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

It is well established that the memory strength of studied items is more variable than the strength of new items on tests of recognition memory, but the reason why this occurs is poorly understood. One account for this old item variance effect is based on single-process theory, which proposes that this effect is due to variability in how well items are initially encoded into memory (i.e., the encoding variability account). In contrast, dual-process theory argues that old items are more variable because they are influenced by both recollection and familiarity, whereas recognition of new items relies primarily on familiarity. The present study shows that increasing encoding variability did not increase old item variance and that old item variance is directly related to the contribution of recollection. These results indicate that old item memory variability is due to the relative contribution of recollection and familiarity.

[1]  James P. Egan,et al.  Recognition memory and the operating characteristic. , 1958 .

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

[3]  Neal F. Johnson,et al.  Massed Versus Distributed Repetition of Homographs: A Test of the Differential-Encoding Hypothesis. , 1972 .

[4]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Search and decision processes in recognition memory. , 1974 .

[5]  David H. Krantz,et al.  Learning, memory, and thinking , 1974 .

[6]  G. Mandler Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. , 1980 .

[7]  Max Coltheart,et al.  The MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 1981 .

[8]  E. Tulving Memory and consciousness. , 1985 .

[9]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  "Schema Abstraction" in a Multiple-Trace Memory Model , 1986 .

[10]  J. Gardiner Functional aspects of recollective experience , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[12]  L. Jacoby A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory , 1991 .

[13]  R Ratcliff,et al.  Testing global memory models using ROC curves. , 1992, Psychological review.

[14]  B B Murdock,et al.  TODAM2: a model for the storage and retrieval of item, associative, and serial-order information. , 1993, Psychological review.

[15]  R Ratcliff,et al.  Empirical generality of data from recognition memory receiver-operating characteristic functions and implications for the global memory models. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  A. Yonelinas Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: evidence for a dual-process model. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  L. Jacoby,et al.  The Relation between Remembering and Knowing as Bases for Recognition: Effects of Size Congruency , 1995 .

[18]  W. Donaldson,et al.  The role of decision processes in remembering and knowing , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[19]  A P Yonelinas,et al.  The contribution of recollection and familiarity to recognition and source-memory judgments: a formal dual-process model and an analysis of receiver operating characteristics. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  A P Yonelinas,et al.  Consciousness, control, and confidence: the 3 Cs of recognition memory. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[22]  R. O’Reilly,et al.  Modeling hippocampal and neocortical contributions to recognition memory: a complementary-learning-systems approach. , 2003, Psychological review.

[23]  John T Wixted,et al.  In defense of the signal detection interpretation of remember/know judgments , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Barbara L. Chalfonte,et al.  Sum-Difference Theory of Remembering and Knowing : A Two-Dimensional Signal-Detection Model By : , 2004 .

[25]  J. Dunn Remember-know: a matter of confidence. , 2004, Psychological review.

[26]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[27]  Caren M Rotello,et al.  Theremember response: Subject to bias, graded, and not a process-pure indicator of recollection , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  Colleen M. Parks,et al.  Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory: a review. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

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

[30]  J. Wixted Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. , 2007, Psychological review.

[31]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Two Dimensions Are Not Better than One: STREAK and the Univariate Signal Detection Model of Remember/Know Performance. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[32]  Kenneth J. Malmberg,et al.  Recognition memory: A review of the critical findings and an integrated theory for relating them , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  A. Ishai,et al.  Recollection- and Familiarity-Based Decisions Reflect Memory Strength , 2008, Frontiers in systems neuroscience.

[34]  John T Wixted,et al.  Recollection Is a Continuous Process , 2009, Psychological science.

[35]  Peter E. Wais,et al.  Recollection Is a Continuous Process for Dual-Process Theories of Recognition , 2009 .

[36]  Zhuang Song,et al.  Medial Temporal Lobe Function and Recognition Memory: A Novel Approach to Separating the Contribution of Recollection and Familiarity , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.