The Remember Response: Subject to Bias, Graded, and Not a Process-Pure Indicator of Recollection

By Rotello, Caren M.; Macmillan, Neil A. et al. | Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, October 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Remember Response: Subject to Bias, Graded, and Not a Process-Pure Indicator of Recollection


Rotello, Caren M., Macmillan, Neil A., Reeder, John A., Wong, Mungchen, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review


Recognition memory judgments have long been assumed to depend on the contributions of two underlying processes: recollection and familiarity. We measured recollection with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) data and remember-know judgments. Under standard remember-know instructions, the two estimates of recollection diverged. When subjects were told they might need to justify their remember responses to the experimenter, the two estimates were more likely to agree. The data support the conclusion that remember responses are generally based on a continuous underlying process but that specific task instructions can produce data that appear consistent with a high-threshold recollective process. Models based on signal detection theory provide a better account of these data than does the dual-process model (Yonelinas, 1994) or process-pure interpretations.

Recognition judgments are widely believed to be based on two underlying processes: recollection and familiarity. Here, we focus on two behavioral techniques for identifying these components: the remember-know paradigm and item recognition rating experiments.

In the remember-know paradigm (TuIving, 1985), subjects are asked to distinguish the subjective experience of remembering something specific about the occurrence of a study item from that of knowing that it was studied despite their failure to retrieve any specific details. A variety of empirical dissociations of remembering and knowing have been taken as evidence that the judgments are based on different underlying processes or memory systems (for a recent review, see Gardiner & Richardson-Klavehn, 2000). This process-pure interpretation underlies the majority of empirical remember-know studies.

An influential quantitative version of the process-pure hypothesis, the dual-process model (Yonelinas, 1994), proposes two converging operations for measuring the amount of recollection, which we denote RDP. (1) In the remember-know paradigm, remember judgments draw only on recollection, know judgments only on familiarity (Yonelinas, 2001). RDP should equal the proportion of old items that are remembered, but to allow for small amounts of nonmemorial noise, it is better estimated when the proportion of remembered new items is subtracted from that proportion (Yonelinas, 2002).' (2) In rating experiments, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves predicted by the model have a y-intercept that equals R^sub DP^. Thus, ROC curves and remember judgments should produce essentially identical estimates of the underlying recollection process (Yonelinas, 2001, 2002).

Two studies from Yonelinas's laboratory that allowed estimation of R^sub DP^ from both remember judgments and ROC data simultaneously showed this equivalence (Yonelinas, 2001, Experiment 1; Yonelinas, Dobbins, Szymanski, Dhaliwal, & King, 1996, Experiment 2).2 The subjects in these studies followed almost all highest confidence (and few lower confidence) old judgments with remember responses; know responses occurred at a variety of confidence levels. This pattern of responding leads directly to the similar estimates of R^sub DP^.

In the only other experiments for which both ROCs and remember-know judgments were reported for the same subjects, a different pattern was found. Rotello, Macmillan, and Reeder (2004, Experiments IA and IB) observed remember judgments to words recognized with a variety of confidence levels. When the dual-process model is fit to these data, the estimates of R^sub DP^ from ROCs and from remember judgments diverge: In Experiment IA, the ROC analysis concluded that R^sub DP^ equals . 18, whereas the data from the remember judgments imply that R^sub DP^ is .26 (estimated from highest confidence responses) or .29 (overall); in Experiment IB, the ROC implies that RDP equals .09 and the data from the remember judgments indicate that R^sub DP^ is .23 (highest confidence) or .25 (overall). According to these data, if the ROC y-intercept measures recollection, the remember judgments do not.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Remember Response: Subject to Bias, Graded, and Not a Process-Pure Indicator of Recollection
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?