Malmberg Kenneth J, Zeelenberg Rene, Shiffrin Richard M
Department of Psychology, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Mar;30(2):540-9. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.540.
E. Hirshman, J. Fisher, T. Henthom, J. Amdt, and A. Passanname (2002) found that Midazolam disrupts the mirror-patterned word-frequency effect for recognition memory by reversing the typical hit-rate advantage for low-frequency words. They noted that this result is consistent with dual-process accounts (e.g., R. C. Atkinson & J. F. Juola, 1974; G. Mandler, 1980; A. P. Yonelinas, 1994) of the word frequency effect for recognition memory (S. Joordens & W. E. Hockley. 2000; L. M. Reder et al. 2000). The present authors show that this finding is also consistent with a variety of single-process, retrieving effectively- from-memory (REM) models (R. M. Shiffrin & M. Steyvers, 1997), the simplest of which assumes that Midazolam decreases the accuracy with which memory traces are stored. These findings therefore do not discriminate between single- and dual-process models of recognition memory.
E. 赫什曼、J. 费舍尔、T. 亨索姆、J. 阿穆特和A. 帕萨纳梅(2002年)发现,咪达唑仑通过逆转低频词典型的命中率优势,扰乱了识别记忆中的镜像模式词频效应。他们指出,这一结果与识别记忆词频效应的双加工理论(例如,R. C. 阿特金森和J. F. 乔拉,1974年;G. 曼德勒,1980年;A. P. 约内利纳斯,1994年)一致(S. 乔登斯和W. E. 霍克利,2000年;L. M. 雷德等人,2000年)。本文作者表明,这一发现也与各种单加工、有效从记忆中检索(REM)模型一致(R. M. 希夫林和M. 斯泰弗斯,1997年),其中最简单的模型假设咪达唑仑降低了记忆痕迹存储的准确性。因此,这些发现无法区分识别记忆的单加工模型和双加工模型。