess.

NOTES

We thank our research assistants zlem Bekar, Sirin EzgiEraltan, Handan Odaman, Taha Bilge, Bsra Yalnz, EceKocagnc, Beste Kalender, and Eren Gnseli, who helpedus ru these experimets d series tht ispired us r the

es reprted here.

Address correspondence about this article to Esra Mun-g, Psychlgy Deprtmet, Bgzici Uiversity, Istbul

442, Turkey (e-mail: [email protected]).

1. Trgetlure pirs were estblished with efrt t

miti certi level diculty t test. Fr tht res,

eve i they were rm diferet pieces, they shred sme mu-

sicl chrcteristics, such s bth beig ppulr dce pieces

plyed t weddigs (Hv Ngil d Turkish lk dce

piece called Kasap Havasi).

2. Whe we gruped the tsks i terms the cceptulversus perceptual dierentiation for a 2 (OT)3 (respsetype) anoa, an OT main eect emerged,F(1, 1) = 10.26,MSE= 0.09,p < .01, prtil = .25, showing that the con-ceptual tasks (mood and continuation) led to signicantlyhigher d' levels th the perceptul tsks (M= 1.57, SD = 0.64dM= 1.18, SD = 0.58, respectively). This nding wasin line with Peretz et al.s (1998) LOP nding with familiartunes. Other than that, there was neither a response typemain eect nor an OTrespse type itercti.

. Earlier pilot studies revealed extreme false alarm ratesr high-milirity meldies whe preseted i mixed list

high- d lw-milirity meldies, s we decided t m-

ipulte meldy milirity betwee lists.

REFERENCES

Bower, G. H., & Karlin, M. B. (1974). Depth of processingpictures ces d recgiti memry.Journal of Ex-

perimental Psychology, 103, 751757.

Bowers, J. S. (1994). Does implicit memory extend to legald illegl wrds?Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 534549.

Church, B. A., & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual speci -city uditry primig: Implicit memry r vice

itti d udmetl requecy.Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20,521533.

Craik, F. I. M. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present . . .d uture?Memory, 10, 305318.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of process-ig: A rmewrk r memry reserch.Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671684.

Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing andthe reteti wrds i episdic memry.Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 104,268294.

Craik, F. I. M., & Watkins, M. (197). The role of rehearsali shrt-term memry.Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 12, 559607.

Donaldson, W. (1996). The role of decision processes inrememberig d kwig.Memory & Cognition, 24,

523533.

Duchek, J. M., & Neely, J. H. (1989). A dissociative word-requecylevels--prcessig itercti i episdic

recgiti d lexicl decisi tsk.Memory & Cogni-

tion, 17, 148162.

Dunn, J. C. (2008). The dimensionality of the rememberkw tsk: A stte-trce lysis.Psychological Review,

115, 426446.


AJP 124_1 text.indd 47 1/27/11 1:16:31 PM



13/13

Friedman, A., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1976). Encoding the levels irmti i pictures d wrds.Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology: General, 105, 169190.

Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Functional aspects of recollective ex-periece.Memory & Cognition, 16, 309313.

Gardiner, J. M. (2001). Episodic memory and autonoetic

csciusess: A rst-pers pprch.PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

356, 13511361.

Gardiner, J. M., Gregg, V. H., & Karayianni, I. (2006). Recog-nition memory and awareness: Occurrence of perceptualefects i rememberig r i kwig depeds c-

scius resurces t ecdig, but t t retrievl.Memory

& Cognition, 34, 227239.

Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1990). Recollective experiencei wrd d wrd recgiti.Memory & Cognition,

18, 2330.

Gardiner, J. M., & Radomski, E. (1999). Awareness of recog-nition memory for Polish and English folk songs in Polish

and English folk.Memory, 7, 461470.Gregg, V. H., & Gardiner, J. M. (1994). Recognition memory

d wreess: A lrge efect studytest mdlities

kw respses llwig highly perceptul riet-

ig tsk.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6,

131147.

Halpern, A. R., & Mllensiefen, D. (2008). Eects of timbred temp chge memry r music. Quarterly Jour-

nal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 13711384.

Hyde, T. S. (197). Dierential eects of eort and type of ori-etig tsk recll d rgizti highly sscited

wrds.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 111113.

Hyde, T. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (197). Recall for words as a func-ti semtic, grphic, d sytctic rietig tsks.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12,

471480.

Jacoby, L. L., Craik, F. I. M., & Begg, I. (1979). Eects ofdecisi diculty recgiti d recll.Journal of

Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 585600.

Mandler, G., Goodman, G. O., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. L. (1982).The wrd-requecy prdx i recgiti.Memory &

Cognition, 10, 3342.

Mntyl, T. (1997). Recollections of faces: Rememberingdifereces d kwig similrities.Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23,

12031216.Marks, W. (1991). Eects of encoding the perceptual features

picture memry.Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 566577.

Meyer, L. B. (1956).Emotion and meaning in music. Chicg,IL: Uiversity Chicg Press.

Palmer, C. (1997). Music performance.Annual Review of Psy-chology, 48, 115138.

Peretz, I., Gaudreau, D., & Bonnel, A.-M. (1998). Exposureefects music preerece d recgiti.Memory &


Rajaram, S. (1998). The eects of conceptual salience and

perceptul distictiveess cscius recllecti.Psy-chonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 7178.

Rajaram, S., & Geraci, L. (2000). Conceptual uency se-lectively iueces kwig.Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26,

10701074.

Repp, B. (1992). Diversity and commonality in music per-rmce: A lysis timig micrstructure i Schu-

manns Trumerei.Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 92, 25462568.

Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, M. A., Hicks, J. L., & Hautus,M. J. (2006). Interpreting the eects of response bias onrememberkw judgmets usig sigl-detecti d

threshld mdels.Memory & Cognition, 34, 15981614.Schacter, D. L., & Church, B. A. (1992). Auditory priming:

Implicit d explicit memry r wrds d vices.Jour-

nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and


Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signaldetecti thery mesures.Behavior Research Methods,

Instruments, & Computers, 31,137149.

Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. CanadianPsychology, 26, 112.

Wagner, A. D., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1998). On the relation-ship betwee recgiti milirity d perceptul

uency: Evidence for distinct mnemonic processes.ActaPsychologica,98, 211230.Warker, J. A., & Halpern, A. R. (2005). Musical stem comple-

ti: Hummig tht te.American Journal of Psychol-

ogy, 118, 567585.

Warrington, E. K., & Ackroyd, C. (1975). The eect of orient-ig tsks recgiti memry.Memory & Cognition,

3, 140142.

Wig, G. S., Miller, M. B., Kingstone, A., & Kelley, W. M.(2004). Separable routes to human memory formation:Disscitig tsk d mteril ctributis i the pre-

rtl crtex.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16,

139148.

Yonelinas, A. P. (2001). Consciousness, control, and con-dece: The 3 Cs recgiti memry.Journal of Ex-

perimental Psychology: General, 130, 361379.

Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and famil -irity: A review 30 yers reserch.Journal of Memory

and Language, 46, 441517.

4 8 Mungan et al.

AJP 124_1 text.indd 48 1/27/11 1:16:31 PM

munganpeynircioglu.pdf

Documents