“…Experimentally manipulating strength of encoding (e.g., by increasing study time; Ratcliff, Clark, & Shiffrin, 1990; Stretch & Wixted, 1998) not only increases hit rates, but also decreases the likelihood of false alarms to lures (i.e., a strength-based mirror effect; Glanzer & Adams, 1985). Whereas some accounts for this effect attribute it to response biases (Starns, White, & Ratcliff, 2012; Stretch & Wixted, 1998), it has been successfully modeled by assuming that the match signal aggregates evidence across the full set of targets, leading to a poorer match for lures when they are compared to more strongly encoded targets (Criss, 2010; Criss & McClelland, 2006; Kiliç, Criss, Malmberg, & Shiffrin, 2017; Shiffrin, Ratcliff, & Clark, 1990; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997). Our results provide converging evidence that the structure of encoded material can have profound effects that are specific to processes involved in probing memory (i.e., retrieval, rather than encoding, processes).…”