What information underlies correct rejections in short-term recognition memory?

Abstract

We propose that correct rejections are based on information that contradicts the study set, rather than on insufficient familiarity. Using two-dimensional stimuli, we varied the featural overlap between lures and the study set so that one feature of the lure had occurred during study and the second feature of the lure had not occurred. Familiarity varied with the number of times the studied feature had occurred, whereas detectability of the extralist feature varied with the number of studied alternatives on the same dimension. Lures increased in difficulty with familiarity only when familiarity of the studied feature was confounded with the number of alternatives to the extralist feature. Hence, the difficulty in rejecting the lure was controlled by the number of alternatives to the extralist feature, not by the familiarity of the lure. Current theory requires additional representation assumptions and a new comparison process to accommodate these data.

Investigating Factors That Influence Item Performance on ACS Exams

“…Thus, while the data for these exams arise from test administrations "in the wild" rather than in controlled laboratory settings, the possibility of priming effects for student performances exists, akin to those seen in memory research. 30 Another trend exemplified in these data involves the pattern of the difficulty index for previous items. For students taking the blue exam, item difficulty index on the previous three items is, on average, lower than for the three preceding items on the gray exam.…”

The effect of feature frequency on short-term recognition memory

“…The traditional view has been challenged by a series of experiments using stimuli that permit one to measure and manipulate the featural overlap among stimulus items (Johns & Mewhort, 2002b;Mewhort & Johns, 2000). In a critical experiment (Mewhort & Johns, 2000, Experiment 3), each study list comprised four items defined by their values on two dimensions: Aa, Ab, Bc, Cc, where A, B, and C represent the values on the first dimension and a, b, and c represent the values on the second.…”

“…That is, subjects base negative decisions on contradiction rather than on lack of familiarity: If an aspect of the probe that contradicts the study set can be identified, the subject will respond "no." Subsequent work indicated that an extralist feature is easier to identify the fewer the studied values occurring on that dimension (Johns & Mewhort, 2002b).…”

“…Probes that include extralist features would yield low values on the measure and would, therefore, be rejected easily. One can accommodate the effect of the number of studied values on the dimension of the extralist feature with a similar argument involving features and subfeatures (see Johns & Mewhort, 2002b). The proposed modification to theory is minor in that it modifies only the nature of the familiarity metric, a metric that already varies from model to model.…”

“…We have urged a more fundamental change to the standard approach (Johns & Mewhort, 2002b;Mewhort & Johns, 2000). We believe that subjects assess both familiarity and evidence for contradiction.…”