Metamnemonic control over the discriminability of memory evidence: A signal detection analysis of warning effects in the associative list paradigm

Internal reinstatement hides cuing effects in source memory tasks

“…The reinstated context in BCDMEM is similar to the notion of a source schema or template in the source-monitoring framework (SMF; Johnson et al, 1993); that is, a general representation of the types of memory evidence that would be expected for a memory that originated in a particular source. Proponents of the SMF have emphasized that source schemas can determine the nature of what is activated and/or evaluated in memory traces (Lindsay & Johnson, 1989;Marsh & Hicks, 1998;Starns, Lane, Alonzo, & Roussel, 2007), and cues could improve performance by guiding the formation of more appropriate source schemas. Murnane, Phelps, and Malmberg (1999) developed the item-context-ensemble (ICE) model to explain the presence or absence of context reinstatement effects on recognition discriminability.…”

Response bias in recognition memory as a cognitive trait

“…Experiment 2 took place mid-semester, and, as noted above, overlapped with lectures on the DRM paradigm in some psychology courses, giving many participants recent preexperimental insight regarding the nature of the test lists. In experimental settings, warnings about the critical lure decrease DRM false alarm rates (see Starns, Lane, Alonzo, & Roussel, 2007, for a review). Variability in this foreknowledge across Experiment 2 participants may have driven differences in false recall of critical lures, undermining the detection of other mediators (e.g., inherent response bias).…”

Can corrective feedback improve recognition memory?

“…Although substantial false alarm rates generally persist following warnings, they are usually significantly lower than those of unwarned controls (e.g., Gallo, Roberts, & Seamon, 1997;McDermott & Roediger, 1998). Although some evidence indicates that the warning must be delivered before encoding of the study lists for a reduction in false alarms to occur (e.g., Anastasi, Rhodes, & Burns, 2000;Neuschatz, Payne, Lampinen, & Toglia, 2001), other evidence suggests that a warning delivered between study and test can have a beneficial effect as well (e.g., Lane, Roussel, Starns, Villa, & Alonzo, 2008;McCabe & Smith, 2002;Starns et al, 2007). If, as the latter finding suggests, participants benefit from insight into the test design without having such knowledge at study, the use of this information, and the consequent decrease in critical false alarms, must be achievable via processes operating at test.…”