title: Analysis of RT distributions in the remember-know paradigm.
abstract: Do remembering and knowing differ qualitatively (reflecting distinct underlying processes) or quantitatively (reflecting different levels of strength)? Broadly speaking, models of remember-know judgments based on these alternatives have been tested by examining the proportion of remember and know responses that are made across conditions or levels of confidence. Here, we consider reaction time (RT) data. We replicate Dewhurst and Conway's (1994) observation that old judgments followed by remember responses are faster, on average, than those followed by know decisions, but show that this effect is largely due to differing distributions of remember and know responses across confidence levels. In addition, fits of ex-Gaussian distributions of hit RTs followed by either remember or know judgments yield similar parameter values when confidence level is controlled. Thus, these RT data do not provide strong support for the idea that remembering and knowing depend on different processes.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003-7710, USA. caren@psych.umass.edu
authors.forename: Caren M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Rotello
authors.forename: Min
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zeng
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D003657:Decision Making; D007839:Functional Laterality; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D011939:Mental Recall; D011336:Probability; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D011930:Reaction Time; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012660:Semantics; D014706:Verbal Learning
references.citation: J Exp Psychol. 1965 Apr;69:382-6
references.pmid: 14286308
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Mar;128(1):32-55
references.pmid: 10100390
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Apr;12(2):195-223
references.pmid: 16082801
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):524-42
references.pmid: 15065921
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Mar;26(2):294-320
references.pmid: 10764098
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):177-83
references.pmid: 12747505
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2006 Jul;113(3):648-56
references.pmid: 16802885
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Nov;30(6):1147-66
references.pmid: 15521795
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 May;36(2):277-90
references.pmid: 15354694
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1996 Jul;24(4):523-33
references.pmid: 8757500
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Sep;130(3):361-79
references.pmid: 11561915
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1993 Nov;114(3):510-32
references.pmid: 8272468
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jul;111(3):588-616
references.pmid: 15250777
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Sep;20(5):1088-98
references.pmid: 7931096
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Aug;11(4):616-41
references.pmid: 15581116
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;114(1):152-76
references.pmid: 17227185
references.citation: Conscious Cogn. 2006 Mar;15(1):147-62
references.pmid: 16019226
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1996 Mar;22(2):365-77
references.pmid: 8901341
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1985 Nov;13(6):511-21
references.pmid: 3831708