Literature DB >> 12049242

Separating sensitivity from response bias: implications of comparisons of yes-no and forced-choice tests for models and measures of recognition memory.

Neal E A Kroll1, Andrew P Yonelinas, Ian G Dobbins, Christina M Frederick.   

Abstract

A fundamental challenge to psychological research is the measurement of cognitive processes uncontaminated by response strategies resulting from different testing procedures. Test-free estimates of ability are vital when comparing the performance of different groups or different conditions. The current study applied several sets of measurement models to both forced-choice and yes-no recognition memory tests and concluded that the traditional signal-detection model resulted in distorted estimates of accuracy. Two-factor models were necessary to separate memory sensitivity from response bias. These models indicated that (a) memory accuracy did not differ across the tests and (b) the tests relied on the same underlying memory processes. The results illustrate the pitfalls of using a single-component model to measure accuracy in tasks that reflect 2 or more underlying processes.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12049242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  11 in total

1.  In a context of time: the impact of delay and exposure time on the emergence of memory context effects.

Authors:  Ayala Bloch; Eli Vakil
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2015-10-01

2.  Revisiting the role of recollection in item versus forced-choice recognition memory.

Authors:  Gabriel I Cook; Richard L Marsh; Jason L Hicks
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-08

3.  A test of two different revelation effects using forced-choice recognition.

Authors:  Jennifer C Major; Wuliam E Hockley
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-12

4.  Is masked priming modulated by memory load? A test of the automaticity of masked identity priming in lexical decision.

Authors:  Manuel Perea; Ana Marcet; Mario Lozano; Pablo Gomez
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-10

5.  Test expectancy and memory for important information.

Authors:  Catherine D Middlebrooks; Kou Murayama; Alan D Castel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  The contribution of familiarity to recognition memory is a function of test format when using similar foils.

Authors:  Ellen Migo; Daniela Montaldi; Kenneth A Norman; Joel Quamme; Andrew Mayes
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Yes/no recognition, forced-choice recognition, and the human hippocampus.

Authors:  P J Bayley; J T Wixted; R O Hopkins; L R Squire
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Testing signal-detection models of yes/no and two-alternative forced-choice recognition memory.

Authors:  Yoonhee Jang; John T Wixted; David E Huber
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2009-05

9.  Signal detection with criterion noise: applications to recognition memory.

Authors:  Aaron S Benjamin; Michael Diaz; Serena Wee
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  Stimulus fractionation by interocular suppression.

Authors:  Asieh Zadbood; Sang-Hun Lee; Randolph Blake
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.