Disentangling Different Aspects of Between-Item Similarity Unveils Evidence Against the Ensemble Model of Lineup Memory

Meyer-Grant, Constantin G.; Klauer, Karl Christoph

doi:10.1007/s42113-022-00135-4

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reasons for this are twofold. First, we have already explored plausible ways to model confidence judgments in a 1-out-of-m detection sub-tasks and found evidence in favor of an independent observation model framework (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2021, 2022a, cf. Wixted, Vul, Mickes, & Wilson, 2018, which has since served as the basis for our more recent modeling decisions (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b).…”

Section: A Comment On the Immediate Implications Of An Alternative Ex...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reexamining Target-Probe Invariance: A Reply to Kellen and Singmann (2022)

Meyer-Grant¹,

Klauer²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent study (Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022, Memory & Cognition, advance online publication), we reported results from a recognition memory experiment using a detection plus identification paradigm in which two items are simultaneously presented during each test trial. One of the key observations was an impairment of identification performance when new items instead of old items were defined as targets to be detected and identified. We have argued that this challenges the notion that the subjective mnemonic information underlying recognition decisions does not change depending on the status of the target being probed (i.e., on whether old or new items are considered targets), which is also known as the target-probe invariance assumption. As a side-effect of this finding, a critical test of ROC asymmetry conducted by Kellen et al. (2021, Psychological Review, 128[6], 1022--1050) is questioned inasmuch as a violation of target-probe invariance provides an alternative interpretation of effects observed with this test. In response to this, Kellen and Singmann (2022, unpublished manuscript) suggest an alternative explanation of our findings in terms of an occasional guessing process. If true, this would allow one to retain the target-probe invariance assumption and in consequence, Kellen et al.'s interpretation of their results as evidence in favor of ROC asymmetry. Kellen and Singmann also review other pieces of evidence for ROC asymmetry in the context of recognition memory. Here, we discuss limitations of these pieces of evidence, highlighting the need for additional evidence such as provided by Kellen et al.'s critical test. We also point out that merely proposing an alternative explanation is not yet sufficient to invalidate our concerns about this critical test. To enable a more conclusive resolution of this issue, we conducted further analyses of our previously published data and a new experiment. Overall, the results indicate that identification responses in our original study may indeed have been contaminated by occasional guessing, thus rehabilitating the target-probe invariance assumption as well as Kellen et al.'s critical test of ROC asymmetry.

show abstract

Section: A Comment On the Immediate Implications Of An Alternative Ex...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reexamining Target-Probe Invariance: A Reply to Kellen and Singmann (2022)

Meyer-Grant¹,

Klauer²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is a mistake to think that these structural similarities necessarily imply the possession of a considerable amount of experimental knowledge (for a relevant discussion, see Kellen, 2019). If anything, some of the more recent modeling work on lineups suggests that there is still much to be learned (e.g., Akan, Robinson, Mickes, Wixted, & Benjamin, 2021;Kellen & McAdoo, 2022;Meyer-Grant & Klauer, 2022b).…”

Section: Sketching a Counterexamplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This skepticism does not extend to other critical tests for which the virtues of the SDAI task are well established (seeMeyer-Grant & Klauer, 2021, 2022b.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

ROC Asymmetry and the Assumption of Target-Probe Invariance: A Comment on Meyer-Grant and Klauer (2022)

Kellen¹,

Singmann²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When modeling recognition-memory judgments, it is typically assumed that requesting participants to judge whether a given test item is ‘old’ is the equivalent to asking whether that very same item is ‘new’. The only difference between the two test probes being that the meaning of “yes” and “no” responses are switched. Following up on previous findings, Meyer-Grant and Klauer (2022) reported results from detection-plus-identification tasks that run counter to this assumption of test-probe invariance. Aside from a rejection of the aforementioned assumption, their results led them to question the established evidence for the asymmetry of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) functions. The present commentary proposes an alternative explanation for their results. Specifically, we arguethat differences in target-identification accuracy can arise if participants have apredisposition towards guessing the identity of the target whenever they judge it to be absent from a given pair. Moreover, we argue that Meyer-Grant and Klauer understate the strength and diversity of the existing evidence for ROC asymmetry.

show abstract