Strength-based mirror effects in item and associative recognition: Evidence for within-list criterion changes

Abstract

Glanzer and Adams (1985, 1990) showed that the mirror effect is a prevalent feature of recognition memory performance. This effect describes the relationship between hit and false alarm rates across two conditions that differ in terms of their level of discrimination or overall accuracy. More specifically, the hit rate is higher and the false alarm rate is lower in the more accurate condition than in the less accurate condition. In other words, the false alarm rates mirror the order of the hit rates. Two general types of manipulations give rise to the mirror effect. One involves comparing discrimination for different classes or types of stimuli that differ in memorability, and the other involves differentially strengthening one set of study items, relative to another set. Stimulus-Based Versus Strength-Based Mirror EffectsA variety of stimulus manipulations give rise to the mirror effect (Glanzer & Adams, 1985). The prototypical example is word frequency: Low-frequency words are usually associated with a higher hit rate and a lower false alarm rate than are high-frequency words in typical tests of yes-no and forced choice recognition (e.g., Glanzer & Adams, 1990; but see Criss & Shiffrin, 2004a, regarding the role of encoding on the generality of the word frequency mirror effect). Another way to produce a mirror pattern involves between-list manipulations of stimulus strength. The hit rate is higher and the false alarm rate is lower for studied items that were presented more often or more slowly than for items that were presented less often or at a faster rate at study (e.g., Cary & Reder, 2003;Murnane & Shiffrin, 1991;Stretch & Wixted, 1998).Glanzer and Adams's (1985) meta-analysis demonstrating the regularity of stimulus-based mirror effects motivated the development of a number of new theoretical accounts of recognition memory (e.g., Dennis & Humphreys, 2001;Glanzer & Adams, 1990;Joordens & Hockley, 2000;Malmberg, Holden, & Shiffrin, 2004;McClelland & Chappell, 1998;Reder et al., 2000;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997). The challenge provided by stimulusbased mirror effects, in signal detection theory (SDT) terms, was to explain why the order of the underlying distributions on the strength-of-evidence axis changes when the different classes of stimuli are old, as compared with when they are new-that is, why the weakest items, when new, become the strongest items, when old. Murdock (2003) has termed this a "leapfrog" effect because the weakest items (low-frequency new items) jump over stronger items (high-frequency new words) to be better remembered at test after a study presentation. Stretch and Wixted (1998) Strength-based mirror effects occur when the hit rate is higher and the false alarm rate is lower following strongly encoded study lists than when following more weakly encoded study lists. In Experiments 1A and 1B, strength-based mirror effects were observed in separate tests of single item and associative recognition for random word pairs. In Experiment 2, strength-based mirror effects were again seen when i...

The picture superiority effect in associative recognition

“…Hockley and Niewiadomski (2007) manipulated the strength of verbal associations by varying presentation time at study between lists and observed a strength-based mirror effect for associative recognition. Many researchers have attributed between-list strength-based mirror effects to changes in response bias (e.g., Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2007;Stretch & Wixted, 1998).…”

“…Hockley and Niewiadomski (2007) manipulated the strength of verbal associations by varying presentation time at study between lists and observed a strength-based mirror effect for associative recognition. Many researchers have attributed between-list strength-based mirror effects to changes in response bias (e.g., Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2007;Stretch & Wixted, 1998). Hintzman, Caulton, and Curran (1994) argued that the presence or absence of a mirror effect depends not only on how a manipulation affects discrimination, but also on how the manipulation affects response bias.…”

Strength-based criterion shifts in recognition memory

“…Morrell et al (2002), in contrast, did not detect criterion shifts in the differential strengthening of words versus pictures. Also suggestive is Hockley and Niewiadomski's (2007) report that different criteria were applied to strong and weak single-word versus word-pair test probes. The test lists were mixed with regard to stimulus type (i.e., single or pair), although, in most of the experiments, not with regard to strength.…”

Global subjective memorability and the strength-based mirror effect in recognition memory

“…However, recently, other researchers have reported evidence suggesting that criterion shifts can occur within lists under some circumstances (e.g., Dobbins & Kroll, 2005;Han & Dobbins, 2008;Hockley & Niewiadomski, 2007;Rhodes & Jacoby, 2007;Singer & Wixted, 2006;Verde & Rotello, 2007). For example, Rhodes and Jacoby (2007) presented items at test in one of two locations on a screen, with the majority on one side of the screen being old items, and the majority on the other side being new.…”