The flexibility of models of recognition memory: The case of confidence ratings

2015 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 8-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Christoph Klauer ◽  
David Kellen
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Confidence Ratings

The Language of Recollection in Support of Recognition Memory Decisions

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 291-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian G. Dobbins ◽  
Justin Kantner
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Recognition Accuracy ◽  
Separate Experiment ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Verbal Reports ◽  
Language Pattern ◽  
Cognitive Decision ◽  
Pattern Classifier ◽  
Confidence Ratings

Abstract. Researchers often augment recognition memory decisions with confidence ratings or reports of “Remember” and “Know” experiences. While important, these ratings are subject to variation in interpretation and misspecification. Here we review recent findings from a “verbal reports as data” procedure in which subjects justify, in their own words, the basis of recognition. The application of a language pattern classifier to these justifications demonstrates that it: (a) is sensitive to the presence of recollection, (b) tracks individual differences in recognition accuracy, and (c) generalizes in a theoretically meaningful way to justifications from a separate experiment. More broadly, this approach should be useful for any cognitive decision task in which competing theories suggest different explicit bases underlying the judgments, or for which the explicit versus implicit basis of the decisions is in question.

scholarly journals Computerized methods for collecting confidence ratings: Task influences on patterns of responding

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Andrew DeSoto
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Confidence Rating ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rating Data ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Confidence Ratings

Retrospective confidence ratings and other judgments frequently are collected in computer-based psychology studies, but little research has investigated whether the method with which these ratings are collected influences the resulting data. To explore whether different confidence rating entry methods elicit different responses, 96 subjects were tested in a recognition memory paradigm. To rate confidence in recognition decisions from 0 - 100, half of the subjects used the numeric keypad on the keyboard to respond whereas the other half used an on-screen slider. Notably, whereas subjects using the numeric keypad frequently chose to enter confidence ratings divisible by 5 and 10, subjects using the slider showed no such preference but instead were more likely to accept the slider default value (i.e., 50) for each trial. The method with which confidence ratings are collected may have unintended consequences on confidence rating data and their interpretation.

scholarly journals Assessing recognition memory using confidence ratings and response times

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 150670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph T. Weidemann ◽  
Michael J. Kahana
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Choice Response ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Internal States ◽  
Discrete Responses ◽  
And Task ◽  
Confidence Ratings

Classification of stimuli into categories (such as ‘old’ and ‘new’ in tests of recognition memory or ‘present’ versus ‘absent’ in signal detection tasks) requires the mapping of internal signals to discrete responses. Introspective judgements about a given choice response are regularly employed in research, legal and clinical settings in an effort to measure the signal that is thought to be the basis of the classification decision. Correlations between introspective judgements and task performance suggest that such ratings often do convey information about internal states that are relevant for a given task, but well-known limitations of introspection call the fidelity of this information into question. We investigated to what extent response times can reveal information usually assessed with explicit confidence ratings. We quantitatively compared response times to confidence ratings in their ability to qualify recognition memory decisions and found convergent results suggesting that much of the information from confidence ratings can be obtained from response times.

scholarly journals Computerized methods for collecting confidence ratings: Task influences on patterns of responding

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Andrew DeSoto
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Confidence Rating ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rating Data ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Confidence Ratings

Retrospective confidence ratings and other judgments frequently are collected in computer-based psychology studies, but little research has investigated whether the method with which these ratings are collected influences the resulting data. To explore whether different confidence rating entry methods elicit different responses, 96 subjects were tested in a recognition memory paradigm. To rate confidence in recognition decisions from 0 - 100, half of the subjects used the numeric keypad on the keyboard to respond whereas the other half used an on-screen slider. Notably, whereas subjects using the numeric keypad frequently chose to enter confidence ratings divisible by 5 and 10, subjects using the slider showed no such preference but instead were more likely to accept the slider default value (i.e., 50) for each trial. The method with which confidence ratings are collected may have unintended consequences on confidence rating data and their interpretation.

scholarly journals Memory Strength Effects in fMRI Studies: A Matter of Confidence

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 2324-2335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greig I. de Zubicaray ◽  
Katie L. McMahon ◽  
Simon Dennis ◽  
John C. Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Perirhinal Cortex ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Memory Strength ◽  
Irrelevant Item ◽  
Subjective Confidence ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
Confidence Ratings

To investigate potentially dissociable recognition memory responses in the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex, fMRI studies have often used confidence ratings as an index of memory strength. Confidence ratings, although correlated with memory strength, also reflect sources of variability, including task-irrelevant item effects and differences both within and across individuals in terms of applying decision criteria to separate weak from strong memories. We presented words one, two, or four times at study in each of two different conditions, focused and divided attention, and then conducted separate fMRI analyses of correct old responses on the basis of subjective confidence ratings or estimates from single- versus dual-process recognition memory models. Overall, the effect of focussing attention on spaced repetitions at study manifested as enhanced recognition memory performance. Confidence- versus model-based analyses revealed disparate patterns of hippocampal and perirhinal cortex activity at both study and test and both within and across hemispheres. The failure to observe equivalent patterns of activity indicates that fMRI signals associated with subjective confidence ratings reflect additional sources of variability. The results are consistent with predictions of single-process models of recognition memory.

How do memory modules differentially contribute to familiarity and recollection?

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olya Hakobyan ◽  
Sen Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Memory Modules ◽  
Familiarity And Recollection ◽  
Memory Contents

Abstract We fully support dissociating the subjective experience from the memory contents in recognition memory, as Bastin et al. posit in the target article. However, having two generic memory modules with qualitatively different functions is not mandatory and is in fact inconsistent with experimental evidence. We propose that quantitative differences in the properties of the memory modules can account for the apparent dissociation of recollection and familiarity along anatomical lines.

Learning From (Test) Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan E. Mitton ◽  
Chris M. Fiacconi
Keyword(s):  
Recognition Memory ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Memory Performance ◽  
Judgments Of Learning ◽  
Visual Images ◽  
Memory Tests ◽  
Recognition Memory Performance ◽  
Study Test ◽  
Explicit Feedback

Abstract. To date there has been relatively little research within the domain of metamemory that examines how individuals monitor their performance during memory tests, and whether the outcome of such monitoring informs subsequent memory predictions for novel items. In the current study, we sought to determine whether spontaneous monitoring of test performance can in fact help individuals better appreciate their memory abilities, and in turn shape future judgments of learning (JOLs). Specifically, in two experiments we examined recognition memory for visual images across three study-test cycles, each of which contained novel images. We found that across cycles, participants’ JOLs did in fact increase, reflecting metacognitive sensitivity to near-perfect levels of recognition memory performance. This finding suggests that individuals can and do monitor their test performance in the absence of explicit feedback, and further underscores the important role that test experience can play in shaping metacognitive evaluations of learning and remembering.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document