Literature DB >> 22545609

Diffusion model drift rates can be influenced by decision processes: an analysis of the strength-based mirror effect.

Jeffrey J Starns1, Roger Ratcliff, Corey N White.   

Abstract

Improving memory for studied items (targets) often helps participants reject nonstudied items (lures), a pattern referred to as the strength-based mirror effect (SBME). Criss (2010) demonstrated the SBME in diffusion model drift rates; that is, the target drift rate was higher and the lure drift rate was lower for lists of words studied 5 times versus lists of words studied once. She interpreted the drift rate effect for lures as evidence for the differentiation process, whereby strong memory traces produce a poorer match to lure items than do weak memory traces. However, she noted that strength may have also affected a model parameter called the drift criterion-a participant-controlled decision parameter that defines the zero point in drift rate. We directly contrasted the differentiation and drift-criterion accounts by manipulating list strength either at both encoding and retrieval (which produces a differentiation difference in the studied traces) or at retrieval only (which equates differentiation from the study list but provides the opportunity to change decision processes based on strength). Across 3 experiments, results showed that drift rates for lures were lower on strong tests than on weak tests, and this effect was observed even when strength was varied at retrieval alone. Therefore, results provided evidence that the SBME is produced by changes in decision processes, not by differentiation of memory traces. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22545609      PMCID: PMC3514445          DOI: 10.1037/a0028151

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


  27 in total

1.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Francis Tuerlinckx
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-09

2.  Speeded old-new recognition of multidimensional perceptual stimuli: modeling performance at the individual-participant and individual-item levels.

Authors:  Robert M Nosofsky; Roger D Stanton
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Philip L Smith
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 8.934

4.  Repetition effects in associative false recognition: Theme-based criterion shifts are the exception, not the rule.

Authors:  Jeffery J Starns; Jason L Hicks; Richard L Marsh
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2006-08

Review 5.  The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Gail McKoon
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.026

6.  Memory strength and the decision process in recognition memory.

Authors:  Michael F Verde; Caren M Rotello
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-03

7.  Likelihood ratio decisions in memory: three implied regularities.

Authors:  Murray Glanzer; Andrew Hilford; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-06

8.  A model for recognition memory: REM-retrieving effectively from memory.

Authors:  R M Shiffrin; M Steyvers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1997-06

9.  List-strength effect: I. Data and discussion.

Authors:  R Ratcliff; S E Clark; R M Shiffrin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Theoretical interpretations of the speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses.

Authors:  R Ratcliff
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  19 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Semantic incongruity influences response caution in audio-visual integration.

Authors:  Benjamin Steinweg; Fred W Mast
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 1.972

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.  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

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

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

8.  Adding a speed-accuracy trade-off to discrete-state models: A comment on Heck and Erdfelder (2016).

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

9.  Cue quality and criterion setting in recognition memory.

Authors:  Christopher Kent; Koen Lamberts; Richard Patton
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-07

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.