English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Twenty-nine reflective and 29 impulsive fifth-grade boys were tested in a forced-choice visual recognition memory task. In three of the experimental conditions (1FD, 2FD, 4FD) the number of visual feature differences between the correct and incorrect test stimuli was 1, 2, or 4, and correct response could not be based on the name of the stimulus; in the fourth condition (DO) the correct and incorrect test stimuli had different names. As predicted, performance on DO and 4FD was equivalent and was superior to that on 1FD and 2FD. Although reflective Ss made more correct responses than impulsive Ss in all four conditions, only the performance difference in Condition 1FD was significant. Mean correct response latencies mirrored the correct response data. These results were consistent with the Selfridge-Neisser feature-testing model of recognition memory, and it was argued that the primary underlying basis for the dimension of reflection-impulsivity was that reflective Ss tend to engage in a more detailed visual feature analysis of stimulus arrays. Strong inferential evidence was provided that visual feature analysis independent of verbal labeling was responsible for successful recognition performance in these Ss.

Visual recognition memory in reflective and impulsive children