Revisiting the Remember-know Task: Replications of Gardiner and Java (1990)

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2020 Sep 16

PMID 32935326

Citations 4

Authors

Julia M Haaf

Stephen Rhodes

Moshe Naveh-Benjamin

Tony Sun

Hope K Snyder

Jeffrey N Rouder

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

One of the most evidential behavioral results for two memory processes comes from Gardiner and Java (Memory & Cognition, 18, 23-30 1990). Participants provided more "remember" than "know" responses for old words but more know than remember responses for old nonwords. Moreover, there was no effect of word/nonword status for new items. The combination of a crossover interaction for old items with an invariance for new items provides strong evidence for two distinct processes while ruling out criteria or bias explanations. Here, we report a modern replication of this study. In three experiments, (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) with larger numbers of items and participants, we were unable to replicate the crossover. Instead, our data are more consistent with a single-process account. In a fourth experiment (Experiment 3), we were able to replicate Gardiner and Java's baseline results with a sure-unsure paradigm supporting a single-process explanation. It seems that Gardiner and Java's remarkable crossover result is not replicable.

Citing Articles

Predictions and rewards affect decision-making but not subjective experience.

Sanchez-Fuenzalida N, van Gaal S, Fleming S, Haaf J, Fahrenfort J Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023; 120(44):e2220749120.

PMID: 37878723 PMC: 10622870. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2220749120.

A conceptual-perceptual distinctiveness processing account of the superior recognition memory of pictures over environmental sounds.

Ahmad F, Tremblay S, Karkuszewski M, Alvi M, Hockley W Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023; 77(7):1555-1580.

PMID: 37705452 PMC: 11181738. DOI: 10.1177/17470218231202986.

Examining the relationship between processing fluency and memory for source information.

Huang T, Shanks D R Soc Open Sci. 2021; 8(4):190430.

PMID: 33996111 PMC: 8059628. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.190430.

The effect of intrinsic image memorability on recollection and familiarity.

Broers N, Busch N Mem Cognit. 2020; 49(5):998-1018.

PMID: 33230724 PMC: 8238758. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-020-01105-6.

References

Jennings J, Jacoby L . Automatic versus intentional uses of memory: aging, attention, and control. Psychol Aging. 1993; 8(2):283-93. DOI: 10.1037//0882-7974.8.2.283. View

Dunn J . The dimensionality of the remember-know task: a state-trace analysis. Psychol Rev. 2008; 115(2):426-46. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.426. View

McElree B, Dolan P, Jacoby L . Isolating the contributions of familiarity and source information to item recognition: a time course analysis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999; 25(3):563-82. PMC: 3313826. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.25.3.563. View

Osth A, Dunn J, Heathcote A, Ratcliff R . Two processes are not necessary to understand memory deficits. Behav Brain Sci. 2020; 42:e294. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X1900181X. View

Prull M, Dawes L, Martin 3rd A, Rosenberg H, Light L . Recollection and familiarity in recognition memory: adult age differences and neuropsychological test correlates. Psychol Aging. 2006; 21(1):107-18. DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.107. View

Vilberg K, Rugg M . Memory retrieval and the parietal cortex: a review of evidence from a dual-process perspective. Neuropsychologia. 2008; 46(7):1787-99. PMC: 2488316. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.01.004. View

Old S, Naveh-Benjamin M . Memory for people and their actions: further evidence for an age-related associative deficit. Psychol Aging. 2008; 23(2):467-72. DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.23.2.467. View

Gardiner J, Java R . Recollective experience in word and nonword recognition. Mem Cognit. 1990; 18(1):23-30. DOI: 10.3758/bf03202642. View

Squire L . Declarative and nondeclarative memory: multiple brain systems supporting learning and memory. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 4(3):232-43. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.232. View

10.

Dougal S, Rotello C . "Remembering" emotional words is based on response bias, not recollection. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007; 14(3):423-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194083. View

11.

Donaldson W . The role of decision processes in remembering and knowing. Mem Cognit. 1996; 24(4):523-33. DOI: 10.3758/bf03200940. View

12.

Klugkist I, Laudy O, Hoijtink H . Inequality constrained analysis of variance: a Bayesian approach. Psychol Methods. 2006; 10(4):477-93. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.477. View

13.

Gardiner J . Functional aspects of recollective experience. Mem Cognit. 1988; 16(4):309-13. DOI: 10.3758/bf03197041. View

14.

Naveh-Benjamin M, Lee Shing Y, Kilb A, Werkle-Bergner M, Lindenberger U, Li S . Adult age differences in memory for name-face associations: The effects of intentional and incidental learning. Memory. 2008; 17(2):220-32. DOI: 10.1080/09658210802222183. View

15.

Hirshman E, Master S . Modeling the conscious correlates of recognition memory: reflections on the remember-know paradigm. Mem Cognit. 1997; 25(3):345-51. DOI: 10.3758/bf03211290. View

16.

Rotello C, Macmillan N, Reeder J, Wong M . The remember response: subject to bias, graded, and not a process-pure indicator of recollection. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 12(5):865-73. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196778. View

17.

Province J, Rouder J . Evidence for discrete-state processing in recognition memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(36):14357-62. PMC: 3437893. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1103880109. View

18.

Rouder J . The what, why, and how of born-open data. Behav Res Methods. 2015; 48(3):1062-9. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0630-z. View

19.

Naveh-Benjamin M, Kilb A . How the measurement of memory processes can affect memory performance: the case of remember/know judgments. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011; 38(1):194-203. DOI: 10.1037/a0025256. View

20.

Yonelinas A . The contribution of recollection and familiarity to recognition and source-memory judgments: a formal dual-process model and an analysis of receiver operating characteristics. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999; 25(6):1415-34. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.25.6.1415. View