other approaches to two process models n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
OTHER APPROACHES TO TWO-PROCESS MODELS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
OTHER APPROACHES TO TWO-PROCESS MODELS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

OTHER APPROACHES TO TWO-PROCESS MODELS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 72 Views
  • Uploaded on

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 ( R ecollect/ K now)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'OTHER APPROACHES TO TWO-PROCESS MODELS' - dudley


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
other approaches to two process models
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
slide2

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

dissociating remember and know judgments
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

slide4
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)
slide5
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)
remember know and episodic integration
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
recollection and familiarity a dual process tsd approach
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

discrimination of signal from noise

“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

slide9

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

yonelinas model
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
slide11
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]

slide12
Evidence for these two processes
    • An alleged process relying (mostly) on recollection gives quasilinear ROCrecognition of associative pairings:
slide13
Dual-process evidence (contd)
    • Recognition allegedly based (mostly) on familiary should look symmetricitem recognition by amnestics:
slide14
Dual process evidence (contd)
    • Recollection responses should be (mostly) high-confidence, and hits unaffected by criterion
slide15
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