Does source memory exist for unrecognized items?

Julian Fox, Adam F Osth
{"title":"Does source memory exist for unrecognized items?","authors":"Julian Fox,&nbsp;Adam F Osth","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In episodic memory research, there is a debate concerning whether decision-making in item recognition and source memory is better explained by models that assume all-or-none retrieval processes or continuous underlying strengths. One aspect in which these classes of models tend to differ is their predictions regarding the ability to retrieve contextual details (or <i>source</i> details) of an experienced event, given that the event itself is not recognized. All-or-none or high-threshold models predict that when items are unrecognized, source retrieval is not possible and only guess responses can be elicited. In contrast, models assuming continuous strengths predict that it is possible to retrieve the source of unrecognized items, albeit with low accuracy. Empirically, there have been numerous studies reporting either chance accuracy or above-chance accuracy for source memory in the absence of recognition. Crucially, studies presenting recognition and source judgements for the same item in immediate succession (<i>simultaneous design</i>) have revealed chance-level accuracy, while studies presenting a block of recognition judgements followed by a block of source judgements (<i>blocked design</i>) have revealed slightly above-chance accuracy. Across three sets of experiments involving multiple design manipulations, the present investigation demonstrated: (a) that source memory for unrecognized items is indeed higher in blocked designs; (b) that evidence for the effect in blocked designs is likely artifactual due to item memory changing between blocks; and (c) that the effect does exist in simultaneous designs, but is highly subtle and is more easily detected when uncertainty in the participant-level data is low or is accounted for in a hierarchical Bayesian model. It is suggested that findings of a null effect in the prior literature may be attributable to design elements that hinder source memory as a whole, and to high degrees of uncertainty in the participant-level source data when conditioned on unrecognized items. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":504300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"242-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In episodic memory research, there is a debate concerning whether decision-making in item recognition and source memory is better explained by models that assume all-or-none retrieval processes or continuous underlying strengths. One aspect in which these classes of models tend to differ is their predictions regarding the ability to retrieve contextual details (or source details) of an experienced event, given that the event itself is not recognized. All-or-none or high-threshold models predict that when items are unrecognized, source retrieval is not possible and only guess responses can be elicited. In contrast, models assuming continuous strengths predict that it is possible to retrieve the source of unrecognized items, albeit with low accuracy. Empirically, there have been numerous studies reporting either chance accuracy or above-chance accuracy for source memory in the absence of recognition. Crucially, studies presenting recognition and source judgements for the same item in immediate succession (simultaneous design) have revealed chance-level accuracy, while studies presenting a block of recognition judgements followed by a block of source judgements (blocked design) have revealed slightly above-chance accuracy. Across three sets of experiments involving multiple design manipulations, the present investigation demonstrated: (a) that source memory for unrecognized items is indeed higher in blocked designs; (b) that evidence for the effect in blocked designs is likely artifactual due to item memory changing between blocks; and (c) that the effect does exist in simultaneous designs, but is highly subtle and is more easily detected when uncertainty in the participant-level data is low or is accounted for in a hierarchical Bayesian model. It is suggested that findings of a null effect in the prior literature may be attributable to design elements that hinder source memory as a whole, and to high degrees of uncertainty in the participant-level source data when conditioned on unrecognized items. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

源记忆是否存在于未识别的项目?
在情景记忆研究中,关于项目识别和源记忆的决策是否可以用假设全或无检索过程或连续潜在优势的模型来更好地解释的问题一直存在争议。这类模型的一个不同之处在于,它们对检索经历事件的上下文细节(或源细节)的能力的预测,假设事件本身没有被识别。全或无或高阈值模型预测,当项目未被识别时,源检索是不可能的,只能引起猜测反应。相比之下,假设持续优势的模型预测,检索未识别项目的来源是可能的,尽管准确性较低。根据经验,有许多研究报告了在没有识别的情况下源记忆的偶然准确性或高于偶然准确性。至关重要的是,对同一项目连续呈现识别判断和源判断(同时设计)的研究显示了机会水平的准确性,而呈现识别判断块之后是源判断块(阻塞设计)的研究显示了略高于机会水平的准确性。在涉及多种设计操作的三组实验中,本研究表明:(a)阻塞设计中对未识别项目的源记忆确实更高;(b)由于块之间的项目记忆变化,在块设计中效果的证据可能是人为的;(c)这种效应在同步设计中确实存在,但非常微妙,当参与者水平数据的不确定性较低或在分层贝叶斯模型中得到解释时,更容易发现。我们认为,先前文献中无效效应的发现可能归因于整体上阻碍源记忆的设计因素,以及参与者水平源数据在未识别项目条件下的高度不确定性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信