Cited by 100Memory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyCognitive Functions and Memory

Accessing the particular from the general: The power of distinctiveness in the context of organization

Open access
Hunt, R. Reed, Smith, Rebekah E.·1996·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

Recall is inversely related to the number of items sharing a cue. The limiting case of unique cue-target relationships supports extremely high levels of recall, particularly when the cue is self-generated. This fact is incongruous with the importance assigned to the construct of organization in memory theory. Further, self-generated unique cue-target relationships tend to be idiosyncratic, implying that the power of unique cues should be limited to cases of self-cued memory. The experiments presented here suggest a role for organization that reconciles the fact of unique cue effectiveness with the importance of organization to memory. Two new findings are reported: Unique cue production enhances target encoding; and general cues can access particular encodings. The data are further tribute to the importance of simultaneous organizational and distinctive processing and recommend a new perspective on the function of organization in memory.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03200882

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. KELLY, R. E. S. (1993). Good cues gone bad: Self-generated distinctive cues lose their effectiveness in the absence ofexplicit recall instruc- tions. Unpublished master's thesis, University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
  2. LOCKHART, R. S., CRAIK, F. I. M., & JACOBY, L. L. (1976). Depth ofpro- cessing, recognition and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recog- nition (pp. 75-102). New York: Wiley.
  3. MANTYLA, T., & NILSSON, L. G. (1983). Are my cues better than your cues? Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 24, 303-312.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hunt, R. R., & Smith, R. E.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Corresponding author
Hunt, R. Reed
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
1996-03
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
217-225
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2014088214
Cited by
100
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r15hd025587-01a1)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD25587)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
memory organization, distinctiveness, target encoding, free recall, cue competition, encoding specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Male, Paired-Associate Learning, Reaction Time, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Verbal Learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review