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

We argue that critical areas of memory research rely on problematic measurement practices and provide concrete suggestions to improve the situation. In particular, we highlight the prevalence of memory studies that use tasks (like the "old/new" task: "have you seen this item before? yes/no") where quantifying performance is deeply dependent on counterfactual reasoning that depends on the (unknowable) distribution of underlying memory signals. As a result of this difficulty, different literatures in memory research (e.g., visual working memory, eyewitness identification, picture memory, etc.) have settled on a variety of fundamentally different metrics to get performance measures from such tasks (e.g., A', corrected hit rate, percent correct, d', diagnosticity ratios, K values, etc.), even though these metrics make different, contradictory assumptions about the distribution of latent memory signals, and even though all of their assumptions are frequently incorrect. We suggest that in order for the psychology and neuroscience of memory to become a more cumulative, theory-driven science, more attention must be given to measurement issues. We make a concrete suggestion: The default memory task for those simply interested in performance should change from old/new ("did you see this item'?") to two-alternative forced-choice ("which of these two items did you see?"). In situations where old/new variants are preferred (e.g., eyewitness identification; theoretical investigations of the nature of memory signals), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis should be performed rather than a binary old/new task.