{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009900990099009901, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.822085889570552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Measuring automatic retrieval.

A variety of procedures have been used to assess automatic retrieval effects on memory, including implicit memory tests and the process dissociation approach. Theoretical concerns with each are summarized prior to describing a procedure for evaluating automatic retrieval that is based on retrieval speed. Specifically, in a speeded implicit task, participants were encouraged to complete word stems using strictly automatic retrieval by presenting several practice test trials that did not allow responding based on previously studied items and by encouraging speed of responding. This speeded implicit task was compared with a condition in which conscious retrieval of studied information was not possible and a condition in which conscious retrieval was required, providing converging evidence to support the hypothesis that the speeded implicit procedure can yield pure estimates of automatic retrieval. Furthermore, evidence from a standard implicit memory task yielded comparable data that suggests that participants engaged automatic retrieval processes on this task also.