Show description

Koriat and Lieblich (1974) were among the first to point out the multiplicity of TOT reports, noting several different categories of TOTs based on whether (1) the TOT is quickly resolved (2) the subject's stated target is the same as that intended by the experimenter, and (3) the target was eventually supplied by the subject or the experimenter. This analysis marks an important beginning in the interpretation of TOT reports. As previously noted, TOTs may not always reflect actual knowledge of targets.

An unpublished study done in my laboratory (Balfour, 1992) found some support for both blocking and incomplete activation theories. It is possible that subjects tend to code blockers phonologically, even when they are intended as semantic blockers. Controlling the type of processing given to blockers, and the input modality, Balfour found, consistent with Meyer and Bock, that phonologically related words increased recall without affecting TOT rates. Semantically related words, however, increased both recall and TOT rates.

The verbal label of a concept) or incomplete storage or integration of a name's components can prevent retrieval of a target. Activation of the partial information that is truly stored may lead one to infer that one is in a TOT state. Whereas complete storage might lead to successful recall, and a total storage failure would not yield TOT reports, an incomplete storage of a target's name could cause an inferentially based illusory TOT. Smith (July 1991) reported some evidence in support of this inferentially based incomplete storage theory, testing the effects of different types and amounts of name practice, using the TOTimal methodology described earlier.