Advertisement

Ensemble coding of memory strength in recognition tests

  • Chad DubéEmail author
  • Ke Tong
  • Holly Westfall
  • Emily Bauer
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Recent work by Benjamin and colleagues (Psychological Review, 116 (1), 84-115, 2009; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1601-1608, 2013) suggests that recognition memory decisions are corrupted by random variability in decision criteria. This conclusion, which explains several anomalies in the recognition literature, was based on fits of the Noisy Decision Theory of Signal Detection (NDT) to a novel task: ensemble recognition. In the ensemble task, participants make Old/New decisions to ensembles of items rather than single items. The NDT assumption that criteria are fixed across ensembles was criticized by Kellen, Klauer, and Singmann (Psychological Review, 119 (3), 457-479, 2012), and defended by Benjamin (Psychological Review, 120, 720-726, 2013). Little attention, however, has been paid to the assumption of the best-fitting NDT model that participants solve the ensemble task by calculating the average memory strength of items in the probe display. We review evidence of summary statistical representation in visual perception and short-term memory that suggests the aggregation hypothesis is plausible, and hold it up to test in three experiments using the direct ratings procedure. Although we conclude that participants can produce estimates of average probe memory strength at test, in line with the assumptions of NDT, the mechanisms and strategies used to produce such estimates remain unclear.

Keywords

Recognition memory Visual perception Signal detection Ensemble Summary statistical representation 

