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

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.

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[2]  Kenneth J. Malmberg,et al.  Evidence in favor of the early-phase elevated-attention hypothesis: The effects of letter frequency and object frequency , 2008 .

[3]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Familiarity breeds differentiation: a subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. , 1998, Psychological review.

[4]  Aaron S. Benjamin,et al.  Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[5]  M. Humphreys,et al.  A context noise model of episodic word recognition. , 2001, Psychological review.

[6]  M. Treisman,et al.  American Psychological Association, Inc, A Theory of Criterion Setting With an Application to Sequential Dependencies , 2022 .

[7]  R. Ratcliff Theoretical interpretations of the speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses. , 1985, Psychological review.

[8]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[9]  John T Wixted,et al.  Effect of delay on recognition decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[10]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[11]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory , 1997, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  J. Wixted,et al.  On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  W. Hockley,et al.  Strength-based mirror effects in item and associative recognition: Evidence for within-list criterion changes , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[14]  A. Criss The consequences of differentiation in episodic memory: Similarity and the strength based mirror effect , 2006 .

[15]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[16]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[17]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  List-strength effect: I. Data and discussion. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[18]  Francis Tuerlinckx,et al.  Fitting the ratcliff diffusion model to experimental data , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Amy H. Criss,et al.  The distribution of subjective memory strength: List strength and response bias , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  A. Benjamin,et al.  Distractor plausibility and criterion placement in recognition , 2004 .

[21]  W. Edwards Optimal strategies for seeking information: Models for statistics, choice reaction times, and human information processing ☆ , 1965 .

[22]  Andreas Voss,et al.  Fast-dm: A free program for efficient diffusion model analysis , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[23]  L. Reder,et al.  A dual-process account of the list-length and strength-based mirror effects in recognition , 2003 .

[24]  A. Voss,et al.  Interpreting ambiguous stimuli: Separating perceptual and judgmental biases. , 2008 .

[25]  A. Heathcote,et al.  QMLE: Fast, robust, and efficient estimation of distribution functions based on quantiles , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[26]  A. Diederich,et al.  Modeling the effects of payoff on response bias in a perceptual discrimination task: Bound-change, drift-rate-change, or two-stage-processing hypothesis , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  L. Reder,et al.  A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: a computational model of remember-know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks , 2008, Neural Computation.

[29]  Caren M. Rotello,et al.  Interpreting the effects of response bias on remember-know judgments using signal detection and threshold models , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[30]  Caren M. Rotello,et al.  Memory strength and the decision process in recognition memory , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[31]  A. Heathcote,et al.  Reply to Speckman and Rouder: A theoretical basis for QML , 2004 .

[32]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A Diffusion Model Analysis of the Effects of Aging on Recognition Memory Journal of Memory and Language , 2003 .

[33]  D. L. Hintzman On explaining the mirror effect. , 1994 .

[34]  T. O. Nelson,et al.  The word frequency effect for recognition memory and the elevated-attention hypothesis , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[35]  E. Gibson A systematic application of the concepts of generalization and differentiation to verbal learning , 1940 .

[36]  E. Hirshman,et al.  Decision processes in recognition memory: criterion shifts and the list-strength paradigm. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach , 2004 .

[38]  R. Ratcliff More on the speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses. , 1987, Psychological review.

[39]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  AIC model selection using Akaike weights , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[40]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A Diffusion Model Account of Criterion Shifts in the Lexical Decision Task. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[41]  Y. Hoshino A bias in favor of the positive response to high-frequency words in recognition memory , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[42]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Memorability, Word Frequency and Negative Recognition* , 1977 .

[43]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[44]  I. J. Myung,et al.  The Importance of Complexity in Model Selection. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[45]  J. D. Balakrishnan,et al.  Testing models of decision making using confidence ratings in classification. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[46]  W. S. Verplanck,et al.  Nonindependence of successive responses in measurements of the visual threshold. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[47]  K. Malmberg,et al.  Modeling the effects of verbal and nonverbal pair strength on associative recognition , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[48]  R M Shiffrin,et al.  Interference and the representation of events in memory. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  A. Yonelinas The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research , 2002 .

[50]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. , 2004, Psychological review.

[51]  E. Gibson,et al.  Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1973 .

[52]  Francis Tuerlinckx,et al.  Diffusion model analysis with MATLAB: A DMAT primer , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[53]  Hirotugu Akaike,et al.  On the Likelihood of a Time Series Model , 1978 .

[54]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. , 1999, Psychological review.

[55]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Methods for Dealing With Reaction Time Outliers , 1992 .

[56]  H. Akaike A Bayesian extension of the minimum AIC procedure of autoregressive model fitting , 1979 .

[57]  Murray Singer,et al.  Strategies of text retrieval: a criterion shift account. , 2002, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[58]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Journal of Memory and Language Manuscript Draft Title: Differentiating the Differentiation Models: a Comparison of the Retrieving Effectively from Memory Model (rem) and the Subjective Likelihood Model (slim) Differentiating the Differentiation Models: a Comparison , 2022 .

[59]  M. Steyvers,et al.  The dynamics of experimentally induced criterion shifts. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  A. Voss,et al.  Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[61]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  An ARC-REM model for accuracy and response time in recognition and recall. , 2001, Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory and Cognition.

[62]  T. Parks Signal-detectability theory of recognition-memory performance. , 1966, Psychological review.

[63]  Richard M Shiffrin,et al.  Context noise and item noise jointly determine recognition memory: a comment on Dennis and Humphreys (2001). , 2004, Psychological review.

[64]  John T Wixted,et al.  A direct test of the unequal-variance signal detection model of recognition memory , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[65]  Eric-Jan Wagenmakers,et al.  An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[66]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  List-strength Effect: Ii. Theoretical Mechanisms , 1990 .

[67]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[68]  M Glanzer,et al.  The mirror effect in recognition memory , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[69]  Gina A. Glanc,et al.  Orthographic neighborhood size effects in recognition memory , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[70]  Bennet B. Murdock,et al.  Memory and the theory of signal detection. , 1970 .

[71]  R. Ratcliff A theory of order relations in perceptual matching. , 1981 .

[72]  J. Gibson,et al.  Perceptual learning; differentiation or enrichment? , 1955, Psychological review.

[73]  A. Heathcote,et al.  Word frequency and word likeness mirror effects in episodic recognition memory , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[74]  Adele Diederich,et al.  A further test of sequential-sampling models that account for payoff effects on response bias in perceptual decision tasks , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[75]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[76]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[77]  M Glanzer,et al.  The mirror effect in recognition memory: data and theory. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.