Dual-Process Models of Associative Recognition in Young and Older Adults: Evidence From Receiver Operating Characteristics.

Abstract

In 3 experiments, young and older adults studied lists of unrelated word pairs and were given confidence-rated item and associative recognition tests. Several different models of recognition were fit to the confidence-rating data using techniques described by S. Macho (2002, 2004). Concordant with previous findings, item recognition data were best fit by an unequal-variance signal detection theory model for both young and older adults. For both age groups, associative recognition performance was best explained by models incorporating both recollection and familiarity components. Examination of parameter estimates supported the conclusion that recollection is reduced in old age, but inferences about age differences in familiarity were highly model dependent. Implications for dual-process models of memory in old age are discussed.

Hyper-binding across time: Age differences in the effect of temporal proximity on paired-associate learning.

“…The test list in most associative recognition studies is likely to be a mix of near and far re-pairings, and it is possible, though of course unknown, that older adults' typically higher rate of false alarms (e.g., Castel & Craik, 2003;Cohn et al, 2008;Healy et al, 2005) is partly due to the presence of near-repaired items in the test list. Indeed, this study used only very near and very far re-pairings, and it is unclear what the performance relationship would be to a range of distances.…”

“…So for example, older adults are more likely than younger adults to bind together target and distracting information that co-occurs in time (Campbell, Hasher, & Thomas, 2010), as well as irrelevant sequences of distractors that co-occur sequentially (Campbell, Zimerman, Healey, Lee, & Hasher, 2012). Here, we explore the possibility that this tendency toward excessive, or hyper, binding also plays a role in paired-associate learning and so contributes to older adults' typically higher rate of false alarms in associative recognition paradigms (e.g., Castel & Craik, 2003;Cohn, Emrich, & Moscovitch, 2008;Healy, Light, & Chung, 2005).…”

Age-related associative deficits are absent with nonwords.

“…Dual process models commonly assume that during recognition memory tasks, when the level of familiarity/unfamiliarity in memory is ambiguous, a further recollection based memory search is required before a response can be made (Yonelinas, 2002). Familiarity based processes are considered sufficient to complete an item test whereas associative tests are more reliant on recollection based processes (Healy, Light, & Chung, 2005;Old & Naveh-Benjamin, 2008). 2 This could explain why age deficits are often smaller for item tests than for associative tests because age deficits are typically smaller for recognition (familiarity based memory) than for recall (recollection based memory) (e.g., Craik & McDowd, 1987;Light, Prull, La Voie, & Healy, 2000;Naveh-Benjamin, 2000;Schonfield & Robertson, 1966).…”

Witness self‐efficacy: Development and validation of the construct

“…Application of self-perception theory to confidence research is a common complicating factor in assessing theoretical relations to confidence. Indeed, many other theories obfuscate this picture including dual process models of information processing (Healy, Light, & Chung, 2005), signal detection theory (Dunn, 2004), and facial recognition theories (Weber & Brewer, 2003).…”