Does the speed of single-item recognition errors predict performance in subsequent two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) trials that include an item with a previous error response? Starns, Dubé, and Frelinger found effects of this kind in two experiments and accounted for them in terms of continuous memory-strength signal guiding recognition decisions. However, the effects of error speed might just as well only reflect an artefact due to an error-correction strategy that uses response latency as a heuristic cue to guide 2AFC responses, elicited through confounding factors in their experimental design such as error-correction instructions and feedback. Using two conditions, a replication condition, replicating the procedure from Starns et al., and an extension condition (each n = 130), controlling for the named shortcomings, we replicated the error speed effect. In both conditions, speed of errors in a single-item recognition task was predictive of subsequent 2AFC performance, including the respective error item. To be more precise, fast errors were associated with decreased 2AFC performance. As there was no interaction with the factor condition, the results support the idea that speed of single-item recognition responses reflects the amount of memory information underlying the respective response rather than being used for a simple error-correction strategy to improve 2AFC performance.
BanksW. P. (1970). Signal detection theory and human memory. Psychological Bulletin, 74(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029531
2.
BatchelderW. H.AlexanderG. E. (2013). Discrete-state models: Comment on Pazzaglia, Dube, and Rotello (2013). Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1204–1212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033894
3.
BlackwellH. R. (1963). Neural theories of simple visual discriminations. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 53(1), 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.53.000129
BröderA.SchützJ. (2009). Recognition ROCs are curvilinear: Or are they? On premature arguments against the two-high-threshold model of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35(3), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015279
6.
BrooksS. P.GelmanA. (1998). General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7(4), 434–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1390675
7.
CaryM.RederL. M. (2003). A dual-process account of the list-length and strength-based mirror effects in recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00061-5
8.
DubéC.RotelloC. M.PazzagliaA. M. (2013). The statistical accuracy and theoretical status of discrete-state MPT models: Reply to Batchelder and Alexander (2013). Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1213–1220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034453
9.
DuyckW.DesmetT.VerbekeL. P. C.BrysbaertM. (2004). WordGen: A tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 488–499. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195595
10.
GelmanA.RubinD. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
11.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wiley & Sons.
12.
KellenD.KlauerK. C. (2011). Evaluating models of recognition memory using first- and second-choice responses. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2010.11.004
13.
KellenD.KlauerK. C. (2014). Discrete-state and continuous models of recognition memory: Testing core properties under minimal assumptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1795–1804. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000016
14.
KellenD.KlauerK. C.BröderA. (2013). Recognition memory models and binary-response ROCs: A comparison by minimum description length. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 693–719. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0407-2
15.
KellenD.SingmannH.VogtJ.KlauerK. C. (2015). Further evidence for discrete-state mediation in recognition memory. Experimental Psychology, 62(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000272
16.
KlauerK. C.KellenD. (2015). The flexibility of models of recognition memory: The case of confidence ratings. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 67, 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2015.05.002
17.
KlauerK. C.KellenD. (2018). RT-MPTs: Process models for response-time distributions based on multinomial processing trees with applications to recognition memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 82, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2017.12.003
18.
LahlO.GöritzA. S.PietrowskyR.RosenbergJ. (2009). Using the World-Wide Web to obtain large-scale word norms: 190,212 ratings on a set of 2,654 German nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 41(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.13
19.
LuceR. D. (1963). A threshold theory for simple detection experiments. Psychological Review, 70(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0039723
20.
MalejkaS.BröderA. (2016). No source memory for unrecognized items when implicit feedback is avoided. Memory & Cognition, 44(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0549-8
21.
PazzagliaA. M.DubeC.RotelloC. M. (2013). A critical comparison of discrete-state and continuous models of recognition memory: Implications for recognition and beyond. Psychological Bulletin, 139(6), 1173–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033044
22.
ProvinceJ. M.RouderJ. N. (2012). Evidence for discrete-state processing in recognition memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(36), 14357–14362. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1103880109
RatcliffR. (2014). Measuring psychometric functions with the diffusion model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(2), 870–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034954
25.
RatcliffR.StarnsJ. J. (2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116(1), 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014086
26.
RieferD. M.BatchelderW. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95(3), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.318
27.
SnodgrassJ. G.CorwinJ. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34
28.
StarnsJ. J.ChenT.StaubA. (2017). Eye movements in forced-choice recognition: Absolute judgments can preclude relative judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.09.001
29.
StarnsJ. J.DubéC.FrelingerM. E. (2018). The speed of memory errors shows the influence of misleading information: Testing the diffusion model and discrete-state models. Cognitive Psychology, 102, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.01.001
30.
StarnsJ. J.HicksJ. L.BrownN. L.MartinB. A. (2008). Source memory for unrecognized items: Predictions from multivariate signal detection theory. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.1
31.
Van ZandtT. (2000). ROC curves and confidence judgments in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.582
