I've used episodic memory tasks entailing both recognition and recall (free recall and cued recall) in my study.

In my neuropsych battery I used the Warrington Recognition Memory Test for words (think there is also faces) as well as the Kendrick Object Learning Test (for recall). You could manipulate the complexity of either by taking similar tasks and varying distractors or adding an additional task. Any memory task could be contaminated by executive function because dummies like me rely extensively on strategies to make up for my poor memory!

The issue of recall vs. recognition has been hotly debated in the literature addressing the function of the hippocampus. These papers use particular tasks to parse the two processes to the extent that they can be. You would likely find the following paper examining source memory useful:

In Search of Recollection and Familiarity Signals in the Hippocampus

Peter E. Wais1, Larry R. Squire1,2, and John T. Wixted1

Try also this older article:

On the relationship between recall and recognition memory.

By Haist, Frank; Shimamura, Arthur P.; Squire, Larry R.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol 18(4), Jul 1992, 691-702.

In recall tasks:

Mickes, L., Seale-Carlisle, T., & Wixted, J. T. (2013). Rethinking familiarity: Remember/Know judgments in free recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 333-349.

And

McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2010). Automatic processing influences free recall: Converging evidence from the process dissociation procedure and remember-know judgments. Memory & Cognition, 39, 389–402.

Have you considered mental rotation tasks (Shephard and Metzler, 1971) and the 'pop out' effect (Treisman and Gelade, 1980) ?

I have tested free recall, cue recall and recognition of items targeted for encoding and distractors (incidental encoding). This was done under two conditions: active selection of the target items and passive viewing of the items. I would tell you the results, but we are writing the paper now :-).

I didn't really understand your question. You are only interested in the automaticity of retrieval (not encoding), right? And, in that case, are you looking for a task that requires totally automatic retrieval? If so, you could also think of priming tasks, which I would deem absolutely perfect to this aim. Hope my answer was useful, but I'm not sure I got the aim of your question!

I do assume this question refers to retrieval. By definition, recall is effortful because it requires full consciousness. In recognition, if you ask people to use Remember/Know options, some people would consider the R responses more conscious than K (true recollection vs. relying on a familiarty response) but even K responses require conscious formulation of an answer. Elaborating on the prior answer...Implicit memory tasks are conscious for the cover task (rate old and new items for pleasantness, for instance) but are presumed to reflect automatic activation of memories, in that people are not typically aware of using memory -- if you can take care that the implicit response is not being contaminated by the explicit (I remember this; therefore, I must like it more).

If you are interested in automatic processes, you may also want to consider a lexical decision task (or an analogous picture task). On a behavioural level, the subject has almost the same instruction (identify words vs. non-words, instead of old vs. new), but RT is the measure of interest, rather than accuracy. Participants should be faster at identifying old words as words, than new words. Also, RT is a continuous measure, unlike accuracy, which can be a plus.

In case you are also interested in automatic vs. deliberate encoding, look into the "levels of processing framework" of Lockhart & Craik.

Actually I am writing a paper about depression-linked effects on auditory and visual episodic memory (retrieval) as assessed by the WMS-IV. This test battery offers measures of both free recall and recognition of auditory and visual memory contents. Additionally, depression-linked effects on several executive functions (menta control, inhibitory control, and working memory) are also analyzed. Furthermore, the major aim is to determine whether group differences (depressives vs. healthy controls) in episodic memory performances (auditory vs. visual; free recall vs. recognition) can be totally explained by group differences in executive functioning.

Tulving proposed a method to measure subjective organization during a free recall task. It measures the consistency of item clustering during recall. It is thought to measure the combined effects of implicit and possibly explicit associations made during free recall.

The measurement of subjective organization in free recall.

Sternberg, Robert J.; Tulving, Endel

Psychological Bulletin, Vol 84(3), May 1977, 539-556.

7 has been considered a standard limit for overload--that is, we have trouble handling more than 7 thoughts or projects simultaneously. However, the research is old. Chunking and organizing manipulate or effect such limits as counted by various researchers.

Emotional Intelligience teaches that brain is hijacked by the amigdala--also limit thoughts and organization. Also, mood range is a factor.

For a comprehensive review of the recall v. recog. v. familiarity, i found Squire and Schacter's book Neuropsychology of Memory a very useful review. My edition is 2002, but it may have been updated since.

Short answer: Yes.

Longer (still inadequate) answer: The old idea was that recall requires retrieval, but recognition does not. But this was pretty well exploded by the 1980s. Recognition memory tasks provide retrieval support, but do not eliminate retrieval altogether. Rather, they are "solved" using a combination of two processes: recall and what is often termed familiarity. The former is clearly effortful; the latter, more likely automatic. (I think George Mandler may have been the first to elucidate this dual-process model of recognition memory, but my own source memory may be playing tricks there.) Usually the recall component (also called Remembering) and the familiarity component (sometimes called Knowing) work together, but of course they can also pull in opposite directions - as when we "feel" one response to be correct because it is so familiar, despite a specific memory that says otherwise. (Incidentally, this is a lot like the Availability heuristic.) There were a number of interesting studies using a paradigm called the Process Dissociation Procedure (Jacoby?) in the 1980s and 1990s. This recognition memory task was set up so that, in the crucial trials, the correct answer had to be recollected, but a sense of familiarity would lead to the incorrect answer. I think it is fair to say that the "familiarity" construct is closely related to the priming effect as well, though specialists in each area tend to cluster together.

I once conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of aging on recall memory vs. recognition memory. The effect size for recall was much larger (close to a standard deviation when healthy younger and older adults are compared), but there was a moderate effect on recognition as well (I think around half or a third as large). This was consistent with the hypothesis that recognition involves both an effortful recall process (adversely affected by age) and an automatic process (mostly unaffected by age).

Similar to what Stephen Joy indicated in his short history (above), there was a belief in Second Language acquisition (As well as L3, L4, etc.) and practice that one recalled or reflected on the one language while doing the other.

However, recent research has shown that more mature bilinguals and multilinguals often simultaneously "drive" both languages at the same time. This would also go for multilinguals in multilingual situations.

This means that the bilinguals are cognizant and connected in both directions to both languages in the same way at the same time. In short, these languages are not separable but at the same time are fully functioning in recall and recognition.

You should look at the prospective memory literature and the use of focal versus nonfocal cues (e.g., Einstein et al., 2005, JEP:General). Seems to be a good way to dissociate whether effortful or automatic processes are required at the retrieval phase. I think there's also been some work comparing depressed and control participants on focal and nonfocal prospective memory tasks.

The extent of effortful versus automatic processing is related to 1) speed of recall

e.g. in answering the questions: what is the name of the famous tower in Paris vs. what is the name of the person who attempted to assassinate president Reagan

2) the percent of individuals in a group who can answer a multiple choice question correctly (the higher the percent the larger the likelihood of automatic processing

(please see my book: Lifespan Maintenance of Knowledge (Psychology Press 2013)