再認記憶に及ぼす単語熟知度と文脈変動性の効果

;:(<-1%*8&+
)7.,9
#/0'!
>$6
" =3"254
\ÍɃ(zÞ#)x»E7>(eÎ4Æ
zÞ 1
'<7>E7>$"Y+%ÆeÎ(“Ú®)$
® ­ ’—Î#eΧ¯~$¿sd(J‘/
]"&
ADIcš4œÈY°µ(·š$(¡Ó'.0
eÎ(Ú®)4DG:B'Š²21
K2/x»E7>(K'
(¦
(
eΧ¯~$¿sd(cš(q—4”/'1
4_1“Ú®4Ÿ“Ú®$_#
‘¢ zÞfb¼âux« 18 l#Znw#
rj4Ÿ\͐ڮ4Ï
…Ä•Ø) 15ã20 ^´~#V`'Â32
"“Ú®$_"
,(Á\Í$\ÍɃ#)Û~(Qe
˜Žâx»E7>)ieι/ 20 Î!DG:B
Î)Ÿ\Í©UÕ2ßeÎ#)Á\Í©U
'Ç 80 Îֈ„<7>E7>)x»E7
Õ21ADIcš(mirror effect)$ªÒÅ/
21Œ}(eÎT¬21¿(tž
4Í¿sd(context variability)4‡
°µ
>(eÎ 80 Î'i¹/x»"&eÎ$
" 20 Î!jÇ Î4DG:B'£jÇ 160 Î
#„
Â32"1Steyvers & Malmberg (2003))
†¸âzÞfb¼)1 eÎ'! 2 ³!Š²
¿sd4¨y(eÎT¬21¿(Œ
$y
21x»E7>(eÎ4Æ5 ^Ø(ǶÐÜ4Â
ºeÎ%2tž&¿#T¬21($
k 1 eÎ!Š²21<7>E7>'
$45I?7(K#¨y(eÎT¬2
{"&
?;8I64Œ(t'.
(Know) "¿sd4Ê
y(eÎE7>4T¬Cook, Marsh, &
Hicks(2006))eÎÛ~$¿sd(J‘/AD
(New)
$^1
$4±'Æ"1
(Remember)
( 3 ˆ#\Í_4Â
·š à 2 '·š4²
Icš4°µ"1
à 2. ZR$g€`(Ÿ\Í©$Á\Í©
MXћ
,MXћ4ÂSteyvers & Malmberg (2003)
#T¬2"a¥eΒ—Î#-k.'^
Ÿ\Í©
eÎ
§¯~
Á\Í©
¿sd
Q
ß
Q
ß
Q
.85
.74
.16
.29
*"mË(v×HÔÀ, 2000)(=I9@I74¬
ß
.70
.70
.29
.34
"22(eΧ¯~4Ñ*zÞfb¼)
Remember
Q
.74
.56
.06
.11
ž&6CGF(½ÉN(Å]/eÎE7>
ß
.49
.48
.09
.13
(eÎ(ÉN'T¬2"1h¾4‰¤
Know
Q
.11
.18
.10
.18
24 0 / 5 ( 6 Ù#Ìyà 1 '·š4²
ß
.21
.22
.20
.21
Ý#1(4œÈeÎE7>à284 Îá4
eΧ¯~(Lcš(F(1,76)=27.98, p<.01)$
¿sd(Lcš(F(1,76)=47.27, p<.01)['–‚
#0POS¬(F(1,76)=1.44, n.s.))Å/2&
$/Y°µ(^Ý$kž'a¥eÎ4^Ý
1$#
à 1. eι`(eΧ¯~$¿sd(|pW
eΧ¯~¿sd eΧ¯~
¿sd
eΧ¯~$¿sd(J‘'"Y°µ$
kž(ADIcšÅ/22(eΧ¯~)2(¿
sd)( 2 Äo^‹^™4Â
·šŸ\Í©'
"eΧ¯~(Lcš(F(1,17)=11.168, p<.01)
¿sd(Lcš(F (1,17)=5.875, p<.05)eΧ¯~
¿sd(POS¬(F (1,17)=6.074, p<.05)–
‚#
Q / Q
4.31
1.29
Á\Í©'")eΧ¯~(Lcš
Q / ß
5.40
2.40
(F(1,17)=20.226, p<.01)  ¿ s d  ( L c š
ß / Q
6.50
2.18
(F(1,17)=13.020, p<.05)–‚#0eΧ¯~
ß / ß
6.48
2.96
¿sd(POS¬(F(1,17)=3.614, n.s.))–‚#)
&
Ÿ\Í'1 Remember g€#)eΧ¯~(
LcšàF(1,17)=18.645, p<.01፿sd(Lc
x¬F(1,17)=19.508, p<.01­H¤ˆ\j™TG
¬F(1,34)=0.082, n.s.­ sc
Remember
b439„¬F (1,17)=14.501, p<.01­sc
Ja Know Ja@ @w ‘x! !' Remember Ja
Remember J a H ¤  ˆ \ 2 F x
H¤ˆ\j™TGb
7v5{?£AlUŒ)
¬F(1,34)=9.375, p<.01­scj™TGb
š?£( Know Ja
2Fx¬F (1,34)=2.459, n.s.­
H¤ˆ\2Fx
sc
(F(1,17)=11.216, p<.05) j ™ T G b 2 F x
H¤ˆ\gŒq¨439„(F (1,34)=3.169,
(F(1,17)=4.516, p<.05)scH¤ˆ\
p<.10)sc<OgŒq¨1
j™TGb439„(F(1,17)=3.286, n.s.)
sc
6yZ+›gŒq¨ 0.25 RL(H
H¤ˆ\j™T
¤ˆ\H2Fx(F (1,17)=9.471, p<.01)sc
!' Know Ja
Gb«H¤š?£€U
Œ)
gŒq¨ 3 RL(H¤ˆ\
‘x
H2Fx(F(1,17)=1.077, n.s.)
=›Š+hf(#
Cook, Marsh, & Hicks (2006)
[ª 2
H¤©\Fx
sc
sc
0.25 v5
j™TGbF
‡† gŒq¨‰“%(Fxy¢[ª 1 ‘
xsc>¦‘x
xYZ#
+y¢(
š?£‚
n| [ªIE—®VXƒ 36 N>PWb
p<.01) j ™ T G b 2 F x (F (1,34)=48.707,
;B 15¯20 @Ž\›*)
p<.01)scH¤ˆ\gŒq¨43
[ª 1 Mz(1
uke’®C}H¤
H¤'gŒq¨(0.25  3 )
ª—¨žQ
H¤ˆ\2Fx(F (1,34)=84.699,
9„¬F (1,34)= 4.869, p<.05­scgŒ
q¨@D16yZ+›gŒq¨ 0.25
18 ND'_
RL(H¤ˆ\H2Fx
‘x œ 3 ‘x+Œ
(F(1,17)=106.354, p<.01)scgŒq¨
œ 3. >8JaB{?£‚š?£‚
0.25 
{?£‚
H¤
ˆ\
3 RL(H¤ˆ\H2Fx
š?£‚
(F(1,17)=17.634, p<.01)#sc
j™TGbgŒq¨439„¬F(1,34)=1.670,
j™TGb
«
7
#
7
.66
.65
.28
.43
‰“#H¤ˆ\j™TGb7v5%'
«
.61
.66
.47
.54
)&«v5š?£‚SFx
Remember
7
.41
.34
.09
.13
Ÿ&)3 v5{?£‚$š?
«
.26
.31
.13
.13
£‚:§p‹Ÿ&)
H¤$«j™TGbH¤#
' (
7
«
š?£‚
Know
7
.24
.31
.19
.30
«
.35
.35
.34
.41
7
.78
.77
.14
.27
3
#
n.s.­ sc «
.78
.78
.28
.31
Remember
7
.69
.63
.06
.15
«
.64
.62
.13
.13
=›ŠMzgŒq¨+
YZ
«ˆ\
?£Alq,/-0.]B!~
–(
r‘xot¤€s#(K˜b#
–&)(ot¤(Fx+p&
("
ot¤¡¤¥k
&@wj™TGb+m
Z•Fxy¢`ž(
Know
7
.09
.14
.08
.12
^„j
«
.13
.16
.15
.18
":!$%# )** -563,;.79
$%# $('''%&# )** 2;14;/.8;0# + #
<# # #
Cook, G. I., Marsh, R. L. & Hicks, Jason L. (2006). The role
of recollection and familiarity in the context variability
mirror effect. Memory, and Cognition, 3 4 , 240-250.
Malmberg, K. J., & Nelson, T. O. (2003). The word
frequency effect for recognition memory and the
elevated-attention hypothesis. Memory & Cognition, 3 1 ,
35-43.
Steyvers, M., & Malmberg, K. I. (2003). The effect of
normative context variability on recognition memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 2 9 , 760-766.
2(H¤ˆ\)2(j™TGb)2(gŒq¨) 3 ž
Q@i@w+›‘x>8{?£‚g
Œq¨2Fx¬F(1,34)= 5.925, p<.05­sc
š?£‚#gŒq¨2Fx
¬F(1,34)= 8.180, p<.01­sc!'
gŒq¨‰“%'?£d”…(‘x
Ÿ&)
>8{?£‚H¤ˆ\2Fx
¬ F(1,34)=0.164, n.s. ­ j ™ T G b 2 F x