title: Using response time modeling to distinguish memory and decision processes in recognition and source tasks.
abstract: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) functions are often used to make inferences about memory processes, such as claiming that memory strength is more variable for studied versus nonstudied items. However, decision processes can produce the ROC patterns that are usually attributed to memory, so independent forms of data are needed to support strong conclusions. The present experiments tested ROC-based claims about the variability of memory evidence by modeling response time (RT) data with the diffusion model. To ensure that the model can correctly discriminate equal- and unequal-variance distributions, Experiment 1 used a numerousity discrimination task that had a direct manipulation of evidence variability. Fits of the model produced correct conclusions about evidence variability in all cases. Experiments 2 and 3 explored the effect of repeated learning trials on evidence variability in recognition and source memory tasks, respectively. Fits of the diffusion model supported the same conclusions about variability as the ROC literature. For recognition, evidence variability was higher for targets than for lures, but it did not differ on the basis of the number of learning trials for target items. For source memory, evidence variability was roughly equal for source 1 and source 2 items, and variability increased for items with additional learning attempts. These results demonstrate that RT modeling can help resolve ambiguities regarding the processes that produce different patterns in ROC data. The results strengthen the evidence that memory strength distributions have unequal variability across item types in recognition and source memory tasks.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, 441 Tobin Hall, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA, jstarns@psych.umass.edu.
authors.forename: Jeffrey J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Starns
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003657:Decision Making / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008568:Memory / Q000502:physiology*; D008960:Models, Psychological; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D021641:Recognition, Psychology / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2013 Jul;120(3):697-719
references.pmid: 23915088
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Jul;99(3):518-35
references.pmid: 1502275
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Jul;20(4):763-85
references.pmid: 8064246
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2009 Jan;116(1):59-83
references.pmid: 19159148
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Nov;29(6):1210-30
references.pmid: 14622056
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Nov;20(6):1341-54
references.pmid: 7983467
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Sep;39(5):1377-92
references.pmid: 23565789
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2014 Jan;70:36-52
references.pmid: 24459327
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Mar;6(1):57-86
references.pmid: 12199315
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Feb;64(1-2):1-34
references.pmid: 22079870
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 2004 Jun;19(2):278-89
references.pmid: 15222821
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 May;26(3):582-600
references.pmid: 10855419
references.citation: Neural Comput. 2008 Apr;20(4):873-922
references.pmid: 18085991
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1997 Jun;4(2):145-66
references.pmid: 21331823
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Nov;36(6):1536-42
references.pmid: 20854009
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1999 Apr;106(2):261-300
references.pmid: 10378014
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2013 Jan;120(1):281-92
references.pmid: 23148742
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Dec;85(6):1107-20
references.pmid: 14674817
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Mar;36(2):484-99
references.pmid: 20192544
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 Sep;40(5):1205-25
references.pmid: 24820667
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):3-28
references.pmid: 8346328
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2007 Sep;133(5):800-32
references.pmid: 17723031
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):438-81
references.pmid: 12412886
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Jun;15(3):465-94
references.pmid: 18567246
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2009 Jan;116(1):84-115
references.pmid: 19159149
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2002 Dec;131(4):494-510
references.pmid: 12500860
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May;35(3):587-606
references.pmid: 19379038
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2004 Oct;32(7):1206-20
references.pmid: 15813501
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2002 Oct;109(4):710-21
references.pmid: 12374325
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;114(1):152-76
references.pmid: 17227185
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1984 Jan;91(1):1-67
references.pmid: 6571421
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2012 Oct;67(3):389-406
references.pmid: 22988336
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Sep;38(5):1137-51
references.pmid: 22545609
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1998 Oct;105(4):724-60
references.pmid: 9830377
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2011 Mar;16(1):44-62
references.pmid: 21299302
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37
references.pmid: 19293088
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010 May;139(2):341-64
references.pmid: 20438255