Does ROC asymmetry reverse when detecting new stimuli? Reinvestigating whether the retrievability of mnemonic information is task-dependent

Abstract

Recently, it has been suggested that the mnemonic information that underlies recognition decisions changes when participants are asked to indicate whether a test stimulus is new rather than old (Brainerd et al., 2021, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, advance online publication). However, some observations that have been interpreted as evidence for this assertion need not be due to mnemonic changes, but may instead be the result of conservative response strategies if the possibility of asymmetric receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) is taken into account. Conversely, recent findings in support of asymmetric ROCs rely on the assumption that the mnemonic information accessed by the decision-maker does not depend on whether an old or a new item is considered to be the target Kellen et al. (2021, Psychological Review 128[6], 1022–1050). Here, we aim to clarify whether there is such a difference in accessibility of mnemonic information by applying signal detection theory. To this end, we used two versions of a simultaneous detection and identification task in which we presented participants with two test stimuli at a time. In one version, the old item was the target; in the other, the new item was the target. This allowed us to assess differences in mnemonic information retrieved in the two tasks while taking possible ROC asymmetry into account. Results clearly indicate that there is indeed a difference in the accessibility of mnemonic information as postulated by (Brainerd et al., 2021, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, advance online publication).

Reexamining Target-Probe Invariance: A Reply to Kellen and Singmann (2022)

“…In other words, the same result could have been observed according to SDT models exhibiting symmetric ROCs if mnemonic sensitivity was affected by the status of the target being probed; that is, if memory performance was somehow impaired in the m*-alternative forced-choice identification task compared to the m-alternative forced-choice identification task. But as mentioned above, that is exactly what our earlier results suggested (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b). We therefore concluded that "our finding [...] removes the experimentumcrucis status from Experiment 3 in Kellen et al (2021)" (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b) and that "there is still no clear [emphasis added] evidence for ROC asymmetry that does not rely on either confidence ratings or bias manipulations" (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b, p. 13).…”

“…But as mentioned above, that is exactly what our earlier results suggested (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b). We therefore concluded that "our finding [...] removes the experimentumcrucis status from Experiment 3 in Kellen et al (2021)" (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b) and that "there is still no clear [emphasis added] evidence for ROC asymmetry that does not rely on either confidence ratings or bias manipulations" (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b, p. 13). However, Kellen and Singmann (2022) find fault with both of these statements and argue that they are unsubstantiated.…”

“…More precisely, if target-probe invariance holds and participants always use all available mnemonic information to inform their recognition decision, expected performance in both tasks must be identical. But since identification performance differed between the two tasks (i.e., the performance in the m*alternative forced-choice identification sub-tasks was systematically worse than in the m-alternative forced-choice identification sub-task), we concluded that there must be a violation of target-probe invariance (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b).…”

“…One the one hand, participants' confidence ratings allowed us to directly assess ROC asymmetry in both tasks. This revealed that ROCs in the SDAI tasks were considerably more asymmetric than in the SDAI* task (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b), which already suggests a violation of target-probe invariance.…”

Greater target or lure variability? An exploration on the effects of stimulus types and memory paradigms

“…These findings have led to the proposition of the ’constancy-of-slopes’ generalization (Ratcliff et al, 1994 ). Although this generalization was later overturned by work showing that the ROC asymmetry can vary depending on task parameters or conditions (e.g., Heathcote , 2003 ; Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2023 ; Dobbins , 2023 ; Hintzman , 2004 ), most of these manipulations failed to produce estimates of lure variability that exceed target variability.…”