Literature DB >> 19765699

The distribution of subjective memory strength: list strength and response bias.

Amy H Criss1.   

Abstract

Models of recognition memory assume that memory decisions are based partially on the subjective strength of the test item. Models agree that the subjective strength of targets increases with additional time for encoding however the origin of the subjective strength of foils remains disputed. Under the fixed strength assumption the distribution of memory strength for foils is invariant across experimental manipulations of encoding. For example, the subjective strength of foils may depend solely on the pre-experimental history of the item, thus encoding manipulations have no impact. In contrast, under the differentiation assumption the subjective strength of foils depends on the nature of the traces stored in episodic memory. If those traces are well encoded, the subjective strength of foils will be lower than the case where noisy traces are stored (e.g., when targets received minimal encoding). The fixed strength and differentiation accounts are tested by measuring direct ratings of memory strength. In Experiments 1 and 2, item strength is varied via repetition and in Experiment 3 response bias is varied via the relative proportion of targets on the test list. For all experiments empirical distributions of memory strength were obtained and compared to the distributions predicted by the two accounts. The differentiation assumption provides the most parsimonious account of the data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19765699     DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  14 in total

1.  The strength-based mirror effect in subjective strength ratings: the evidence for differentiation can be produced without differentiation.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Corey N White; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-11

2.  A direct test of the differentiation mechanism: REM, BCDMEM, and the strength-based mirror effect in recognition memory.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Corey N White; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  Validating the unequal-variance assumption in recognition memory using response time distributions instead of ROC functions: A diffusion model analysis.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Roger Ratcliff
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.059

4.  A strength-based mirror effect persists even when criterion shifts are unlikely.

Authors:  Gregory J Koop; Amy H Criss; Angelina M Pardini
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-05

5.  One mirror effect: The regularities of recognition memory.

Authors:  Andrew Hilford; Murray Glanzer; Kisok Kim; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2019-02

6.  The role of mnemonic processes in pure-target and pure-foil recognition memory.

Authors:  Gregory J Koop; Amy H Criss; Kenneth J Malmberg
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04

7.  Is what goes in what comes out? Encoding and retrieval event-related potentials together determine memory outcome.

Authors:  Yvonne Y Chen; Kirstie Lithgow; Jumjury A Hemmerich; Jeremy B Caplan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  The reliability of criterion shifting in recognition memory is task dependent.

Authors:  Bryan A Franks; Jason L Hicks
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-11

9.  A differentiation account of recognition memory: evidence from fMRI.

Authors:  Amy H Criss; Mark E Wheeler; James L McClelland
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  Some Memories are Odder than Others: Judgments of Episodic Oddity Violate Known Decision Rules.

Authors:  Akira R O'Connor; Emily N Guhl; Justin C Cox; Ian G Dobbins
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.