Literature DB >> 22390323

Three tests and three corrections: comment on Koen and Yonelinas (2010).

Yoonhee Jang1, Laura Mickes, John T Wixted.   

Abstract

The slope of the z-transformed receiver-operating characteristic (zROC) in recognition memory experiments is usually less than 1, which has long been interpreted to mean that the variance of the target distribution is greater than the variance of the lure distribution. The greater variance of the target distribution could arise because the different items on a list receive different increments in memory strength during study (the "encoding variability" hypothesis). In a test of that interpretation, Koen and Yonelinas (2010) attempted to further increase encoding variability to see whether it would further decrease the slope of the zROC. To do so, they presented items on a list for 2 different durations and then mixed the weak and strong targets together. After performing 3 tests on the mixed-strength data, Koen and Yonelinas concluded that encoding variability does not explain why the slope of the zROC is typically less than 1. However, we show that their tests have no bearing on the encoding variability account. Instead, they bear on the mixture-unequal-variance signal-detection (UVSD) model that corresponds to their experimental design. On the surface, the results reported by Koen and Yonelinas appear to be inconsistent with the predictions of the mixture-UVSD model (though they were taken to be inconsistent with the predictions of the encoding variability hypothesis). However, all 3 of the tests they performed contained errors. When those errors are corrected, the same 3 tests show that their data support, rather than contradict, the mixture-UVSD model (but they still have no bearing on the encoding variability hypothesis). 2012 APA, all rights reserved

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22390323      PMCID: PMC3345267          DOI: 10.1037/a0025880

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


  7 in total

1.  Testing global memory models using ROC curves.

Authors:  R Ratcliff; C F Sheu; S D Gronlund
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory.

Authors:  John T Wixted
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: evidence for a dual-process model.

Authors:  A P Yonelinas
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  The diagnosticity of individual data for model selection: comparing signal-detection models of recognition memory.

Authors:  Yoonhee Jang; John T Wixted; David E Huber
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-08

5.  Memory variability is due to the contribution of recollection and familiarity, not to encoding variability.

Authors:  Joshua D Koen; Andrew P Yonelinas
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  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

7.  Evaluating models of remember-know judgments: complexity, mimicry, and discriminability.

Authors:  Andrew L Cohen; Caren M Rotello; Neil A Macmillan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-10
  7 in total
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Variation in the standard deviation of the lure rating distribution: Implications for estimates of recollection probability.

Authors:  Stephen Dopkins; Kaitlin Varner; Darin Hoyer
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-10

3.  Examining the causes of memory strength variability: recollection, attention failure, or encoding variability?

Authors:  Joshua D Koen; Mariam Aly; Wei-Chun Wang; Andrew P Yonelinas
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 4.  Measuring memory is harder than you think: How to avoid problematic measurement practices in memory research.

Authors:  Timothy F Brady; Maria M Robinson; Jamal R Williams; John T Wixted
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-10-19

5.  Still no evidence for the encoding variability hypothesis: a reply to Jang, Mickes, and Wixted (2012) and Starns, Rotello, and Ratcliff (2012).

Authors:  Joshua D Koen; Andrew P Yonelinas
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Unequal-strength source zROC slopes reflect criteria placement and not (necessarily) memory processes.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Angela M Pazzaglia; Caren M Rotello; Michael J Hautus; Neil A Macmillan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Hippocampal damage impairs recognition memory broadly, affecting both parameters in two prominent models of memory.

Authors:  Adam J O Dede; John T Wixted; Ramona O Hopkins; Larry R Squire
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  The unequal variance signal-detection model of recognition memory: Investigating the encoding variability hypothesis.

Authors:  Rory W Spanton; Christopher J Berry
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 2.143

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.