Verbatim editing: A general model of recollection rejection.

Abstract

Recollection rejection is traditionally defined as using verbatim traces of old items’ presentations to reject new similar test cues, in old/new recognition (e.g., rejecting that couch is old by retrieving verbatim traces of sofa’s presentation). We broaden this conceptualization to include (a) old as well as new similar test cues, (b) using verbatim traces for acceptance as well as rejection, and (c) using illusory verbatim traces of unpresented items (phantom recollection) as well as actual verbatim traces (true recollection). The expanded model describes how true recollection and phantom recollection generate memory decisions by creating matches and mismatches between comparisons of test cues to the content of retrieved verbatim traces versus comparisons of test cues to the content of test questions. This model generates a series of predictions about verbatim editing. Some are intuitive, such as the prection that performance will be more accurate for old cues than for new similar ones. Others are counterintuitive and conflict with an alternative model, such as correct rejections are easier than hits and that correct rejection rates will be more stable over time than hit rates. Meta-analyses of a corpus of conjoint recognition data sets provided support for the model’s predictions.

Adult age differences in specific and gist associative episodic memory across short- and long-term retention intervals.

“…In other words, intact test pairs are better retrieval cues for specific traces than related pairs are (cf. Brainerd et al, 2019; Brainerd & Reyna, 1990). Indeed, evidence from the changes in specific memory parameters across delays in the present study is consistent with this interpretation.…”

“…Because related pairs are less effective cues for retrieving specific memory traces, it is likely that further self-initiated processes may be necessary for retrieving specific memory when shown related pairs. This is because for related pairs, verbatim/specific and gist traces can support opposing outcomes (Brainerd et al, 1999(Brainerd et al, , 2019; specific traces support a rejection response, while gist traces can support an acceptance response. Thus, disentangling these two outcomes may require more self-initiated processing during retrieval, and theories of cognitive aging suggest that older adults are less likely to engage in self-initiated processing (Craik, 1983(Craik, , 1986, which may partially explain why older adults do worse on tests of recall than recognition (Danckert & Craik, 2013;Rhodes et al, 2019) and on tests of associative than item recognition (Old & Naveh-Benjamin, 2008).…”

Adult age-related changes in the specificity of episodic memory representations: A review and theoretical framework.

“…When the retrieval cue is an exact reproduction of the originally studied item, the degree to which an individual must deeply elaborate on the contents of their memory is minimized. In this situation, older adults are depicted as retrieving the same number of specific features of the original episode as younger adults can, as old items are excellent retrieval cues for specific representations, even among older adults (Brainerd et al, 1999, 2019; Greene & Naveh-Benjamin, 2020, 2022a; Stahl & Klauer, 2008). However, when a similar lure is presented in a recognition experiment, the lure provides a good match to the gist representation of the original item but is a poor match for the original item’s specific representation (Brainerd et al, 1999, 2019).…”

“…at test are likely to play an important role in determining which types of representations are more easily accessible. For example, in conjoint recognition tasks, presenting an old item as a probe is a strong elicitor of verbatim representations, whereas presenting a similar lure as a probe is a strong elicitor of gist but not verbatim representations (Brainerd et al, 1999(Brainerd et al, , 2019(Brainerd et al, , 2022Stahl & Klauer, 2008).…”

“…In this situation, older adults are depicted as retrieving the same number of specific features of the original episode as younger adults can, as old items are excellent retrieval cues for specific representations, even among older adults (Brainerd et al, 1999, 2019; Greene & Naveh-Benjamin, 2020, 2022a; Stahl & Klauer, 2008). However, when a similar lure is presented in a recognition experiment, the lure provides a good match to the gist representation of the original item but is a poor match for the original item’s specific representation (Brainerd et al, 1999, 2019). In this situation, an individual must attempt to reintegrate the specific representation of the original item to reject the similar lure, but older adults are less likely to engage in this type of effortful reflection (Greene & Naveh-Benjamin, 2020), which appears to be an attentionally demanding process (Greene & Naveh-Benjamin, 2022c; Odegard & Lampinen, 2005).…”