Display options
Share it on

Mem Cognit. 2008 Jun;36(4):703-15. doi: 10.3758/mc.36.4.703.

Examining recognition criterion rigidity during testing using a biased-feedback technique: evidence for adaptive criterion learning.

Memory & cognition

Sanghoon Han, Ian G Dobbins

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0086, USA. [email protected]

PMID: 18604954 PMCID: PMC2736853 DOI: 10.3758/mc.36.4.703

Abstract

Recognition models often assume that subjects use specific evidence values (decision criteria) to adaptively parse continuous memory evidence into response categories (e.g., "old," "new"). Although explicit pretest instructions influence criterion placement, these criteria appear extremely resistant to change once testing begins. We tested criterion sensitivity to local feedback using a novel biased-feedback technique designed to tacitly encourage certain errors by indicating they are the correct choices. Experiment 1 demonstrated that fully correct feedback had little effect on criterion placement, whereas biased feedback during Experiments 2 and 3 yielded prominent, durable, and adaptive criterion shifts, with observers reporting that they were unaware of the manipulation in Experiment 3. These data suggest that recognition criteria can be easily modified during testing through a form of feedback learning that operates independently of stimulus characteristics and observers' awareness of the nature of the manipulation. This mechanism may be fundamentally different from criterion shifts following explicit instructions and warnings, or shifts linked to manipulations of stimulus characteristics combined with feedback highlighting those manipulations.

References

  1. Mem Cognit. 2001 Jun;29(4):598-615 - PubMed
  2. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):865-73 - PubMed
  3. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Jan;71(1):91-113 - PubMed
  4. J Acoust Soc Am. 1966 Jun;39(6):1051-5 - PubMed
  5. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990 Jan;16(1):5-16 - PubMed
  6. Conscious Cogn. 1996 Dec;5(4):418-41 - PubMed
  7. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Nov;31(6):1186-98 - PubMed
  8. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):305-20 - PubMed
  9. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Nov;28(6):1095-110 - PubMed
  10. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Jul;18(7):1075-86 - PubMed
  11. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Dec;10(4):843-76 - PubMed
  12. Psychol Rev. 1992 Jul;99(3):518-35 - PubMed
  13. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243-66 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):3-28 - PubMed
  15. Mem Cognit. 2003 Mar;31(2):181-98 - PubMed
  16. Nature. 2001 Nov 29;414(6863):546-50 - PubMed
  17. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Jan;31(1):3-8 - PubMed
  18. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 May 15;15(4):508-22 - PubMed
  19. Mem Cognit. 2003 Mar;31(2):297-305 - PubMed
  20. Psychol Sci. 2000 Jul;11(4):267-73 - PubMed
  21. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Sep;117(3):227-47 - PubMed
  22. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Nov;24(6):1379-96 - PubMed
  23. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Jan;33(1):2-17 - PubMed
  24. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Sep;21(5):1075-95 - PubMed
  25. Neuropsychologia. 1997 Oct;35(10):1395-404 - PubMed
  26. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 May;26(3):582-600 - PubMed
  27. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Sep;10(3):556-69 - PubMed
  28. Learn Mem. 1994 Jul-Aug;1(2):106-20 - PubMed
  29. Mem Cognit. 2007 Mar;35(2):254-62 - PubMed
  30. Psychol Rev. 2000 Apr;107(2):368-76 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support