A stimulus will have a higher [[Recollection|recall]] value if it is highly compatible with preexisting semantic structures (Craik, 1972). According to [[semantic network]] theories, this is because such a stimulus will have many connections to other encoded memories, which are activated based on closeness in semantic network structure.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.3758/BF03210735 |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |last=Rhodes |first=MG |author2=Anastasi JS |title=The effects of a levels-of-processing manipulation on false recall |year=2000 |url=http://lamar.colostate.edu/~mrhodes/RA00.pdf| |format=pdf |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=158–62 |pmid=10780030 |deadurl=yes 10780030|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080906162014/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~mrhodes/RA00.pdf |archivedate=2008-09-06 |df= }}</ref> This activation increases cognitive analysis, increasing the strength of the memory representation. The familiarity modifier has been tested in [[implicit memory]] experiments, where subjects report false memories when presented with related stimuli.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Toth |first=JP |year=1996 |title=Conceptual automaticity in recognition memory: Levels-of-processing effects on familiarity |journal=Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3690/is_199603/ai_n8735087 |volume=50 |issue=1 |pmid=8653094 |pages=123–38 |doi=10.1037/1196-1961.50.1.123 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080124111249/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3690/is_199603/ai_n8735087 |archivedate=2008-01-24 |df= }}</ref>
===Specificity of processing===
Line 36:
===Hearing===
Auditory stimuli follow conventional levels-of-processing rules, although are somewhat weaker in general [[Recollection|recall]] value when compared with vision. Some studies suggest that auditory weakness is only present for [[explicit memory]] (direct recall), rather than [[implicit memory]].<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.3758/BF03210786 |volume=4 4|issue=1 1|pages=130–133 130–133|last=Habib Habib|first=R |author2=Nyberg L |title=Incidental retrieval processes influence explicit test performance with data-limited cues |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |year=1997 1997|url=http://www.psychonomic.org/search/view.cgi?id=821 |format=pdf }}{{dead link|date=May pdf2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> When test subjects are presented with auditory versus visual word cues, they only perform worse on directed recall of a spoken word versus a seen word, and perform about equally on implicit free-association tests. Within auditory stimuli, semantic analysis produces the highest levels of recall ability for stimuli. Experiments suggest that levels-of-processing on the auditory level is directly correlated with neural activation.<ref name = Fletcher>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1093/brain/121.7.1239 | volume = 121 | issue = 7 | pages = 1239–1248 | last = Fletcher | first = PC |author2=Shallice T |author3=Dolan RJ | title = The functional roles of prefrontal cortex in episodic memory. I. Encoding | journal = Brain | year = 1998 | url = http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/121/7/1239 | format = pdf
| pmid = 9679776 }}</ref>
===Touch===
[[Tactile]] memory representations are similar in nature to visual representations, although there is not enough data to reliably compare the strength of the two kinds of stimuli. One study suggests that there is a difference in mental processing level due to innate differences between visual and tactile stimuli representations.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.3758/BF03214345 |volume=4 |issue=4 | pages = 535–540
|pages=535–540
| last = Srinivas K | first1 = Kavitha |author2=Greene AJ |author3=Easton RD | title = Visual and tactile memory for 2-D patterns: Effects of changes in size and lef-right orientation | journal = Psychonomic Bulletin & Review | year = 1997 | url = http://www.psychonomic.org/search/view.cgi?id=195 | format = pdf }}</ref> In this study, subjects were presented with an object in both visual and tactile form (a subject is shown a sphere but cannot touch it, and later is given a similar sphere to only hold and not view). Subjects had more trouble identifying size difference in visual fields than using tactile feedback. A suggestion for the lower level of size processing in visual fields is that it results from the high variance in viewed object size due to perspective and distance.▼
|last=Srinivas K
|first1=Kavitha
|author2=Greene AJ
|author3=Easton RD
|title=Visual and tactile memory for 2-D patterns: Effects of changes in size and lef-right orientation
▲| last = Srinivas K}}{{dead link| first1 date=May Kavitha2017 |author2bot=Greene AJInternetArchiveBot |author3=Easton RD | title = Visual and tactile memory for 2fix-D patterns: Effects of changes in size and lef-right orientation | journal attempted= Psychonomic Bulletin & Review | year = 1997 | url = http://www.psychonomic.org/search/view.cgi?id=195 | format = pdfyes }}</ref> In this study, subjects were presented with an object in both visual and tactile form (a subject is shown a sphere but cannot touch it, and later is given a similar sphere to only hold and not view). Subjects had more trouble identifying size difference in visual fields than using tactile feedback. A suggestion for the lower level of size processing in visual fields is that it results from the high variance in viewed object size due to perspective and distance.
