No source memory for unrecognized items when implicit feedback is avoided

Abstract

In a recent empirical study, Starns, Hicks, Brown, and Martin (Memory & Cognition, 36, 1-8 2008) collected source judgments for old items that participants had claimed to be new and found residual source discriminability depending on the old-new response bias. The authors interpreted their finding as evidence in favor of the bivariate signal-detection model, but against the twohigh-threshold model of item/source memory. According to the latter, NEW responses only follow from the state of old-new uncertainty for which no source discrimination is possible, and the probability of entering this state is independent of the old-new response bias. However, when missed old items were presented for source discrimination, the participants could infer that the items had been previously studied. To test whether this implicit feedback led to second retrieval attempts and thus to source memory for presumably unrecognized items, we replicated Starns et al. 's (Memory & Cognition, 36, 1-8 2008) finding and compared their procedure to a procedure without such feedback. Our results challenge the conclusion to abandon discrete processing in source memory; source memory for unrecognized items is probably an artifact of the procedure, by which implicit feedback prompts participants to reconsider their recognition judgment when asked to rate the source of old items in the absence of item memory.

The list strength effect in source memory: Data and a global matching model

“…Other investigations have found source memory to be inaccurate for unrecognized items (Bell et al, 2017;Malejka & Broder, 2016). In our Experiment 3, an analysis of unrecognized items using a hierarchical Bayesian SDT model found that source memory performance for unrecognized items was slightly above chance but considerably lower than the accuracy for recognized items.…”

Does source memory exist for unrecognized items?

“…The finding that source accuracy is at chance for unrecognized items has been replicated by a few recent studies using the simultaneous design, but with each requiring participants to respond using binary yes-no judgements instead of confidence scales (Bell et al, 2017;Malejka & Bröder, 2016;Malejka et al, 2018). Malejka and Bröder (2016) demonstrated the absence of the effect across both liberal and conservative conditions of response bias, thus contradicting the predictions of the 2D-SDT model (Hilford et al, 2002). Malejka et al (2018) replicated their finding while also substituting lure items for targets that were studied under very short period time periodsa design feature they used to account for the possibility that participants may be demotivated to perform source retrieval (and consequently provide guess responses) for items they've rated "NEW", given that "NEW" items do not have a source.…”

“…Although source memory for unrecognized items was not analysed in the original article, Slotnick and Dodson (2005) Slotnick & Dodson, 2005), and linear source memory ROCs for both unrecognized and moderately recognized items on their own (Onyper et al, 2010). The finding that source accuracy is at chance for unrecognized items has been replicated by a few recent studies using the simultaneous design, but with each requiring participants to respond using binary yes-no judgements instead of confidence scales (Bell et al, 2017;Malejka & Bröder, 2016;Malejka et al, 2018). Malejka and Bröder (2016) demonstrated the absence of the effect across both liberal and conservative conditions of response bias, thus contradicting the predictions of the 2D-SDT model (Hilford et al, 2002).…”

“…While the majority of source memory models possess the inherent feature or incorporate the post-hoc assumption that source retrieval cannot be performed for unrecognized items, the empirical findings regarding this ability are quite mixed. A number of studies have observed chance-level source accuracy for unrecognized items (Bell, Mieth, & Buchner, 2017;Malejka & Bröder, 2016;Malejka, Ciecior, Möller, & Bröder, 2018;Onyper, Zhang, & Howard, 2010;Slotnick & Dodson, 2005;Yonelinas, 1999), while others have observed above-chance accuracy for such items (Chen, Gomes, & Brainerd, 2018;Osth et al, 2018;Starns et al, 2008;Starns, Pazzaglia, Rotello, Hautus, & Macmillan, 2013;Starns & Ksander, 2016). In an attempt to make sense of this discrepancy, the following sections will provide an overview of the methodological details and empirical results of each of the aforementioned studies.…”

“…3;Starns et al, 2013;Starns & Ksander, 2016), or in some cases, for lure items at all (Osth et al, 2018;Starns et al, 2008, Exp 1 & 2). Malejka and Bröder (2016) highlighted this as a potential confound since any item deemed "NEW" that leads to a prompt for a source judgement would provide implicit feedback that the item was indeed a target. By informing participants that a previously "unrecognized" item is a target, participants may attempt a second retrieval of the item and consequently re-evaluate the item as "OLD" before attempting source retrieval.…”