OTHER APPROACHES TO TWO-PROCESS MODELS

1. OTHER APPROACHES TO TWO-PROCESS MODELS • Remembering, Knowing, and Autonoetic Consciousness • Tulving (1983): Episodic memory based on a self-aware consciousness (autonoetic, self-knowing) • (85) Suggests “first person” judgments can reflect this (Recollect/Know) • For episodic events versus semantic facts • For events within episodes • Gardiner (e.g., & Java 1990) and others: functional dissociations for R/K judgments • Demonstrating R/K procedures

2. HORIZON TRICYCLE IDEOLOGY KEROSENE SPATULA SHERRIF BACHELOR PENDULUM ELLIPSE LITHIUM TOBOGGAN APPROVAL GRANARY MYSTERY PIGMENT ANATOMY RUFFIAN LAGGARD PLANKTON BEHAVIOR QUARTET ORATION MONOGRAM ALMANAC CABARET SILICON BOROUGH COCONUT MIGRAINE RAINBOW BROCCOLI ROTUNDA NOCTURNE CLARINET THEOREM AGNOSTIC GAZETTE FLANNEL BANDANNA UNIVERSE

3. Dissociating Remember and Know Judgments • The phenomenology of R/K • “just knowing” and feelings of familiarity • “recollecting” as retrieving episodic context, visual or verbal • Remembering and the sense of “ecphory” • The issue of exclusion vs. independence • Some functional dissociations Level of Processing TOT = Rem + Know Semantic .90 .72 .18 Graphemic .35 .15 .20 Study/Test Modality Match .63 .11 .52 Mismatch .37 .10 .27 Type of materials words .44 .28 .16 nonwords .49 .19 .30 Amount of practice three trials .69 .37 .32 one trial .35 .14 .21

4. R/K and type of processing • Increasing “distinctiveness” (perceptual or conceptual) aids recollection • Increasing “fluency” (ease of processing) aids knowing/familiarity • The same variable (e.g., “size congruence”) could affect R if distinctiveness is high (“reliability” face judgments), or K if low (“gender” decision, Gardiner, et al. ‘01) • R/K and confidence • Donaldson ’96: Remember as stricter criterion in a single-process framework • Meta-analysis of d’ with R+K = R as hits suggests single process • Gardiner re-analysis suggests R+K > R • R/K and confidence are correlated (Yonelinas, p. 43) but can be dissociated (e.g., Gardiner, p. 20)

5. R/K and the Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP!) • Intuitively, R/K resembles recollection/familiarity • Gardiner: R/K = conscious / unconscious, based on effects of deadline procedure on LOP: all Remember (p. 22) • His main point: both R + K can increase with conscious control • Some discrepancies may be due to exclusion versus independence assumptions in models • Yonelinas sees more congruence between R/K and PDP (see p. 46)

6. Remember/Know and episodic integration • Meisser & Klauer (2003) • Multinomial (branching probability tree) model for “crossed” sources • See Lamponin tutorial • Ss get words in large/small font, above/below midline • Tested for Old/New recognition, and “source” judgment • Exp 1: parameters behave well, suggest partial dependence of sources • Exp 2: R judgments show strong dependence, K judgments show remarkable independence, of knowing location and font

7. RECOLLECTION and FAMILIARITY: A dual-process TSD approach • The Theory of Signal Detectibility (TSD, Green & Swets, 1966) Response: “YES” “NO” Stimulus Presenthitsmisses Stimulus Absentfalsecorrect alarmsrejections http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscagree.htm

8. “no” “yes” Target absent (noise) Target present (signal+noise) HITS FAs low signal strength high signal strength Response Criterion .01 Prob (Hit) .99 .01 prob(False Alarm) .99 The Reciever Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve Discrimination of signal from noise See the interactive demo from Univ Wisconsin

9. P(“old”): VH H M L VL Old .10 .20 .15 .15 .10 New .00 .05 .05 .05 .10 • Using confidence to plot ROC Curves • Obtain confidence ratings for each decision • Treat each confidence level as a distinct criterion: P(“old”): VH H M L VL P(H) .10 .30 .45 .60 .70 P(FA) .00 .05 .10 .15 .25

10. Yonelinas’ model • Problem with single-process models • ROC can be asymmetric(z-ROC slope will be < 1) • Can be “handled” by large variance in OLD familiarity (try it!) • But accuracy (d’) and asymmetry can dissociate • So we need two parameters. What should they be? • Recollection as all-or-none • familiarity as continuous, TSD-modeled component • Recollection as all-or-none, classic “high threshold” model, which should give linear ROC function

11. Why is it linear? • “rectangular” distribution of familiarity? • It works, but confuses me • Main ideas: • Some proportion of items will exceed threshold and be recollected • This gives the left-most point on ROC curve (p(FA) = 0) • Forcing a laxer criterion means guessing • This gives proportional increases in hits (subthreshold old items) and false alarms (new items) p(Hcorr) = [p(H) – 1/n] / [1 – 1/n]

12. Evidence for these two processes • An alleged process relying (mostly) on recollection gives quasilinear ROCrecognition of associative pairings:

13. Dual-process evidence (contd) • Recognition allegedly based (mostly) on familiary should look symmetricitem recognition by amnestics:

14. Dual process evidence (contd) • Recollection responses should be (mostly) high-confidence, and hits unaffected by criterion

15. Dual process evidence (concl) • Some evidence for different neural generators • ERP components associated with “know” earlier and different topography • fMRI suggests more hippocampal and temporal activity for “recollection” • Estimated contributions of R and F converge with R/K and Processes dissociation estimates (p. 46) • Fits with subjective sense of two modes