"Decision-making models of remember-know judgments: Comment on Rotello, Macmillan, and Reeder (2004)": Reply to postscript

We are in partial (but only partial) agreement with all the points in B. Murdock's (2006) postscript (see record 2006-08257-009). To take his comments in order: (1) Certainly it is important to connect remember-know experiments with other work on recognition memory, although we have argued that...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychological review 2006-07, Vol.113 (3), p.664-665
Main Authors: Macmillan, Neil A., Rotello, Caren M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Human
Knowledge Level
Memory
Recognition (Learning)
Signal Detection (Perception)
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We are in partial (but only partial) agreement with all the points in B. Murdock's (2006) postscript (see record 2006-08257-009). To take his comments in order: (1) Certainly it is important to connect remember-know experiments with other work on recognition memory, although we have argued that Murdock's approach is not uniquely successful in doing so. (2) The decision axes in STREAK are indeed rotated from the strength axes, but the model as a whole is not simply a transformed version of Murdock's process-pure proposal: Half of the decision space in STREAK is devoted to the "old" response, whereas half of the process-pure space is devoted to "remember." There is no ambiguity involved in simulating either model. (3) We look forward to seeing Murdock's analysis of rating data (which he believes to be "not hard"). It is not at all clear to us whether the remember boundary, the know boundary, or both would be varied in either an old-new or a remember-know rating task; we expect that determining the decision rule will not be easy. (4) Finally, we agree that Murdock's approach is "not exactly a new model" in that the identification of the axes is drawn from TODAM. Our meaning was that the decision rule is new, but in fact it is the same as that of Reder et al. (2000). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
ISSN:0033-295X
1939-1471
DOI:10.1037/h0087898