Evaluating models of remember-know judgments: Complexity, mimicry, and discriminability (original) (raw)
Related papers
A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments
Psychological Review, 2010
The dual-process theory of recognition memory holds that recognition decisions can be based on recollection or familiarity, and the remember/know procedure is widely used to investigate those 2 processes. Dual-process theory in general and the remember/know procedure in particular have been challenged by an alternative strength-based interpretation based on signal-detection theory, which holds that remember judgments simply reflect stronger memories than do know judgments. Although supported by a considerable body of research, the signal-detection account is difficult to reconcile with G. Mandler's (1980) classic "butcher-on-the-bus" phenomenon (i.e., strong, familiarity-based recognition). In this article, a new signal-detection model is proposed that does not deny either the validity of dual-process theory or the possibility that remember/know judgments can-when used in the right way-help to distinguish between memories that are largely recollection based from those that are largely familiarity based. It does, however, agree with all prior signal-detection-based critiques of the remember/know procedure, which hold that, as it is ordinarily used, the procedure mainly distinguishes strong memories from weak memories (not recollection from familiarity).
Deciding about decision models of remember and know judgments: A reply to Murdock (2006)
Psychological Review, 2006
- has interpreted remember-know data within a decision space defined by item and associative information, the fundamental variables in his general recognition memory model TODAM . He has related parameters of this extended model to stimulus characteristics for several classic remember-know data sets. The authors show that this accomplishment is shared by both one-and two-dimensional signal-detection-based remember-know models (be represented in this same decision space and can be related to stimulus characteristics with similar success. Murdock claims that his model, unlike its competitors, is a process model; however, the process aspects of TODAM are not used in his application, and the decision aspects are identical to a previously proposed model. Murdock's claim that one competing model (STREAK; C. M. is not fully specified is shown to be false. The new model is not superior to existing ones, but comparisons among the models to date are not definitive. The authors describe several strategies that might be applied to distinguish among them.
Sum-Difference Theory of Remembering and Knowing: A Two-Dimensional Signal-Detection Model
Psychological Review, 2004
In the remember-know paradigm for studying recognition memory, participants distinguish items whose presentation is episodically remembered from those that are known to be old because of their familiarity. A one-dimensional model of this paradigm, based on signal detection theory (SDT), postulates that "remember" responses are merely high-confidence "old" judgments. A meta-analysis of 373 experiments, extending those of W. and J. M. Gardiner, C. Ramponi, and A. Richardson-Klavehn (2002), shows that the ROC curves predicted by this model have the wrong slope. We present a new two-dimensional SDT model in which Old items differ from New ones in both global and specific memory strength: the "old" versus "new" response is based on a weighted sum of these dimensions according to the theory, and the "remember" versus "know" judgment is based on a weighted difference. The sum-difference theory of remembering and knowing (STREAK) makes predictions about several novel kinds of ROC curves. The results of experiments testing these predictions, as well as existing remember-know and conventional item-recognition data, are accurately described by STREAK.
Recollection and familiarity in recognition memory: Evidence from ROC curves
Journal of Memory and Language, 2006
Does recognition memory rely on discrete recollection, continuous evidence, or both? Is continuous evidence sensitive to only the recency and duration of study (familiarity), or is it also sensitive to details of the study episode? Dual process theories assume recognition is based on recollection and familiarity, with only recollection providing knowledge about study details. Single process theories assume a single continuous evidence dimension that can provide information about familiarity and details. We replicated list and plural discrimination experiments requiring knowledge of details to discriminate targets from similar non-targets. We also ran modified versions of these experiments aiming to increase recollection by removing non-targets that could be discriminated by familiarity alone. Single process models provided the best trade-off between goodness-of-fit and model complexity and dual process models were able to account for the data only when they incorporated continuous evidence sensitive to details.
