ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Recognition memory: The probe, the returned signal, and the decision.
Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prior text-based learning enhances the benefits of simulation-based learning on confidence and long-term recall.NPJ science of learning · 2025Article
- Mnemonic vs. Executive Contributions to the N400: A Connectionist Approach to False Memories.Computational brain & behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In an attempt to better understand recognition memory we look at how three approaches (dual processing, signal detection, and global matching) have addressed the probe, the returned signal and the decision in four recognition paradigms. These are single-item recognition (including the remember/know paradigm), recognition in relational context, associative recognition, and source monitoring. The contrast, with regards to the double-miss rate (the probability of recognizing neither item in intact and rearranged pairs) and the effect of the oldness of the other member of the test pair, between identifying the old words in test pairs (the relational context paradigm) and first identifying the intact test pairs and then identifying the old words (adding associative recognition to the relational context paradigm) suggests that the retrieval of associative information in the relational context paradigm is unintentional, unlike the retrieval of associative information in associative recognition. It also seems possible that the information that is spontaneously retrieved in single-item recognition, possibly including the remember/know paradigm, is also unintentional, unlike the retrieval of information in source monitoring. Probable differences between intentional and unintentional retrieval, together with the pattern of effects with regards to the double-miss rate and the effect of the other member of the test pair, are used to evaluate the three approaches. Our conclusion is that all three approaches have something valid to say about recognition, but none is equally applicable across all four paradigms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.