Literature DB >> 20192544

Differentiation and response bias in episodic memory: evidence from reaction time distributions.

Amy H Criss1.   

Abstract

In differentiation models, the processes of encoding and retrieval produce an increase in the distribution of memory strength for targets and a decrease in the distribution of memory strength for foils as the amount of encoding increases. This produces an increase in the hit rate and decrease in the false-alarm rate for a strongly encoded compared with a weakly encoded list, consistent with empirical data. Other models assume that the foil distribution is unaffected by encoding manipulations or the foil distribution increases as a function of target strength. They account for the empirical data by adopting a stricter criterion for strongly encoded lists relative to weakly encoded lists. The differentiation and criterion shift explanations have been difficult to discriminate with accuracy measures alone. In this article, reaction time distributions and accuracy measures are collected in a list-strength paradigm and in a response bias paradigm in which the proportion of test items that are targets is manipulated. Diffusion model analyses showed that encoding strength is primarily accounted for by changes in the rate of accumulation of evidence (i.e., drift rate) for both targets and foils and manipulating the proportion of targets is primarily accounted for by changes in response bias (i.e., starting point). The diffusion model analyses is interpreted in terms of predictions of the differentiation models in which subjective memory strength is mapped directly onto drift rate and criterion placement is mapped onto starting point. Criterion shift models require at least 2 types of shifts to account for these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20192544     DOI: 10.1037/a0018435

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  26 in total

1.  Evaluating the unequal-variance and dual-process explanations of zROC slopes with response time data and the diffusion model.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  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

3.  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

4.  On the interpretation of removable interactions: a survey of the field 33 years after Loftus.

Authors:  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Angelos-Miltiadis Krypotos; Amy H Criss; Geoff Iverson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-02

5.  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

6.  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

7.  How Distinctive Processing Enhances Hits and Reduces False Alarms.

Authors:  R Reed Hunt; Rebekah E Smith
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

8.  Shifting the criterion is not the difficult part of trial-by-trial criterion shifts in recognition memory.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; James E Olchowski
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-01

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

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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.