Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Looking for graded recollection: manipulating the number of details to be recollected does not affect recollection variance

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recollection has been the subject of much debate, with some models maintaining that it is subject to a threshold, some maintaining that it is a continuous process, and some maintaining that both are true. Threshold models maintain that recollection can fail (i.e., fall below threshold), whereas signal detection models treat recollection as a continuous process. Recent research has revealed that some manipulations can influence this behavior, but the general reasons why threshold patterns emerge in some conditions and graded patterns emerge in others are still unclear. One potential explanation is the number of retrieved details; recollection of stimuli with few details may succeed or fail, whereas recollection of stimuli with many details may be graded. If this is true, manipulating the amount of detail should produce threshold patterns for “few details” conditions, but more graded patterns for “many details” conditions. This hypothesis was tested in six experiments examining source memory, and the number-of-details manipulation consistently failed to affect the nature of recollection. Overall, the results suggest that the amount of information available to be retrieved does not, by itself, explain recollection variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In some cases, source memory has been treated as though it was a pure measure of recollection. However, according to the DPSD model, familiarity will contribute to source discrimination to some degree in many situations (Elfman, Parks, & Yonelinas, 2008; C. M. Parks & Yonelinas, 2007; Yonelinas, 1999; Yonelinas & Parks, 2007), and the degree to which it contributes will influence the ROC shape (e.g., Diana et al., 2008; Quamme, Yonelinas, & Norman, 2007). Thus, although source memory has been shown to rely heavily on recollection in traditional source tasks (e.g., male/female voice or side of screen), that may not always be the case (C. M. Parks & Yonelinas, 2007; Yonelinas & Parks, 2007).

  2. Note that effects found in the nonparametric tests are not interpreted as differences between means. However, for descriptive purposes, the means of the quadratic estimates are presented in Tables 2 and 3, and these means come from the data set with outliers removed.

References

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1974). Search and decision processes in recognition memory. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology: Vol. 1. Learning, memory, and thinking (pp. 243–293). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505. doi:10.1080/14640748108400805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diana, R. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ranganath, C. (2007). Imaging recollection and familiarity in the medial temporal lobe: A three-component model. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 379–386. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diana, R. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ranganath, C. (2008). The effects of unitization on familiarity-based source memory: Testing a behavioral prediction derived from neuroimaging data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 730–740. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.730

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, C. S., Holland, P. W., & Shimamura, A. P. (1998). On the recollection of specific- and partial-source information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1121–1136. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1121

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dodson, C. S., Prinzmetal, W., & Shimamura, A. P. (1998). Using excel to estimate parameters from observed data: An example from source memory data. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30, 517–526. doi:10.3758/BF03200685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfman, K. W., Parks, C. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2008). Testing a neurocomputational model of recollection, familiarity, and source recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 752–768. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.752

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin, N. J., Wright, S. P., & Eichenbaum, H. (2004). Recollection-like memory retrieval in rats is dependent on the hippocampus. Nature, 431, 188–191.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geraci, L., & McCabe, D. P. (2006). Examing the basis for illusory recollection: The role of remember/know instructions. Psychonmic Bulletin & Review, 14, 466–473.

  • Glanzer, M., Hilford, A., & Kim, K. (2004). Six regularities of memory recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1176–1195. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1176

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow, I. M., & Donaldson, D. I. (2013). Source accuracy data reveal the thresholded nature of human episodic memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 318–325. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0340-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, K. M., Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. (2012). Recollection can be weak and familiarity can be strong. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 325–339.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafkas, A., & Montaldi, D. (2012). Familiarity and recollection produce distinct eye-movement, pupil and medial temporal lobe responses when memory strength is matched. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3080–3093.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, R., & Wixted, J. T. (2001). On the nature of associative information in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 701–722. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.701

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg, K. J. (2002). On the form of ROCs constructed from confidence ratings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 380–387. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.2.380

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252–271. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, R. L., & Hicks, J. L. (1998). Test formats change source-monitoring decision processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1137–1151. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1137

