Literature DB >> 22736423

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

Jeffrey J Starns1, Corey N White, Roger Ratcliff.   

Abstract

Criss (Cognitive Psychology 59:297-319, 2009) reported that subjective ratings of memory strength showed a mirror effect pattern in which strengthening the studied words increased ratings for targets and decreased ratings for lures. She interpreted the effect on lure items as evidence for differentiation, a process whereby lures produce a poorer match to strong than to weak memory traces. However, she also noted that participants might use different mappings between memory evidence and levels of the rating scale when they expected strong versus weak targets; that is, the effect might be produced by decision processes rather than differentiation. We report two experiments designed to distinguish these accounts. Some participants studied pure lists of weak or strong items (presented once or five times, respectively), while others studied mixed lists of half weak and half strong items. The participants from both groups had pure-strength tests: Only strong or only weak items were tested, and the participants were informed of which it would be before the test. The results showed that strength ratings for lures were lower when strong versus weak targets were tested, regardless of whether the study list was pure or mixed. In the mixed-study condition, the effect was produced even after identical study lists, and thus the same degree of differentiation in the studied traces. Therefore, our results suggest that the strength-rating mirror effect is produced by changes in decision processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22736423     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0225-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  23 in total

Review 1.  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

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

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

3.  Decision noise: an explanation for observed violations of signal detection theory.

Authors:  Shane T Mueller; Christoph T Weidemann
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-06

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

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

5.  The list length effect in recognition memory: an analysis of potential confounds.

Authors:  Angela Kinnell; Simon Dennis
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-02

6.  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

7.  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

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

Authors:  Jeffrey J Starns; Roger Ratcliff; Corey N White
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-04-30       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  A context noise model of episodic word recognition.

Authors:  S Dennis; M S Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 8.934

10.  Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory.

Authors:  Roger Ratcliff; Jeffrey J Starns
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  9 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Dynamics of brain activity reveal a unitary recognition signal.

Authors:  Christoph T Weidemann; Michael J Kahana
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Cue quality and criterion setting in recognition memory.

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

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.  Neural activity reveals interactions between episodic and semantic memory systems during retrieval.

Authors:  Christoph T Weidemann; James E Kragel; Bradley C Lega; Gregory A Worrell; Michael R Sperling; Ashwini D Sharan; Barbara C Jobst; Fatemeh Khadjevand; Kathryn A Davis; Paul A Wanda; Allison Kadel; Daniel S Rizzuto; Michael J Kahana
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2019-01

8.  Qualitative speed-accuracy tradeoff effects that cannot be explained by the diffusion model under the selective influence assumption.

Authors:  Farshad Rafiei; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Strength cues and blocking at test promote reliable within-list criterion shifts in recognition memory.

Authors:  Jason L Hicks; Jeffrey J Starns
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-07
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.