Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is being used increasingly to examine the memory processes underlying recognition memory. The authors discuss the methodological issues involved in conducting and analyzing ROC results, describe the various models that have been developed to account for these results, review the behavioral empirical literature, and assess the models in light of those results. The empirical literature includes studies of item recognition, relational recognition (e.g., source and associative tests), as well as exclusion and remember-know tasks. Nine empirical regularities are described, and a number of unresolved empirical issues are identified. The results indicate that several common classes of recognition models, such as pure threshold and pure signal detection models, are inadequate to account for recognition memory, whereas several hybrid models that incorporate a signal detection-based process and a threshold recollection or attention process are in better agreement with the results. The results indicate that there are at least 2 functionally distinct component/processes underlying recognition memory. In addition, the ROC results have various implications for how recognition memory performance should be measured.

The dual-process signal-detection (DPSD) model assumes that recognition memory is based on recollection of qualitative information or on a signal-detection-based familiarity process. The model has proven useful for understanding results from a wide range of memory research, including behavioral, neuropsychological, electrophysiological, and neuroimaging studies. However, a number of concerns have been raised about the model over the years, and it has been suggested that an unequal-variance signal-detection (UVSD) model that incorporates separate recollection and familiarity processes (J. T. Wixted, 2007) may provide an equally good, or even better, account of the data. In this article, the authors show that the results of studies that differentiate these models support the predictions of the DPSD model and indicate that recognition does not reflect the summing of 2 signal-detection processes, as the new UVSD model assumes. In addition, the assumptions of the DPSD model are clarified in order to address some of the common misconceptions about the model. Although important challenges remain, hybrid models such as this provide a more useful framework within which to understand human memory than do pure signal-detection models.

It is often assumed that recollection is necessary to support memory for novel associations, whereas familiarity supports memory for single items. However, the levels of unitization (LOU) framework assumes that familiarity can support associative memory under conditions in which the components of an association are unitized (i.e., treated as a single coherent item). In the current study we test two critical assumptions of this framework. First, does unitization reflect a specialized form of learning or is it simply a form of semantic or elaborative encoding, and, second, can the beneficial effects of unitization on familiarity be observed for across-domain associations or are they limited to creating new associations between items that are from the same stimulus domains? Unitization was found to increase associative recognition but not item recognition, it affected familiarity more so than recollection, it increased associative but not item priming, and it was dissociable from levels of processing effects. Moreover, unitization effects were found to be particularly effective in supporting face-word and fractal-sound pairs. The current results indicate that unitization reflects a specialized form of learning that supports associative familiarity of within- and across-domain associations.

Results from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have strongly supported the idea that the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) contributes to successful memory formation, but the role the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in memory encoding is more controversial. Some findings suggest that the DLPFC is recruited when one is processing relationships between items in working memory, and this processing specifically promotes subsequent memory for these relationships. However, previous studies could not rule out the possibility that DLPFC promotes memory during all elaborative encoding conditions and contributes to memory on all subsequent associative memory tests. To address this question directly, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine activity during two encoding tasks which prompted participants to encode either relational or item-specific information. On relational trials, participants imagined pairs of items interacting, whereas on item-specific trials, participants imagined the items spatially separated and in different sizes. After scanning we examined memory for relational information and item-specific information. FMRI results showed that DLPFC activity specifically promoted memory for relational information during relational encoding and not memory for item-specific information during item-specific encoding. In contrast, activity in the VLPFC predicted memory for both relational and item-specific information. The present results are consistent with the idea that the DLPFC specifically contributes to successful memory formation through its role in building relationships amongst items.

The Trail Making Test (TMT; R. M. Reitan, 1958Reitan, , 1992 is extensively used in research in neuropsychology and in aging, in part because it has been postulated to reflect executive processes, such as planning and switching. However, neurocognitive and individual-differencebased analyses of this test are complicated because of different spatial arrangements of targets, the use of letters only in Version B, and potential order effects when Version A is administered prior to Version B. The present article examines a variant of a TMT (called the Connections Test) that attempts to remedy these deficiencies. A structural equation model suggested that there were no direct effects of age on either the nonalternating or alternating versions of the Connections Test (analogous to TMT Versions A and B, respectively); rather, all age-related effects were mediated through effects on perceptual speed. Moreover, although the nonalternating and alternating versions were strongly related to one another, only the latter had significant independent relations with measures of higher order cognition.