Notes

References

  1. Albrecht, A. R., & Scholl, B. J. (2010). Perceptually averaging in a continuous visual world: Extracting statistical summary representations over time. Psychological Science, 21(4), 560–567.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1972). Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall. Psychological review, 79(2), 97–123.Google Scholar
  3. Ariely, D. (2001). Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science, 12(2), 157–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Balakrishnan, J. D., & Macdonald, J. A. (2008). Decision criteria do not shift: Commentary on Mueller and Weidemann (2008). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 1022–1030.Google Scholar
  5. Benjamin, A.S. (2013). Where is the criterion noise in recognition? (AlmostS) everyplace you look: Comment on Kellen, Klauer, and Singmann (2012). Psychological Review, 120, 720–726.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, A. S., Diaz, M., & Wee, S. (2009). Signal detection with criterion noise: Applications to recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116(1), 84–115.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamin, A. S., Tullis, J. G., & Lee, J. H. (2013). Criterion noise in ratings-based recognition: evidence from the effects of response scale length on recognition accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1601–1608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, S. E., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1987). Recognition of multiple-item probes. Memory & Cognition, 15(5), 367–378.Google Scholar
  9. Corbett, J. E., & Oriet, C. (2011). The whole is indeed more than the sum of its parts: Perceptual averaging in the absence of individual item representation. Acta Psychologica, 138(2), 289–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickey, J. M. (1971). The weighted likelihood ratio, linear hypotheses on normal location parameters. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 204–223.Google Scholar
  11. Dubé, C., & Sekuler, R. (2015). Obligatory and adaptive averaging in visual short term memory. Journal of Vision, 15, 1–13. Google Scholar
  12. Dubé, C., Zhou, F., Kahana, M.J., & Sekuler, R. (2014). Similarity-based distortion of visual short-term memory is perceptual. Vision Research, 96, 8–16.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Egan, J. P. (1958). Recognition memory and the operating characteristic. USAF Operational Applications Laboratory Technical Note.Google Scholar
  14. Francis, W.N., & Kučera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  15. Garner, W. R., & Hake, H. W. (1951). The amount of information in absolute judgments. Psychological Review, 58(6), 446–459.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical science, 7(4), 457–472.Google Scholar
  17. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian Data Anaylsis, chapter 5. Texts in Statistical Science (pp. 134–141). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Gelman, A. (2006). Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models (comment on article by Browne and Draper). Bayesian Analysis, 1(3), 515–534.Google Scholar
  19. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95(4), 528–551.Google Scholar
  21. Hintzman, D. L. (2004). Judgment of frequency versus recognition confidence: Repetition and recursive reminding. Memory & Cognition, 32(2), 336–350.Google Scholar
  22. Kastner, S., De Weerd, P., Pinsk, M. A., Elizondo, M. I., Desimone, R., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2001). Modulation of sensory suppression: Implications for receptive field sizes in the human visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86(3), 1398–1411.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kellen, D., Erdfelder, E., Malmberg, K. J., Dubé, C., & Criss, A. H. (2016). The ignored alternative: an application of Luce’s low-threshold model to recognition memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 75, 86–95.Google Scholar
  24. Kellen, D., Klauer, K. C., & Singmann, H. (2012). On the measurement of criterion noise in signal detection theory: The case of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 119(3), 457–479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Klauer, K. C., & Kellen, D. (2018). RT-MPTs: Process models for response-time distributions based on multinomial processing trees with applications to recognition memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 82, 111–130.Google Scholar
  26. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. McDermott, J. H., Schemitsch, M., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2013). Summary statistics in auditory perception. Nature neuroscience, 16(4), 493–498.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Mickes, L., Wixted, J. T., & Wais, P. E. (2007). A direct test of the unequal-variance signal detection model of recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 858–865.Google Scholar
  29. Mickes, L., Hwe, V., Wais, P. E., & Wixted, J. T. (2011). Strong memories are hard to scale. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 239.Google Scholar
  30. Mueller, S. T., & Weidemann, C. T. (2008). Decision noise: An explanation for observed violations of signal detection theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 465–494.Google Scholar
  31. Nosofsky, R. M. (1983). Information integration and the identification of stimulus noise and criterial noise in absolute judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(2), 299–309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Nosofsky, R. M. (1987). Attention and learning processes in the identification and categorization of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(1), 87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Oriet, C., & Hozempa, K. (2016). Incidental statistical summary representation over time. Journal of Vision, 16(3), 3–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Plummer, M. (2013). rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. R package version, 3(10).Google Scholar
  35. Proctor, R. W. (1977). The relationship of frequency judgments to recognition: Facilitation of recognition and comparison to recognition-confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3(6), 679–689.Google Scholar
  36. Quamme, J. R., Yonelinas, A. P., & Norman, K. A. (2007). Effect of unitization on associative recognition in amnesia. Hippocampus, 17(3), 192–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
  38. Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychological review, 116, 59–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Rouder, J. N., Pratte, M. S., & Morey, R. D. (2010). Latent mnemonic strengths are latent: A comment on Mickes, Wixted, and Wais (2007). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 427–435.Google Scholar
  40. Schulman, A. I., & Greenberg, G. Z. (1970). Operating characteristics and a priori probability of the signal. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 8, 317–320.Google Scholar
  41. Shepard, R. N. (1981). Psychological relations and psychophysical scales: On the status of “direct” psychophysical measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 24(1), 21–57.Google Scholar
  42. JASP Team (2016). JASP (Version 0.7.5.5) [Computer software].Google Scholar
  43. Tong, K., Ji, L., Chen, W., & Fu, X. (2015). Unstable mean context causes sensitivity loss and biased estimation of variability. Journal of vision, 15(4), 15–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1984). Measurement scales and statistics: The misconception misconceived. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 394–401.Google Scholar
  45. Treisman, M., & Faulkner, A. (1984). The effect of signal probability on the slope of the receiver-operating characteristic given the by rating procedure. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 199–215.Google Scholar
  46. Van Zandt, T. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 582–600.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wickham, H. (2017). The tidyverse. R package ver. 1.1. 1.Google Scholar
  48. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2010a). Useful scientific theories are useful: A reply to Rouder, Pratte, and Morey (2010). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 436–442.Google Scholar
  49. Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2010b). A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments. Psychological Review, 117(4), 1025–1054.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wixted, J.T., Vul, E., Mickes, L., & Wilson, B. (2017). Models of lineup memory. Paper presented at the 58 th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chad Dubé
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ke Tong
    • 1
  • Holly Westfall
    • 2
  • Emily Bauer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cognitive SciencesUniversity of California IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations