Display options
Cite
O'Connor AR, Guhl EN, Cox JC, et al. Some Memories are Odder than Others: Judgments of Episodic Oddity Violate Known Decision Rules. J Mem Lang. 2011;64(4):299-315doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.001.
O'Connor, A. R., Guhl, E. N., Cox, J. C., & Dobbins, I. G. (2011). Some Memories are Odder than Others: Judgments of Episodic Oddity Violate Known Decision Rules. Journal of memory and language, 64(4), 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.001
O'Connor, Akira R, et al. "Some Memories are Odder than Others: Judgments of Episodic Oddity Violate Known Decision Rules." Journal of memory and language vol. 64,4 (2011): 299-315. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.001
O'Connor AR, Guhl EN, Cox JC, Dobbins IG. Some Memories are Odder than Others: Judgments of Episodic Oddity Violate Known Decision Rules. J Mem Lang. 2011 May;64(4):299-315. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.001. PMID: 22833695; PMCID: PMC3402237.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Mem Lang. 2011 May;64(4):299-315. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.001.

Some Memories are Odder than Others: Judgments of Episodic Oddity Violate Known Decision Rules.

Journal of memory and language

Akira R O'Connor, Emily N Guhl, Justin C Cox, Ian G Dobbins

Affiliations

  1. University of St Andrews.

PMID: 22833695 PMCID: PMC3402237 DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.02.001

Abstract

Current decision models of recognition memory are based almost entirely on one paradigm, single item old/new judgments accompanied by confidence ratings. This task results in receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) that are well fit by both signal-detection and dual-process models. Here we examine an entirely new recognition task, the judgment of episodic oddity, whereby participants select the mnemonically odd members of triplets (e.g., a new item hidden among two studied items). Using the only two known signal-detection rules of oddity judgment derived from the sensory perception literature, the unequal variance signal-detection model predicted that an old item among two new items would be easier to discover than a new item among two old items. In contrast, four separate empirical studies demonstrated the reverse pattern: triplets with two old items were the easiest to resolve. This finding was anticipated by the dual-process approach as the presence of two old items affords the greatest opportunity for recollection. Furthermore, a bootstrap-fed Monte Carlo procedure using two independent datasets demonstrated that the dual-process parameters typically observed during single item recognition correctly predict the current oddity findings, whereas unequal variance signal-detection parameters do not. Episodic oddity judgments represent a case where dual- and single-process predictions qualitatively diverge and the findings demonstrate that novelty is "odder" than familiarity.

References

  1. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Jul;20(4):763-85 - PubMed
  2. Neuron. 2002 Aug 29;35(5):989-96 - PubMed
  3. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Mar;20(3):505-12 - PubMed
  4. Psychol Rev. 2004 Apr;111(2):524-42 - PubMed
  5. Neuroimage. 1999 Nov;10(5):520-9 - PubMed
  6. Psychol Rev. 1966 Jan;73(1):44-58 - PubMed
  7. Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(12):1774-83 - PubMed
  8. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Mar;117(1):34-50 - PubMed
  9. Mem Cognit. 1975 May;3(3):233-8 - PubMed
  10. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007 Nov;8(11):872-83 - PubMed
  11. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(10):1333-41 - PubMed
  12. Brain. 1999 Jul;122 ( Pt 7):1367-81 - PubMed
  13. Cogn Psychol. 2009 Dec;59(4):297-319 - PubMed
  14. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2000 Apr;10(2):224-31 - PubMed
  15. Psychol Rev. 1992 Jul;99(3):518-35 - PubMed
  16. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Nov;24(6):1397-410 - PubMed
  17. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 May;30(3):615-25 - PubMed
  18. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):1-21 - PubMed
  19. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Nov;29(6):1210-30 - PubMed
  20. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):852-7 - PubMed
  21. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Nov;20(6):1341-54 - PubMed
  22. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):431-55 - PubMed
  23. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 May;138(2):291-306 - PubMed
  24. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Mar;21(2):302-13 - PubMed
  25. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(7):1787-99 - PubMed
  26. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Aug;11(4):616-41 - PubMed
  27. Conscious Cogn. 1996 Dec;5(4):418-41 - PubMed
  28. Percept Psychophys. 1996 Jan;58(1):10-21 - PubMed
  29. Psychol Aging. 1997 Jun;12(2):352-61 - PubMed
  30. Conscious Cogn. 1996 Mar-Jun;5(1-2):131-41 - PubMed
  31. Psychol Aging. 1997 Dec;12(4):565-73 - PubMed
  32. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Jan;25(1):3-22 - PubMed
  33. Mem Cognit. 1996 Jul;24(4):523-33 - PubMed
  34. Neuropsychologia. 2008 Dec;46(14):3185-96 - PubMed
  35. Q J Exp Psychol. 1978 May;30(2):347-54 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support