Abstract
Speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) methods have been used to contrast single- and dual-process accounts of recognition memory. In these procedures, subjects are presented with individual test items and are required to make recognition decisions under various time constraints. In this experiment, we presented word lists under incidental learning conditions, varying the modality of presentation and level of processing. At test, we manipulated the interval between each visually presented test item and a response signal, thus controlling the amount of time available to retrieve target information. Study— test modality match had a beneficial effect on recognition accuracy at short response-signal delays (≤300msec). Conversely, recognition accuracy benefited more from deep than from shallow processing at study only at relatively long response-signal delays (≥300 msec). The results are congruent with views suggesting that both fast familiarity and slower recollection processes contribute to recognition memory.
Article PDF
References
Clark, S. E., &Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 37–60.
Gardiner, J. M., Ramponi, C., &Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1999). Response deadline and subjective awareness in recognition memory.Consciousness & Cognition,8, 484–496.
Gillund, G., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model of both recognition and recall.Psychological Review,91, 1–67.
Hintzman, D. L., &Caulton, D. A. (1997). Recognition memory and modality judgments: A comparison of retrieval dynamics.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 1–23.
Hintzman, D. L., &Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 1–18.
Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory.Journal of Memory & Language,30, 513–541.
Jones, T. C., Jacoby, L. L., &Gellis, L. A. (2001). Cross-modal feature and conjunction errors in recognition memory.Journal of Memory & Language,44, 131–152.
Joordens, S., &Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glasses: When old does not mirror new.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1534–1555.
Kučera, H., &Francis, V. W. (1967).Computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.Psychological Review,87, 252–271.
Mulligan, N., &Hirshman, E. (1995). Speed—accuracy trade-offs and the dual process model of recognition memory.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 1–18.
Perea, M., Rosa, E., &Gómez, C. (2002). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task?Memory & Cognition,30, 34–45.
Reed, A. V. (1976). List length and the time course of recognition in immediate memory.Memory & Cognition,4, 16–30.
Snodgrass, J. C., &Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Application to dementia and amnesia.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 34–50.
Toth, J. P. (1996). Conceptual automaticity in recognition memory: Levels-of-processing effects on familiarity.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,50, 123–138.
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research.Journal of Memory & Language,46, 441–517.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boldini, A., Russo, R. & Avons, S.E. One process is not enough! A speed-accuracy tradeoff study of recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 353–361 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196582
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196582