Sources of interference in item and associative recognition memory.

Abstract

A powerful theoretical framework for exploring recognition memory is the global matching framework, in which a cue's memory strength reflects the similarity of the retrieval cues being matched against the contents of memory simultaneously. Contributions at retrieval can be categorized as matches and mismatches to the item and context cues, including the self match (match on item and context), item noise (match on context, mismatch on item), context noise (match on item, mismatch on context), and background noise (mismatch on item and context). We present a model that directly parameterizes the matches and mismatches to the item and context cues, which enables estimation of the magnitude of each interference contribution (item noise, context noise, and background noise). The model was fit within a hierarchical Bayesian framework to 10 recognition memory datasets that use manipulations of strength, list length, list strength, word frequency, study-test delay, and stimulus class in item and associative recognition. Estimates of the model parameters revealed at most a small contribution of item noise that varies by stimulus class, with virtually no item noise for single words and scenes. Despite the unpopularity of background noise in recognition memory models, background noise estimates dominated at retrieval across nearly all stimulus classes with the exception of high frequency words, which exhibited equivalent levels of context noise and background noise. These parameter estimates suggest that the majority of interference in recognition memory stems from experiences acquired before the learning episode.

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

“…Larger similarities to item-source bindings that mismatch the retrieval cues will produce larger interference and reduce performance. Previous investigations with the model have suggested that the matches to the other items on the list are low in magnitude (Osth & Dennis, 2015). We found that under such conditions, the model similarly predicts a null list strength effect in source memory.…”

“…Following description of the three experiments and their theoretical implications, we present the source memory extension of the Osth and Dennis (2015) model, and describe its application to all three experiments using hierarchical Bayesian techniques, which enables fitting of the individual participants while allowing for group-level constraints across each of the experiments.…”

“…Another class of models has argued that the null list strength effect is more indicative of a general lack of interference among studied items (Dennis & Humphreys, 2001;Murdock & Kahana, 1993a, 1993bOsth & Dennis, 2015). While most models have assumed that memory is a blank slate before presentation of the study list, these models instead assume there is a large interference contribution from pre-experimentally learned memories.…”

“…Collectively, the current crop of global matching models have been successful in explaining all of the aforementioned episodic memory phenomena in item recognition (e.g. ; Dennis & Humphreys, 2001;Nosofsky, Little, Donkin, & Fific, 2011;Osth & Dennis, 2015;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997), but have experienced little, if any, extension to source memory paradigms. The current article attempts to fill this gap by testing one of the major constraints on the development of global matching models, the list strength effect, in a source memory paradigm and introduces an extension of the Osth and Dennis (2015) model to account for the results.…”

“…In the Osth and Dennis (2015) model, when the item-source cue is matched to memory, the similarity to each item-source binding in memory is a multiplication of the similarity to the item cue and a similarity to the source cue. Larger similarities to item-source bindings that mismatch the retrieval cues will produce larger interference and reduce performance.…”