Advertisement

Task effects determine whether recognition memory is mediated discretely or continuously

  • Ryan M. McAdooEmail author
  • Kylie N. Key
  • Scott D. Gronlund
Article

Abstract

How recognition memory is mediated has been of interest to researchers for decades. But the apparent consensus implicating continuous mediation has been challenged. McAdoo, Key, and Gronlund (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,2018. Advanced online publication) demonstrated that recognition memory can be mediated by either discrete or continuous evidence, depending on target-filler similarity. The present paper expands on this research by showing that different recognition tasks also can be mediated by different evidence. Specifically, recognition memory was mediated by continuous evidence in a ranking task, but by discrete evidence in a confidence-rating task. We posit that participants utilize a control process that induces a reliance on discrete or continuous evidence as a function of efficiency (Malmberg, 2008) to suit the demands of the task.

Keywords

Recognition memory Control process Continuous. Discrete 

Notes

References

  1. Aminoff, E. M., Clewett, D., Freeman, S., Frithsen, A., Tipper, C., Johnson, A., Grafton, S. T., Miller, M. B. (2012). Individual differences in shifting decision criterion: A recognition memory study. Memory and Cognition, 40, 1016 – 1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby, F. G., & Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154 – 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1974). Search and decision processes in recognition memory. WH Freeman.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89 – 195). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Batchelder, W. H., & Alexander, G. E. (2013). Discrete-state models: Comment of Pazzaglia, Dube, and Rotello (2013). Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1204 – 1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 57 – 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender, A. R., & Raz, N. (2012). Age-related differences in recognition memory for items and associations: Contribution of individual differences in working memory and metamemory. Psychology and Aging, 27, 691 – 700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benjamin, A. S. (2008). Memory is more than just remembering: Strategic control of encoding, assessing memory, and making decisions, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 48, 175 – 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brainerd, C. J., Gomes, C. F. A., & Moran, R. (2014). The two recollections. Psychological Review, 121, 563 – 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brainerd, C. J., Gomes, C. F. A., & Nakamura, K. (2015). Dual recollection in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 816 – 843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bröder, A., Kellen, D., Schütz, J., & Rohrmeier, C. (2013). Validating a two-high-threshold measurement model for confidence rating data in recognition. Memory, 21, 916 – 944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bröder, A., & Schütz, J. (2009). Recognition ROCs are curvilinear – or are they? On premature arguments against the two-high-threshold model of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 587 – 606.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, T., Starns, J. J., & Rotello, C. M. (2015). A violation of the conditional independence assumption in the two-high-threshold model of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1215 – 1222.Google Scholar
  14. Colloff, M. F., Wade, K. A., Strange, D., & Wixted, J. T. (2018). Filler siphoning theory does not predict the effect of lineup fairness on the ability to discriminate innocent from guilty suspect: Reply to Smith, Wells, Smalarz, and Lampinen (2017). Psychological Science, 29, 1552 – 1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubé, C. & Rotello, C. M. (2012). Binary ROCs in perception and recognition memory are curved. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 130 – 151.Google Scholar
  16. Dubé, C., Starns, J. J., Rotello, C. M., & Ratcliff, R. (2012). Beyond ROC curvature: Strength effects and response time data support continuous-evidence models of recognition memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 389 – 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Egan, J. P. (1958). Recognition memory and the operating characteristic (Technical Note AFCRC-TN-58-51). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Hearing and Communication Laboratory.Google Scholar
  18. Erdfelder, E., & Buchner, A. (1998). Comment: Process-dissociation measurement models: Threshold theory or detection theory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 83 – 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franks, B. A., & Hicks, J. L. (2016). The reliability of criterion shifting in recognition memory is task dependent. Memory and Cognition, 44, 1215 – 1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hintzman, D. L. (1991). Why are formal models useful in psychology? In W. E. Hockley & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 39 – 56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kellen, D., & Klauer, K. C. (2014). Discrete-state and continuous models of recognition memory: Testing core properties under minimal assumptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1795 – 1804.Google Scholar
  23. Kellen, D., & Klauer, K. C. (2015). Signal detection and threshold modeling of confidence-rating ROCs: A critical test with minimal assumptions. Psychological Review, 122, 542 – 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kellen, D., Klauer, K. C., & Bröder, A. (2013). Recognition memory models and binary-response ROCs: A comparison by minimum description length. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 693 – 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kellen, D., Erdfelder, E., Malmberg, K. J., Dubé, C., & Criss, A. H. (2016). The ignored alternative: An application of Luce’s low-threshold model of recognition memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 75, 86 – 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krantz, D. H. (1969). Threshold theories of signal detection. Psychological Review, 76, 308 – 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213 – 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  29. Luce, R. D. (1963). A threshold theory for simple detection experiments. Psychological Review, 70, 61 – 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Malmberg, K. J. (2002). On the form of ROCs constructed from confidence ratings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 380 – 387.Google Scholar
  31. Malmberg, K. J. (2008). Recognition memory: A review of the critical findings and an integrated theory for relating them. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 335 – 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malmberg, K. J., & Xu, J. (2007). On the flexibility and fallibility of associative memory. Memory & Cognition, 35, 545 – 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mandler, G., Pearlstone, Z., & Koopmans, H. S. (1969). Effects of organization and semantic similarity in recall and recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 410 – 423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McAdoo, R. M., & Gronlund, S. D. (2016). Relative judgment theory and the mediation of facial recognition: Implications for theories of eyewitness identification. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 11.Google Scholar
  35. McAdoo, R. M., & Gronlund, S. D. (2018). Exploring Luce’s (1963) Low-Threshold Model: Recognition Memory is Mediated by Discrete and Continuous Processes. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  36. McAdoo, R. M., Key, K.N, & Gronlund, S. D. (2018). Stimulus effects and the mediation of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advanced online publication.Google Scholar
  37. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  38. McClelland, J. L. (2009). The place of modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 11 – 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved January 8, 2018, from http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/
  40. Pazzaglia, A. M., Dubé, C., & Rotello, C. M. (2013). A critical comparison of discrete-state and continuous models of recognition memory: Implications for recognition and beyond. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1173 – 1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Province, J. M., & Rouder, J. N. (2012). Evidence for discrete-state processing in recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 14357 – 14362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Psychology Software Tools. (2012). E-Prime 2.0. [Computer Software]. Pittsburg, PA: Author.Google Scholar
  43. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59 – 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rouder, J.N., Speckman, P.L., Sun, D., Morey, R.D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t-tests for accepting and rejection the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225 – 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Starns, J. J., Dubé, C. & Frelinger, M. E. (2018). The speed of memory errors shows the influence of misleading information: Testing the diffusion model and discrete-state models. Cognitive Psychology, 102, 21 – 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Starns, J. J., Hicks, J. L., Brown, N. L., & Martin, B. A. (2009). Source memory for unrecognized items: Predictions from multivariate signal detection theory. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1 – 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Super, G. (1984). START: A triage training module. Newport Beach, CA: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian.Google Scholar
  48. Wetmore, McAdoo, Gronlund, & Neuschatz (2017). The impact of fillers on lineup performance. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2, 1 – 13.Google Scholar
  49. Wixted, J. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 113, 152 – 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2010). A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments. Psychological Review, 114, 152 – 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan M. McAdoo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kylie N. Key
    • 1
  • Scott D. Gronlund
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations