The two recollections.

Abstract

Recollection is currently modeled as a univariate retrieval process in which memory probes provoke conscious awareness of contextual details of earlier target presentations. However, that conception cannot explain why some manipulations that increase recollection in recognition experiments suppress false memory in false memory experiments, whereas others increase false memory. Such contrasting effects can be explained if recollection is bivariate-if memory probes can provoke conscious awareness of target items per se, separately from awareness of contextual details, with false memory being suppressed by the former but increased by the latter. Interestingly, these 2 conceptions of recollection have coexisted for some time in different segments of the memory literature. Independent support for the dual-recollection hypothesis is provided by some surprising effects that it predicts, such as release from recollection rejection, false persistence, negative relations between false alarm rates and target remember/know judgments, and recollection without remembering. We implemented the hypothesis in 3 bivariate recollection models, which differ in the degree to which recollection is treated as a discrete or a graded process: a pure multinomial model, a pure signal detection model, and a mixed multinomial/signal detection model. The models were applied to a large corpus of conjoint recognition data, with fits being satisfactory when both recollection processes were present and unsatisfactory when either was deleted. Factor analyses of the models' parameter spaces showed that target and context recollection never loaded on a common factor, and the 3 models converged on the same process loci for the effects of important experimental manipulations. Thus, a variety of results were consistent with bivariate recollection. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).

Investigating the relationship between implicit and explicit memory: Evidence that masked repetition priming speeds the onset of recollection

“…One possibility is that priming results in test items crossing the threshold for retrieval more quickly (e.g., due to priming providing items with an elevated baseline). Currently, the precise nature of recollection itself While most models consider recollection to be a univariate retrieval process responsible for retrieval of contextual details of prior episodes, it has recently been suggested that recollection is bivariate (Brainerd, Gomes & Moran, 2014). In essence, these authors distinguish between target and context forms of recollection, providing a potential explanation for the timing changes reported here: while occurring concurrently under standard recognition testing, subcomponents of recollection could be differentially engaged following priming, resulting in the observed change in onset time across conditions.…”

“…Equally, it remains unclear whether recollection is best fractionated in terms of distinctions between item versus context information (cf. Brainerd et al, 2014), proximal versus distal cueing (cf. Moscovitch, 2008), or quantity versus quality of retrieval (cf.…”

Episodic memory does not add up: Verbatim–gist superposition predicts violations of the additive law of probability

“…and NS? FTT assumes that the traces that are retrieved are determined by the test cue, rather than by the probe that is administered in connection with the cue (Brainerd, Gomes, & Moran, 2014). If sofa produces verbatim retrieval, regardless of whether it also produces gist retrieval, it is unambiguously identified as being a target, yielding responses to O?…”

“…Instead, subadditivity has predominated. Brainerd et al (2010), Brainerd, Gomes, et al (2014) found that the conjoint recognition model and a related model (dual recollection) were able to fit such data for item false memory, and Brainerd et al (2012) found that the conjoint recognition model was able to fit such data for source false memory. More recently, Kellen, Singmann, and Klauer (2014) found that the two-high-threshold source memory (2HTSM) model was also able to fit such data for source false memory.…”

“…In contrast, the models that have been fit to the data of disjunction fallacy experiments do not make parameter-free predictions, and like the adjusted signal detection model and the 1HTSM model, they allow the relation between disjunctive and nondisjunctive probabilities to be additive, subadditive, or superadditive, depending on the empirical values of their parameters. With the conjoint recognition and dual recollection models, the specific relation that is observed depends on the values of their bias/guessing parameters (see Brainerd et al, 2010, 2012; Brainerd, Gomes, et al, 2014). With 2HTSM, the specific relation that is observed depends on the values of its bias/guessing parameters and its memory parameters (see Kellen et al, 2014).…”