Three experiments introduced a recognition memory paradigm designed to investigate reported subjective awareness during retrieval. At study, in Experiments 1A and 2, words were either generated or read , while modality of presentation was manipulated in Experiment 1B. Word pairs were presented during test trials, and participants indicated if they contained an old word by responding “remember”, “know” or “new” in Experiments 1A and 1B, and by responding “strong no”, “weak no”, “weak yes”, or “strong yes” in Experiment (...) 2. Participants were then required to decide which of the 2 words was old. We demonstrated that the proportion measures used in the Remember Know paradigm substantially underestimated the influence of generation on familiarity resulting in an artificial dissociation between indices of knowing and remembering . We also found a qualitatively different pattern of forced-choice recognition performance as a function of claimed awareness. (shrink)

The author compares the linguistic philosophies of Fichte and Hegel, concluding that Hegel's position ismore comprehensive than Fichte's. Fichte and Hegel share essential suppositions about language andphilosophy, best seen in their remarks on Phantasie, schematism, and especially the idea of unity. The issueof recognition is the primary point of difference between them. Fichte sees man's desire for recognition inthe transformation of signs from visual to audible; for Hegel, however, man's desire forrecognition is prior to Fichte's placement of it. (...) Whereas for Fichte, man desires to express his thoughts assoon as he realizes that another man is reasonable, for Hegel, man desires to objectify his thoughts, orvalue, at this moment. With this fundamental difference in their conceptions of recognition, Fichte andHegel end up with very different conceptions of language that reflect in some ways their differingconceptions of philosophy as a whole. The author closes by corroborating this finding through an analysisof their respective treatments of memory. (shrink)

The author compares the linguistic philosophies of Fichte and Hegel, concluding that Hegel's position is more comprehensive than Fichte's. Fichte and Hegel share essential suppositions about language and philosophy, best seen in their remarks on Phantasie, schematism, and especially the idea of unity. The issue of recognition is the primary point of difference between them. Fichte sees man's desire for recognition in the transformation of signs from visual to audible; for Hegel, however, man's desire for recognition is (...) prior to Fichte's placement of it. Whereas for Fichte, man desires to express his thoughts as soon as he realizes that another man is reasonable, for Hegel, man desires to objectify his thoughts, or value, at this moment. With this fundamental difference in their conceptions of recognition, Fichte and Hegel end up with very different conceptions of language that reflect in some ways their differing conceptions of philosophy as a whole. The author closes by corroborating this finding through an analysis of their respective treatments of memory. (shrink)

We argue that while the proposed memory model by Bastin et al. can explain familiarity-based memory judgements through the interaction of a core representation system and an attribution system, recollection-based memory judgements are not based on non-mnemonic signals being attributed to memory.