The limited usefulness of models based on recollection and familiarity
Journal of Neurophysiology, 2013
A recent report concluded that magnetoencephalographic signals of neural activity associated with memory based on the recollection process are independent from signals associated with memory based on the familiarity process. These data can be interpreted equally well, however, as indications of memory aggregated from both processes and showing that signals associated with high-confidence recognition are dissociable from signals associated with low-confidence recognition. The usefulness of interpreting neural data according to psychological models based on recollection and familiarity is discussed.
Memory & Cognition, 2010
Using old-new ratings and remember-know judgments we explored the plurals paradigm, in which studied words must be distinguished from plurality-changed lures. The paradigm allowed us to investigate negative remembering, that is, the remembering of a plural-altered study item; capacity for this judgment was found to be poorer than or equivalent to the conventional positive remembering. A response-bias manipulation affected positive but not negative remembering. The ratings were used to construct ROC curves and test the prediction of the most common dual-process theory of recognition memory ) that the amount of recollection can be independently estimated from ROC curves and from remember judgments. By fitting the individual data with pure signal-detection (SDT) models and dual-process models that combined SDT and threshold components (HTSDT), we identified two types of subjects. For those who were better described by HTSDT, the predicted convergence of remember-know and ROC measures was observed. For those who were better described by SDT the ROC intercept could not predict the remember rate. The data are consistent with the idea that all subjects rely on the same representation but base their decisions on different partitions of a decision space.
The dimensionality of the remember-know task: A state-trace analysis
Psychological Review, 2008
This article addresses the issue of whether the remember-know (RK) task is best explained by a single-process or a dual-process model. All single-process models propose that remember and know responses reflect different levels of a single strength-of-evidence dimension. Thus, across conditions in which response criteria are held constant, these models predict that the RK task is unidimensional. Many dual-process models propose that remember and know responses reflect two qualitatively distinct processes underlying recognition memory, often characterized as recollection and familiarity. These models predict that the RK task is bidimensional. Using data from 37 studies, the author conducted a state-trace analysis to determine the dimensionality of the RK task. In those studies, non-memory-related differences between conditions were eliminated via decision criteria constrained to be constant across all levels of the independent variables. The results reveal little or no evidence of bidimensionality and lend additional support to the unequal-variance signal detection model. Other arguments supporting a bidimensional interpretation are examined, and the author concludes there is insufficient evidence for the RK task to be used to identify qualitatively different memory components.
The detection model of recognition using know and remember judgments
Memory & Cognition, 1998
The signal detection model for know and remember recognition judgments was tested in two experiments. In Experiment 1, two predictions of the model were tested: (1) that measures of memory sensitivity, A', are equivalent in value when based on either the recognition (know or remember) criterion or on the remember criterion; and (2) that there is a positive correlation between recognition bias and the proportion of know judgments that are hits, but no correlation between recognition bias and proportion of remember hits . Both predictions were supported by the data. In Experiment 2, the context of test items was manipulated to make it more or less similar to learning context. The detection model requires that memory sensitivity be the same for both recognition and remember judgments, regardless of test context. Alternatively, if remember judgments reflect only the retrieval of episodic information from memory, the two measures of memory sensitivity should become more disparate in value as learning and test context are made more similar. Memory sensitivity was generally the same in value for recognition and remember criteria but different across context conditions, thus supporting the detection model. The nature of the memory continuum used in detection theory is also discussed.
Judgments of recency and their relation to recognition memory
Memory & Cognition, 2003
Experiment 2) in which individual items were repeated at lags of 5 to 30 other items. They made old versus new recognition decisions on each word and followed each "old" response with a numerical judgment of recency (JOR). Recognition judgments displayed the mirror effect. Conditionalized on recognition, JORs were shorter for low-frequency words than for high-frequency words, and shorter for concrete words than for abstract words. This was true at every lag, suggesting that recognition and JOR may have a common basis. However, recognition confidence ratings obtained in Experiment 3 proved much less sensitive than JOR to test lag. Memory models applicable to multiple judgment tasks will be needed to account for such findings.