School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Behav Brain Funct. 2007 Aug 14;3:40. doi: 10.1186/1744-9081-3-40.
The claim that recollection and familiarity based memory processes have distinct retrieval mechanisms is based partly on the observation that masked repetition and semantic priming influence estimates of familiarity derived from know responses but have no effect on estimates of recollection derived from remember responses. Close inspection of the experiments on which this claim is based reveal the effect size to be small, potentially the result of a type-2 error, and/or inflated due to participants not having the opportunity to report guesses. This paper re-evaluates these claims by attempting a partial replication of two such Experiments.
In Experiment 1 participants made remember, know, and guess responses following primed and unprimed target words. In Experiment 2 participants made sure, unsure, and guess following primed and unprimed target words.
In Experiment 1 the repetition priming effect occurred only for guess responses and only for unstudied items. In Experiment 2 the priming effect occurred for both unsure and guess responses, but again only for unstudied items.
The data are consistent with the view that remembering and knowing do not correspond to confidence ratings; and suggest that contrary to earlier findings, recollection and familiarity do not differ in retrieval mechanisms. As such the effects of repetition priming on subjective reports of remembering should not be cited as evidence for the distinction between recollection and familiarity based memory processes.
基于观察到掩蔽重复和语义启动会影响来自“知道”反应的熟悉度估计,但不会影响来自“记得”反应的回忆度估计,从而提出了回忆和熟悉度记忆过程具有不同检索机制的说法。然而,仔细检查这些说法所依据的实验会发现,效应量很小,这可能是第二类错误的结果,或者由于参与者没有机会报告猜测,导致结果被夸大。本文通过尝试部分复制这两个实验,重新评估了这些说法。
在实验 1 中,参与者在启动和未启动的目标词后做出“记得”“知道”和“猜测”反应。在实验 2 中,参与者在启动和未启动的目标词后做出“确定”“不确定”和“猜测”反应。
在实验 1 中,重复启动效应仅出现在猜测反应中,且仅出现在未学习的项目中。在实验 2 中,启动效应出现在不确定和猜测反应中,但同样仅出现在未学习的项目中。
数据与以下观点一致:记住和知道与置信度评分不对应;并且表明,与早期的发现相反,回忆和熟悉度在检索机制上没有区别。因此,重复启动对记忆主观报告的影响不应被视为回忆和熟悉度记忆过程之间区别的证据。