A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory

By Richard M. Shiffrin, Mark Steyvers. 1997

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Generalization Through the Recurrent Interaction of Episodic Memories (2012, methodology): “The REMERGE model can be considered a synthesis of classical exemplar models of memory (Hintzman, 1986; Medin & Schaffer, 1978; Nosofsky, 1984; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997) and a class of connectionist networks, termed interactive activation and competition (IAC) models.”
How are words stored in memory? Beyond phones and phonemes (2007, background): “…current mathematical models of human memory assume that memory stores much information in the form of specific events rather than being forced to abstract some generalized 'prototype' for stimulus categories (Hintzman, 1986; Nosofsky, 1986; Raaijmakers & Shiffrin, 1992; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997).”
Memory as a self-protective mechanism (2009, methodology): “Compared to recall measures, recognition measures are regarded as more sensitive tools for memory recovery (Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997; Srull, 1984).”
Similarity, global matching, and judgments of frequency (2001, background): “In REM, repetition has essentially one function, which is to increase the precision of the memory representation of the repeated item.”
Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning (2000, background): “In Shiffrin and Steyvers (1997) REM theory, " The lexical/semantic representation of a word consists of [20] non-zero feature values . . . . " 398 GLENBERG AND ROBERTSON These values are ungrounded.”
Familiarity breeds differentiation: a subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. (1998, methodology): “A technical report describing this model (Shiffrin, 1995) and a subsequent publication (Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997) have since appeared.”
Action understanding as inverse planning. (2009, background): “Formal models of ‘‘ideal observers” or ‘‘ideal inference agents” have long played an important role in the study of core cognitive capacities, such as visual perception, memory retrieval, or language processing and acquisition (Anderson, 1990; Gold, 1967; Hale, 2001; Liu, Knill, & Ker-sten, 1995; Sh”
Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity (2000, background): “First, does recognition memory truly depend on more than one process? In some cases, single-process theories can account for results that are commonly interpreted as requiring two processes (W. Donaldson, 1996; Hirshman & Master, 1997; McClelland & Chappell, 1998; Ratcliff, Van Zandt, & McKoon, 1995”
A dual-process account of the list-length and strength-based mirror effects in recognition (2003, background): “Several memory models (e.g., Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984; McClelland & Chappell, 1998; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997) predict a list-length effect for recognition.”
A Bayesian Recognitional Decision Model (2009, methodology): “REM allows for long-term memory prototypes as well as individual episodic traces to exist, and frames the memory retrieval process as a bayesian decision problem, enabling evidence, uncertainty, and prior probabilities to be incorporated in principled (and even optimal) ways.”
Structure and strength in causal induction. (2005, unknown): “…indicates the extent to which a rational learner should believe in the existence of a causal relationship after observing D, but it may be more appropriate to model human judgments using a directly comparative measure, such as the log posterior odds (c.f. Anderson, 1990; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997).”
Adopting Abstract Images for Semantic Scene Understanding (2016, methodology): “A discussion of different models of memory retrieval [46], [47], [48] and formation [49] are beyond the scope of this paper.”
Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. (2007, unknown): “This result is not invariably observed (e.g., Ratcliff et al., 1992), but as Shiffrin and Steyvers (1997) noted, “For subjects receiving only moderate training or less, the conditions that produce higher accuracy usually produce a lower NRS [slope of the z-ROC]” (p. 150).”