Forskning ved Københavns Universitet - Københavns Universitet

Forside

Who is mistaken about priming in "recognition/identification" experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Who is mistaken about priming in "recognition/identification" experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman. / Ostergaard, Arne Leif.

I: European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, Bind 7, 1995, s. 1-11.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Ostergaard, AL 1995, 'Who is mistaken about priming in "recognition/identification" experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman', European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, bind 7, s. 1-11.

APA

Ostergaard, A. L. (1995). Who is mistaken about priming in "recognition/identification" experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 1-11.

Vancouver

Ostergaard AL. Who is mistaken about priming in "recognition/identification" experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 1995;7:1-11.

Author

Ostergaard, Arne Leif. / Who is mistaken about priming in "recognition/identification" experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman. I: European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 1995 ; Bind 7. s. 1-11.

Bibtex

@article{e7662510d49c11dcbee902004c4f4f50,
title = "Who is mistaken about priming in {"}recognition/identification{"} experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman",
abstract = "A. L. Ostergaard (see PA, Vol 79:18418) developed the Maximum Memory Dependence model to estimate the maximum possible dependence that can result from memory-related variance in 2 memory measures. When applied to published studies, the model showed that memory-related variance could generally have produced only small effects on the overall contingency analysis. E. Tulving and C. A. Hayman (see PA, Vol 81:24304) claim that Ostergaard erred in estimating the study-related variance and suggest that he chose the wrong baseline performance level for calculating priming effects in the implicit memory tasks. The rationale for Ostergaard's method is presented here, showing that his baseline performance level was appropriate and that the estimates of priming advocated by Tulving and Hayman could lead to some strange conclusions about priming. (PsycINFO Database Copyright 1995 American Psychological Assn, all rights reserved)",
author = "Ostergaard, {Arne Leif}",
year = "1995",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Journal of Cognitive Psychology",
issn = "2044-5911",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Who is mistaken about priming in "recognition/identification" experiments? A reply to Tulving and Hayman

AU - Ostergaard, Arne Leif

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - A. L. Ostergaard (see PA, Vol 79:18418) developed the Maximum Memory Dependence model to estimate the maximum possible dependence that can result from memory-related variance in 2 memory measures. When applied to published studies, the model showed that memory-related variance could generally have produced only small effects on the overall contingency analysis. E. Tulving and C. A. Hayman (see PA, Vol 81:24304) claim that Ostergaard erred in estimating the study-related variance and suggest that he chose the wrong baseline performance level for calculating priming effects in the implicit memory tasks. The rationale for Ostergaard's method is presented here, showing that his baseline performance level was appropriate and that the estimates of priming advocated by Tulving and Hayman could lead to some strange conclusions about priming. (PsycINFO Database Copyright 1995 American Psychological Assn, all rights reserved)

AB - A. L. Ostergaard (see PA, Vol 79:18418) developed the Maximum Memory Dependence model to estimate the maximum possible dependence that can result from memory-related variance in 2 memory measures. When applied to published studies, the model showed that memory-related variance could generally have produced only small effects on the overall contingency analysis. E. Tulving and C. A. Hayman (see PA, Vol 81:24304) claim that Ostergaard erred in estimating the study-related variance and suggest that he chose the wrong baseline performance level for calculating priming effects in the implicit memory tasks. The rationale for Ostergaard's method is presented here, showing that his baseline performance level was appropriate and that the estimates of priming advocated by Tulving and Hayman could lead to some strange conclusions about priming. (PsycINFO Database Copyright 1995 American Psychological Assn, all rights reserved)

M3 - Journal article

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Journal of Cognitive Psychology

JF - Journal of Cognitive Psychology

SN - 2044-5911

ER -

ID: 2611789