Two processes are not necessary to understand memory deficits

Abstract

Bastin et al. propose a dual-process model to understand memory deficits. However, results from state-trace analysis have suggested a single underlying variable in behavioral and neural data. We advocate the usage of unidimensional models that are supported by data and have been successful in understanding memory deficits and in linking to neural data.

Revisiting the Remember-Know Task: Replications of Gardiner and Java (1990)

“…As noted in the introduction, the shape or ROC curves (Yonelinas, 1999), double-dissociations (Schacter & Tulving, 1994), and speed effects (Besson et al, 2012;McElree et al, 1999) have all been cited in support of the idea that two processes are responsible for recognition memory. However, in these cases there are corresponding demonstrations of doubt showing that these findings are often consistent with the simpler single-process view (e.g., Dougal & Rotello, 2007;Dunn, 2004;Mulligan & Hirshman, 1995;Osth, Dunn, Heathcote, & Ratcliff, 2019;).…”

Revisiting the remember–know task: Replications of Gardiner and Java (1990)

“…As noted in the introduction, the shape or ROC curves (Yonelinas, 1999 ), double-dissociations (Schacter and Tulving, 1994 ), and speed effects (Besson et al, 2012 ; McElree et al, 1999 ) have all been cited in support of the idea that two processes are responsible for recognition memory. However, in these cases, there are corresponding demonstrations of doubt showing that these findings are often consistent with the simpler single-process view (e.g., Dougal and Rotello 2007 ; Dunn 2004 ; Mulligan and Hirshman 1995 ; Osth, Dunn, Heathcote, & Ratcliff 2019 ; Province and Rouder 2012 .…”

“…As noted in the introduction, the shape or ROC curves (Yonelinas, 1999), double-dissociations (Schacter & Tulving, 1994), and speed effects (Besson et al, 2012;McElree et al, 1999) have all been cited in support of the idea that two processes are responsible for recognition memory. However, in these cases, there are corresponding demonstrations of doubt showing that these findings are often consistent with the simpler single-process view (e.g., Dougal and Rotello 2007;Dunn 2004;Mulligan and Hirshman 1995;Osth, Dunn, Heathcote, & Ratcliff 2019;Province and Rouder 2012. For the current study, we focus on the remember/know findings of Gardiner and Java (1990) as they distinctly support two processes and rule out alternative singleprocess explanations. Of note is that these results are immediately interpretable without the need to fit formal process models.…”