On the Automaticity of Familiarity in Short-term Recognition: A Test of the Dual-Process Assumption with the PRP Paradigm

Overview

Journal J Cogn

Publisher Ubiquity Press

Specialty Psychology

Date 2019 Sep 14

PMID 31517194

Citations 2

Authors

Klaus Oberauer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Dual-process models of recognition often assume that one retrieval process, generating a familiarity signal, is automatic, whereas the other, recollection, is controlled. Four experiments are presented to test for automaticity of familiarity in a short-term recognition task. The experiments use the Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) paradigm to assess whether familiarity requires central processing capacity. Task 1 was an oral tone-classification task. Task 2 was a local-recognition task, in which participants decided whether a probe matched a particular item in the memory set, identified by its screen location. Intrusion probes, matching an item of the memory set in a different location, were slower and more difficult to reject than new probes. The size of this intrusion cost reflects the influence of familiarity on recognition. In all four experiments the size of the intrusion cost was additive with the stimulus-onset-asynchrony (SOA) of Task 1 and Task 2, demonstrating that extraction of familiarity requires central capacity. In addition, Experiment 2 showed additive effects of memory set size and serial position with SOA, confirming that recollection, too, requires central capacity. Experiments 3A and 3B compared a condition including new probes to one including only positive and intrusion probes; in the latter condition the familiarity signal was completely uninformative. Participants showed some ability to reduce the influence of familiarity when it was completely uninformative, but only when they were explicitly told to do so (Experiment 3B). To conclude, by one criterion familiarity is a controlled process: It demands central processing capacity. It might also be controlled by another criterion: People can intentionally reduce the influence of familiarity on recognition decision, but they fail to do so spontaneously even when it would be advantageous. All raw data are available on the Open Science Framework: osf.io/7pr72.

Citing Articles

Item-Position Binding Capacity Limits and Word Limits in Working Memory: A Reanalysis of Oberauer ().

Cowan N J Cogn. 2022; 5(1):3.

PMID: 36072105 PMC: 9400706. DOI: 10.5334/joc.193.

A major role for retrieval and/or comparison in the set-size effects of change detection.

Moreland J, Palmer J, Boynton G J Vis. 2021; 21(13):2.

PMID: 34851390 PMC: 8648049. DOI: 10.1167/jov.21.13.2.

References

Van Selst M, Ruthruff E, Johnston J . Can practice eliminate the psychological refractory period effect?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1999; 25(5):1268-83. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.25.5.1268. View

Logan G, Gordon R . Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(2):393-434. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.393. View

Oberauer K . Removing irrelevant information from working memory: a cognitive aging study with the modified Sternberg task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001; 27(4):948-57. View

Navon D, Miller J . Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cogn Psychol. 2002; 44(3):193-251. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0767. View

Tombu M, Jolicoeur P . A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003; 29(1):3-18. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.29.1.3. View

Nino R, Rickard T . Practice effects on two memory retrievals from a single cue. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003; 29(3):373-88. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.373. View

Nelson J, Reuter-Lorenz P, Sylvester C, Jonides J, Smith E . Dissociable neural mechanisms underlying response-based and familiarity-based conflict in working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003; 100(19):11171-5. PMC: 196946. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1334125100. View

Rickard T, Bajic D . Memory retrieval given two independent cues: cue selection or parallel access?. Cogn Psychol. 2004; 48(3):243-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.07.002. View

Rotello C, Macmillan N, Reeder J . Sum-difference theory of remembering and knowing: a two-dimensional signal-detection model. Psychol Rev. 2004; 111(3):588-616. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.588. View

10.

Hazeltine E, Ruthruff E, Remington R . The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cogn Psychol. 2006; 52(4):291-345. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.11.001. View

11.

Diana R, Reder L, Arndt J, Park H . Models of recognition: a review of arguments in favor of a dual-process account. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(1):1-21. PMC: 2387212. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193807. View

12.

Gothe K, Oberauer K . The integration of familiarity and recollection information in short-term recognition: modeling speed-accuracy trade-off functions. Psychol Res. 2007; 72(3):289-303. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-007-0111-9. View

13.

Evans J . Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007; 59:255-78. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629. View

14.

Oberauer K . How to say no: single- and dual-process theories of short-term recognition tested on negative probes. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008; 34(3):439-59. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.439. View

15.

Brady T, Konkle T, Alvarez G, Oliva A . Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105(38):14325-9. PMC: 2533687. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803390105. View

16.

Oztekin I, McElree B . Relationship between measures of working memory capacity and the time course of short-term memory retrieval and interference resolution. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 36(2):383-97. PMC: 2872513. DOI: 10.1037/a0018029. View

17.

Macleod C . Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull. 1991; 109(2):163-203. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163. View

18.

Wixted J, Mickes L . A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments. Psychol Rev. 2010; 117(4):1025-54. DOI: 10.1037/a0020874. View

19.

Green C, Johnston J, Ruthruff E . Attentional limits in memory retrieval-revisited. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011; 37(4):1083-98. DOI: 10.1037/a0023095. View

20.

Strobach T, Schubert T, Pashler H, Rickard T . The specificity of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval. Mem Cognit. 2013; 42(4):552-69. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0382-x. View