Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Interpreting visual preferences in the visual paired-comparison task.

Jenny Richmond1, Michael Colombo, Harlene Hayne

  • 1Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Children's Hospital Boston, MA 02215, USA. jenny.richmond@childrens.harvard.edu

Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition
|August 29, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Single neuron responses in NCL, MVL, and Wulst during the observation of videos of conspecifics support population feature coding.

Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience·2026
Same author

Beyond the mark: Signatures of self-recognition in fish.

Learning & behavior·2023
Same author

Look into my eyes: a "faceless" avatar interviewer lowers reporting threshold for adult eyewitnesses.

Memory & cognition·2023
Same author

The effect of progressive image scrambling on neuronal responses at three stations of the pigeon tectofugal pathway.

Scientific reports·2022
Same author

Seeing the Forest for the Trees, and the Ground Below My Beak: Global and Local Processing in the Pigeon's Visual System.

Frontiers in psychology·2022
Same author

Does Gender Affect Judges' Perceptions of Sexual Assault Cases?

Journal of interpersonal violence·2022
Same journal

Testing the predictions of a distinctiveness model of memory: The production effect in backward recall.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

On the impact of adjacency on transposed-word effects under serial presentation.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

It's time to opt out: Metacognitive analysis of time regulation under uncertainty.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

The role of statistical learning in attentional guidance during search through naturalistic scenes.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

Representing objects and features in long-term memory: A case for direct feature-feature binding.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

Crossmodal correspondences influence adaptation during rule-based category learning of objects.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
See all related articles

Human memory on the visual paired-comparison (VPC) task can be complex. Novelty, null, or familiarity preferences reflect different levels of memory accessibility, not just forgetting.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Human Memory Research

Background:

  • The visual paired-comparison (VPC) task is commonly interpreted using Sokolov's comparator model.
  • Novelty preferences on VPC tasks indicate retention, while null preferences suggest forgetting.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To clarify the interpretation of visual preferences in VPC performance by leveraging human adults' verbal abilities.
  • To investigate how memory representation accessibility influences VPC task outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Two experiments were conducted with adult participants.
  • Participants completed either the VPC task or a forced-choice recognition task.
  • Retention intervals ranged from 3 minutes to 12 months.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • VPC task participants showed novelty preferences at short delays, null preferences at intermediate delays, and familiarity preferences at long delays.
  • Forced-choice recognition task participants maintained high accuracy across delays, but recognition latency increased systematically over time.
  • Data challenge a simple Sokolovian interpretation of VPC performance.

Conclusions:

  • Memory expression on the VPC task (novelty, null, or familiarity preference) depends on the accessibility of the memory representation.
  • VPC task performance is not solely indicative of forgetting or retention but reflects nuanced memory states.