Modeling the effects of verbal and nonverbal pair strength on associative recognition

Abstract

526In an associative recognition (AR) task, subjects study pairs of items. Items that are studied together are intact pairs, items that are not studied together are rearranged pairs, and subjects discriminate between them at test. Positive endorsements of intact and rearranged pairs are respectively referred to as hits and false alarms. Generally speaking, accuracy improves as the difference between hit rates (HRs) and false alarm rates (FARs) increases, and thus, factors can improve AR via qualitatively different patterns of HRs and FARs: HRs can increase and FARs can decrease, HRs can increase and FARs can remain steady, or HRs can remain steady and FARs can decrease. Different operations affect AR in different ways. For instance, varying the type of stimuli that make up to-beremembered pairs (referred to here as pair type) produces a mirror effect (Glanzer & Adams, 1985): HRs are greater for words than for nonverbal stimuli, but FARs are less for words than for nonverbal stimuli (Criss & Shiffrin, 2004;Greene, 1996Greene, , 2004Hockley, 1994). In contrast, a mirror effect is not always observed with increases in repetitions or study time: When strength is varied within a list, the probability of endorsing intact pairs increases with target repetitions, but the probability of endorsing rearranged pairs remains fairly steady (e.g., Kelley & Wixted, 2001); but when strength is varied between lists, a mirror effect is observed (Clark & Shiffrin, 1992). Thus, some operations have robust effects on both HRs and FARs, whereas other operations primarily affect HRs. (To the best of our knowledge, no factors have been identified that produce steady HRs and decreasing FARs.)It is unknown why these variables affect AR in different ways or how pair type and standard strengthening operations interact. In addition, it is unknown how generalizable the pair type effect is, because words have traditionally been used in recognition memory experiments. To address the empirical questions, we present an AR experiment in which repetitions, study time, and pair type (words, pseudowords, Chinese characters, or faces) were varied. Using an extension of a dual-process memory model (Malmberg, Holden, & Shiffrin, 2004), we hypothesized that strengthening different types of stimuli might affect the encoding of pairs, the contribution of recollection to AR, or both.We will begin with a discussion of when mirror effects occur and do not occur and the constraints these findings place on models of recognition memory. In the next section, we will generate predictions of an extension of Malmberg, Holden, and Shiffrin's (2004) recognition model in order to understand how the pair type mirror effect and the effect of repetitions can be explained by the same model. Finally, we will report the results of an experiment in which standard strengthening operations and pair type were varied. Given these results, we then will fit the three competing models to the data in order to quantitatively choose among them. When Mirror Effects OccurPrior to Glanzer...

On the flexibility and the fallibility of associative memory

“…Since familiarity is assumed to be a nonlinear positive function of the similarity between the retrieval cue and the contents of memory, compound cue models predict that intact pairs will have a greater average familiarity than will rearranged pairs. Strengthening targets increases the average familiarity of rearranged pairs, and thus the simplest version of the compound cue model predicts an increase in FARs with an increase in target repetitions, which is inconsistent with extant findings (Cleary et al, 2001;Kelley & Wixted, 2001;Xu & Malmberg, 2007).…”

“…Since an intact pair is represented in memory but a rearranged pair is not (they match the contents of memory only randomly), intact pairs tend to be more familiar than rearranged pairs. In addition, strengthening target pairs should have no effect on the familiarity of rearranged pairs, and hence, the independent cue predictions are supported by a null effect of repetitions on FARs (Cleary et al, 2001;Kelley & Wixted, 2001;Xu & Malmberg, 2007).…”

“…A problem for the recall-only models is recent findings that show that increasing the number of target presentations has little or no effect on FARs (Cleary et al, 2001;Kelley & Wixted, 2001;Xu & Malmberg, 2007). It is simplest to assume that increasing the number of times that pairs are studied should steadily improve the recall-toreject process.…”

“…The dual-process model that we are considering is the one Xu and Malmberg (2007) recently developed within the framework of the retrieving effectively from memory (REM) theory (Malmberg, Holden, & Shiffrin, 2004;Malmberg & Shiffrin, 2005;Malmberg, Zeelenberg, & Shiffrin, 2004;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997). The formal details of that model are presented in the Appendix, but at least for the moment, we need consider only five basic assumptions.…”

“…We will pay particular attention to the predictions that they make concerning the effect of pair repetitions on performance, because this is one way that they can be distinguished (Cleary, Curran, & Greene, 2001;Kelley & Wixted, 2001;Xu & Malmberg, 2007).…”