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. P., & Geraci, L. D. (2009). The influence of instructions and terminology on the accuracy of remember–know judgments. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 401–413. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2009.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mickes, L., Johnson, M. E., & Wixted, J. T. (2010). Continuous recollection versus unitized familiarity in associative recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 843–863.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montaldi, D., Spencer, T. J., Roberts, N., & Mayes, A. R. (2006). The neural system that mediates familiarity memory. Hippocampus, 16, 504–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, K. A., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2003). Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: A complementary-learning-systems approach. Psychological Review, 110, 611–646. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.4.611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Onyper, S. V., Zhang, Y. X., & Howard, M. W. (2010). Some-or-none recollection: Evidence from item and source memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 341–364. doi:10.1037/a0018926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, T. E. (1966). Signal-detectability theory of recognition-memory performance. Psychological Review, 73, 44–58. doi:10.1037/h0022662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, C. M., Murray, L. J., Elfman, K., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2011). Variations in recollection: The effects of complexity on source recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 861–873. doi:10.1037/a0022798

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, C. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2007). Moving beyond pure signal-detection models: Comment on Wixted (2007). Psychological Review, 114, 188–201. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parks, C. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2009). Evidence for a memory threshold in second-choice recognition memory responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 11515–11519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psychology Software Tools Inc. (2001). E-Prime (Version 1.0) [Software]. Sharpsburg, PA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, J., Raye, C. L., Johnson, M. K., & Mitchell, K. J. (2001). Source ROCs are (typically) curvilinear: Comment on Yonelinas (1999). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1110–1115. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quamme, J. R., Yonelinas, A. P., & Norman, K. A. (2007). Effect of unitization on associative recognition in amnesia. Hippocampus, 17, 192–200. doi:10.1002/hipo.20257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riefer, D. M., & Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95, 318–339. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., Reeder, J. A., & Wong, M. (2005). The remember response: Subject to bias, graded, and not a process-pure indicator of recollection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 865–873. doi:10.3758/BF03196778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotello, C. M., Macmillan, N. A., & Reeder, J. A. (2004). Sum–difference theory of remembering and knowing: A two-dimensional signal-detection model. Psychological Review, 111, 588–616. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rugg, M. D., Vilberg, K. L., Mattson, J. T., Yu, S. S., Johnson, J. D., & Suzuki, M. (2012). Item memory, context memory and the hippocampus: fMRI evidence. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3070–3079.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S. J., Atri, A., Hasselmo, M. E., Stern, C. E., & Howard, M. E. (2003). Scopolamine impairs human recognition memory: Data and modeling. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117, 526–539.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slotnick, S. D., & Dodson, C. S. (2005). Support for a continuous (single-process) model of recognition memory and source memory. Memory & Cognition, 33, 151–170. doi:10.3758/BF03195305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 82, 171–177. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2004.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vilberg, K. L., Moosavi, R. F., & Rugg, M. D. (2006). The relationship between electrophysiological correlates of recollection and amount of information retrieved. Brain Research, 1122, 161–170. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.023

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, W. C., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2010). Familiarity is related to conceptual implicit memory: An examination of individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1154–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wixted, J. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 114, 152–176. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1341–1354. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1341

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P. (1999). The contribution of recollection and familiarity to recognition and source-memory judgments: A formal dual-process model and an analysis of receiver operating characteristics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1415–1434. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1415

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P., Kroll, N. E., Quamme, J. R., Lazzara, M. M., Suave, M. J., Widaman, K. F., & Knight, R. T. (2002). Effects of extensive temporal lobe damage or mild hypoxia on recollection and familiarity. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1236–1241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yonelinas, A. P., & Parks, C. M. (2007). Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 800–832. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Note

Thanks to Wei An, Kris Gunawan, and Caleb Picker for assistance with the data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Box 5030, Las Vegas, NV, 90154, USA

    Colleen M. Parks

Authors
  1. Colleen M. Parks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colleen M. Parks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parks, C.M. Looking for graded recollection: manipulating the number of details to be recollected does not affect recollection variance. Mem Cogn 43, 164–179 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0469-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0469-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation