Reducing false recognition with criterial recollection tests: Distinctiveness heuristic versus criterion shifts

Gallo, David A.; Weiss, Jonathan A.; Schacter, Daniel L.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.002

Cited by 92 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The test phase results can be found in Table 2. The same general pattern was observed on each of the three tests, a result consistent with the results of prior work in which the criterial recollection task was used with other types of materials (e.g., Gallo et al, 2004;McDonough & Gallo, 2008). First, hits to both targets were greater than hits to studied targets, because the former were presented twice during the study phase (all ps .05).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…These two tasks were thought to elicit a similar degree of episodic-like elaboration, but to differ in the amount of corresponding details (as well as in whether or not the event was real) that may differentially contribute to reality monitoring. Following the encoding tasks, memory accuracy was measured via criterial recollection tests (Gallo, Weiss, & Schacter, 2004). These tests were designed to assess differences in how people monitor their memory as a function of their retrieval orientation (i.e., selectively searching memory for past, future, or sentence elaborations).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Separating past and future autobiographical events in memory: Evidence for a reality monitoring asymmetry

McDonough

Gallo

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After thinking about the past and imagining the future, how do people separate these real and imagined events in memory? We had subjects engage in past and future autobiographical elaboration, then later take memory tests that required them to recollect these earlier generated events. In Experiment 1, testing memory for previously generated past or future autobiographical events led to fewer source memory confusions than did an elaborative control task, suggesting that the distinctive features of autobiographical elaboration improved subsequent retrieval monitoring accuracy. In Experiment 2, we directly compared retrieval monitoring accuracy for previously generated past and future autobiographical events and found that subjects made fewer source confusions when searching memory for future events. This asymmetry suggests that the features characterizing future elaborations (e.g., cognitive operations) were used more effectively during reality monitoring than were the features characterizing past elaborations (e.g., perceptual details), and has implications for future-oriented theories of memory.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Separating past and future autobiographical events in memory: Evidence for a reality monitoring asymmetry

McDonough

Gallo

2009

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our response bias effects were primarily limited to the 1,000-to 1,500-ms period that has been generally related to postretrieval control processes. Thus, the present results are more consistent with the perspective whereby criterion setting reflects the activity postretrieval metacognitive control processes that are important for the evaluation of memory (Benjamin & Bawa, 2004;Dobbins & Kroll, 2005;Gallo et al, 2004;Ghetti, 2003;Strack & Bless, 1994;Strack & Forster, 1995;Whittlesea, 1993;Whittlesea, Jacoby, & Girard, 1990). More precisely, our ERN results were observed following the subject's response and so are more likely to reflect a later consequence of the chosen criterion rather than reflecting criterion setting per se.…”

Section: Criterion Settingsupporting

confidence: 87%

Conflict and criterion setting in recognition memory.

Curran

DeBuse

Leynes

2007

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition memory requires both retrieval processes and control processes such as criterion setting. Decision criteria were manipulated by offering different payoffs for correct "old" versus "new" responses. Criterion setting influenced the following late-occurring (1,000ϩ ms), conflict-sensitive eventrelated brain potential (ERP) components: the stimulus-locked late posterior negativity (LPN) and the response-locked error-related negativity (ERN). The LPN-ERN were most negative to hits under conservative payoff conditions involving conflict between the correct old response and the payoff for new responses. This same conservative-hit condition was most frequently associated with response reversals when fast initial judgments were followed by slower judgments. Postresponse ERP activity may index conflict-sensitive processes underlying postretrieval cognitive control mechanisms involved with assessing responses to current items and updating response criteria on later trials. Paller, 2004). Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) have been used to invesLater (ϳ1,000ϩ ms) memory-related ERP effects have been tigate the brain processes that discriminate old and new items on hypothesized to be related to memory control processes. First, late, recognition memory tasks. About 300 -800 ms after onset of a test frontal, and often right-lateralized ERP old-new effects are item, ERPs to correctly recognized old items (hits) are more thought to reflect the activity of postretrieval evaluation processes positive than those to correctly rejected new items. These ERP (Allan, Wilding, & Rugg, 1998;Curran & Friedman, 2003; Curold-new Keywords

show abstract

“…There was also an effect of studied status [F(1,46) .028]. The interaction indicates that study format affected false alarms more than hits, which is consistent with the idea that the distinctiveness heuristic reduced false recognition without necessarily affecting true recognition (see, e.g., Gallo et al, 2004;Schacter et al, 1999). This finding is most easily seen in unprimed test items (i.e., those preceded by mismatching primes), which were unaffected ized for each subject.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 67%

“…It also predicts that unprimed false recognition will be reduced in the picture condition, in comparison with the auditory condition (cf. Gallo, Weiss, & Schacter, 2004;Schacter et al, 1999), thereby providing an independent measure of the distinctiveness heuristic.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%