A criterion-shift model for enhanced discriminability in perceptual identification: A note on the counter model

Abstract

The original version ofthe counter modeljorperceptual identification assumed that word frequency and prior study act solely to bias the identification process (i.e., subjects have a tendency to prefer high-frequency and studied low-frequency words, irrespective of the presented word). In a recent study, using a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm, we showed an enhanced discriminability effect for high-frequency and studied low-frequency words When subjects identify briefly flashed words, their performance is affected if they have studied the flashed word previously, even though they have no explicit recollection of the study episode. This effect of long-term priming in implicit memory has attracted attention from several theorists (Bowers, 1999;Masson & Bodner, 2000;Masson & MacLeod, 1996;Schacter, 1994). proposed an original and quantitative account of such implicit memory phenomena. Using a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm (e.g., LIED is briefly flashed and masked, followed by preRene Zeelenberg was supported by a grant from the Foundation for Behavioral and Social Sciences of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. We thank Rich Shiffrin for helpful discussions and comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Correspondence concerning this article can be addressed to E.-J. M. Wagenmakers or R. Zeelenberg, Department of Psychonomics, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: pn_wagenmakers@macmail.psy.uva.nl or pn_zeelenberg@macmail.psy.uva.nl).sentation of the response alternatives LIED and DIED), Ratcliff and McKoon claimed that subjects tended to prefer the studied alternative, regardless of whether that alternative had been flashed or not. Such a tendency would lead to benefits when the target (e.g., LIED) had been studied, but to costs when the foil (e.g., DIED) had been studied. Further, they found that the size ofthe benefits about equaled the size of the costs (e.g., Ratcliff, Allbritton, & McKoon, 1997;Rouder, Ratcliff, & McKoon, 2000). Hence, the effect of prior study was supposed to reflect a bias rather than some kind of enhancedperceptualprocessing of the flashed word.I Additional evidence for this idea came from the observation that even if performance was at chance when neither alternative was studied, effects of prior study were still present and thus appeared to be independent of information extracted from the flashed stimulus. Similarly, subjects had a preference to choose a high-frequency (HF) alternative such as MILE over a low-frequency (LF) alternative such as TILE. Therefore, effects of word frequency were likewise attributed solely to bias. Importantly, the biases for prior study and word frequency are supposedly mediated by different mechanisms, an issue debated by Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, and Raaijmakers (2000). Wewill return to this later. For ease of reference, we will term the original version of the counter model the counter model I.The counter model I is one of the few models to provide a quantitative account of repetition priming effe...

A model for evidence accumulation in the lexical decision task

“…A quite different approach is to assume that the system has no access to partial information that precedes a decision (e.g., Anderson & Lebiere, 1998;De Jong, 1991; but see Meyer, Irwin, Osman, & Kounios, 1988). This implies that when the signal-to-respond is detected when no boundary has yet been reached the system would make a random guess (e.g., Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, Schooler, & Raaijmakers, 2000).…”

Remi and Rouse: Quantitative Models for Long-Term and Short-Term Priming in Perceptual Identification

“…Recent demonstrations of both-primed benefits have raised the possibility of an additional factor of perceptual enhancement. The version of the REMI model in Schooler et al (1999) and the version of the counter model presented by Wagenmakers et al (2000) demonstrate that such benefits could be explained by what might be considered a form of bias, although not ruling out the possibility of perceptual enhancement. Whether or not future research should demonstrate that priming sometimes produces a true perceptual benefit, as opposed to various forms of biased responding and decision making, it is worth noting that present research on word priming shows the size of priming effects due to bias are much larger than those that might be due to perceptual change.…”

“…Masson & McLeod, 1996). Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, Schooler, & Raaijmakers (2000) have shown that an alternative version of the counter model can handle the both-primed benefit without altering the rate of feature extraction for studied words. We turn next to the REMI account of this same set of data, and show that there exists a version of this model in which a both primed benefit can be predicted without assuming perceptual enhancement due to priming.…”

“…REMI can account for the both-primed benefit by assuming that the number of matching features needs to reach a minimum value to avoid guessing (i.e., a criterion number of matches must be exceeded). If both alternatives have too few matches the subject guesses randomly between the two alternatives (for similar discrete models using pure guessing, see for instance Anderson & Lebiere, 1998, p. 161;De Jong, 1991;Wagenmakers et al, 2000). Additional matches due to prior study serve to reduce the proportion of trials on which the subject has to guess, improving performance.…”

Performance benefits and costs in forced choice perceptual identification in amnesia: Effects of prior exposure and word frequency

“… 1 Note, however, that Raaijmakers and colleagues have argued that such findings can be accommodated by models that assume a shift in bias with no change in sensitivity (Schooler, Shiffrin, & Raaijmakers, 2001; Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, Schooler, & Raaijmakers, 2000). …”