Continuous Feedback in Recognition Memory

Titus, Thomas G.

doi:10.2466/pms.1973.37.3.771

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, manipulations of feedback (e.g., Estes & Maddox, 1995;Verde & Rotello, 2007), responsekey mappings (e.g., Rhodes & Jacoby;Starns & Olchowski, 2015), and some implicit or explicit information at test that a subject can use to judge a test item's potential probability (e.g., Heit, Brockdorff, & Lamberts, 2003;Selmeczy & Dobbins, 2013), or expected strength (Hicks & Starns, 2014), are often necessary. Additionally, participants' natural awareness of base rates (Titus, 1973;Rhodes & Jacoby, 2007) or of expected strength information (Starns & Olchowski 2015) seems to influence shifting. In our own laboratory we found that manipulating the base rates of targets versus lures does not motivate a criterion shift without explicit cues that accompany test items as being either likely old or likely new (see , for an analogous finding).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of criterion shifting in recognition memory is task dependent

Franks

Hicks

2016

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored 2 research questions: whether criterion shifts within different recognition tasks are reliable across testing sessions and whether such shifts correlate across the different tasks. In Experiment 1, we established consistent group-level criterion shifting based on expected strength of target items in the test. False-alarm rates were higher when expected strength was weak as opposed to strong, even when expected strength cues were unblocked at test. Test-retest reliabilities in this strength-cuing environment were good. In Experiment 2, we manipulated either the probability (high or low) or expected memory strength (strong or weak) of target items and had people perform both tasks on each of 2 days of testing. Varying the probability of target items consistently produced criterion shifts, as did manipulating target memory strength. Regarding individual differences, shifting in a given test context predicted shifting on a second day in that same test context. However, one's tendency to shift a decision criterion on 1 type of test context did not predict one's tendency to do so in the other. The extent to which people shifted their decision criterion in recognition memory testing was largely dependent on the type of test.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability of criterion shifting in recognition memory is task dependent

Franks

Hicks

2016

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

Kluger

DeNisi

1996

Psychological Bulletin

4,509

143

3,957

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the beginning of the century, feedback interventions (FIs) produced negative-but largely ignored-effects on performance. A meta-analysis (607 effect sizes; 23,663 observations) suggests that FIs improved performance on average (d = .41) but that over '/3 of the FIs decreased performance. This finding cannot be explained by sampling error, feedback sign, or existing theories. The authors proposed a preliminary FI theory (FIT) and tested it with moderator analyses. The central assumption of FIT is that FIs change the locus of attention among 3 general and hierarchically organized levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including self-related) processes. The results suggest that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task. These findings are further moderated by task characteristics that are still poorly understood.To relate feedback directly to behavior is very confusing. Results are contradictory and seldom straight-forward.

show abstract

Features and feedback: Enhancing metamnemonic knowledge at retrieval reduces source-monitoring errors.

Lane¹,

Roussel²,

Villa³

et al. 2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments explored the issue of whether enhanced metamnemonic knowledge at retrieval can improve participants' ability to make difficult source discriminations in the context of the eyewitness suggestibility paradigm. The 1st experiment documented differences in phenomenal experience between veridical and false memories. Experiment 2 revealed that drawing participants' attention to these differences by pairing the ratings of the features with instructions about their utility was successful in reducing source misattributions of suggested items to the event. The results of Experiment 3 showed that participants can make online adjustments in the types of evidence used to make source judgments, as participants who received correct feedback during the training portion of the test reduced misattribution errors on the remainder of the test where feedback was not provided. Altogether, these studies suggest that people can discover and benefit from updated knowledge of the types of memorial evidence that discriminate between sources of information in memory.

show abstract

Continuous Feedback in Recognition Memory

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

The reliability of criterion shifting in recognition memory is task dependent

The reliability of criterion shifting in recognition memory is task dependent

The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.

Features and feedback: Enhancing metamnemonic knowledge at retrieval reduces source-monitoring errors.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About