Where is the criterion noise in recognition? (Almost) everyplace you look: comment on Kellen, Klauer, and Singmann (2012).

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

Recent articles, including Benjamin, Diaz, and Wee (2009), have argued that recognition memory may be better understood if consideration is given to sources of noise in the decisions, as well as to those in the representations, underlying recognition judgments. They based that conclusion on a wide consideration of persisting mysteries in recognition research as well as a new experimental paradigm involving ensemble recognition. Kellen, Klauer, and Singmann (2012) reanalyzed Benjamin et al.'s data and introduced their own new experimental paradigm to this debate. They concluded that criteria do not vary much from trial to trial in recognition testing and, thus, that decision noise in recognition is small or nonexistent. However, their alternative interpretation of Benjamin et al.'s data relies on a questionable conclusion to reject all models in which the locations of criteria are restricted to be the same across ensembles and a meta-assumption that a model should be rejected as false if it yields unconventional parameters. In addition, their experimental logic relies on the assumption that ranking tasks are always bias-free. Here, I question these assumptions and suggest avenues for reconciliation between these contrasting claims. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)720-726
Number of pages7
JournalPsychological review
Volume120
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2013

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Where is the criterion noise in recognition? (Almost) everyplace you look: comment on Kellen, Klauer, and Singmann (2012).'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this