1. Quentin Frederik Gronau, Axel Rosenbruch, Paul Bacher, Henrik Singmann, David Kellen Poster presented at the TeaP, Gießen (2014) Validating a Two-High Threshold Measurement Model for Recognition Memory and Ternary Response Scales Conclusion Results 1 (summed across participants) Results 1 (summed across participants) Method References Theoretical Background Popular recognition memory models such as the Two-High Threshold Model (2HTM; Snodgrass & Corwin, 1988) or models based on Signal Detection Theory are not fully identified for the simplest recognition memory task with two response options (i.e. “old” and “new”) unless questionable parameter restrictions are introduced (see Kellen, Klauer, & Bröder, 2013, Table 4) Goal: Validate a fully identified 2HTM (Figure 1) for a recognition memory task in which we added an “unsure” response option (already used by Singmann, Kellen, & Klauer, 2013) We conducted a selective influence study to demonstrate that experimentally manipulating memory strength solely affect memory parameters ( i.e. D o and D n ) and experimentally manipulating response tendencies solely affect guessing parameters (i.e. g 1 and g 2 ) Hypotheses We expected that a memory strength manipulation (i.e. presenting some items once and others thrice during the study phase) would solely affect the memory parameters of the model (i.e. D o and D n ) Furthermore, we expected that a payoff manipulation (i.e. receiving different amounts of points in different test blocks) would solely affect the guessing parameters (i.e. g 1 and g 2 ) Participants: 56 undergraduate psychology students (mean age = 21.9 years; SD = 5.1) from the University of Freiburg Experimental Procedure: 4 blocks, each consisting of a study and a test phase 2 (study-strength, within-subjects) × 2 (payoff, within-subjects) × 2 (payoff schemes, between-subjects): Study Strength: 40 words presented once and 40 words presented thrice (i.e. a total of 160 words, 80 of them being different) in each study phase Payoff schemes: two blocks with standard payoff and two blocks with group-specific extreme payoff (pair wise randomized) Standard payoff: correct answer: +2 points, “unsure”: 0 points, wrong answer: -2 points Group A - Extreme payoff: correct answer: +2 points, “unsure”: -6 points, wrong answer: -6 points Group B - Extreme payoff: correct answer: +2 points, “unsure”: 0 points, wrong answer: -6 points We successfully validated the 2HTM for a recognition memory task with three response options, "old", "unsure", and "new": Experimental manipulations, that were expected to selectively influence memory or guessing processes, indeed affected solely the corresponding parameters of the model (i.e. memory and guessing parameters, respectively). A model based on SDT yielded similar results. Kellen, D., Klauer, K. C., & Bröder, A. (2013). Recognition Memory Models and Binary-Response ROCs: A Comparison by Minimum Description Length. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 693-719. Singmann, H., Kellen, D., & Klauer, K. C. (2013). Investigating the Other-Race Effect of Germans towards Turks and Arabs using Multinomial Processing Tree Models. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1330-1336). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to Dementia and Amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117(1), 34-50. Note. (once) and (thrice) refer to the two study strength conditions; (extreme) and (standard) refer to the different payoff conditions. Results 2 As predicted, payoff manipulation solely affected guessing parameters (i.e. g 1 and g 2 ) As predicted, study strength solely affected memory parameters (i.e. D o and D n ) Figure 1: A graphical depiction of the 2HTM for a recognition memory task with three response options: "old", "unsure", and "new". Tabel 1: Mean parameter values of the best fitting model (i.e. Model 2) Model 2 (7 parameters, 5 df) : memory parameters (D o, D n ) restricted to be equal between payoff conditions: D os1 = D oe1, D oe3 = D os3 D ns = D ne g 1s, g 1e, g 2s, g 2e Model 1 (10 parameters, 2 df) : unrestricted model D os1, D os3, D oe1, D oe3 D ns, D ne g 1s, g 1e, g 2s, g 2e Model 3b (5 p, 7 df) : In addition to Model 2: guessing parameters (g 1, g 2 ) restricted to be equal between payoff conditions D os1 = D oe1, D oe3 = D os3 D ns = D ne g 1s = g 1e, g 2s = g 2e Model 3a (6 p, 6 df) : In addition to Model 2: D o and D n restricted to be equal between the study strength conditions D os1 = D oe1 = D oe3 = D os3 D ns = D ne g 1s, g 1e, g 2s, g 2e Group A: G²(56) = 78.99, p =.02 Critical value in a compromise power χ²-test (α = β): 120.24 14% of individuals rejected → not significant Group B: G²(56) = 90.39, p =.002 Critical value in a compromise power χ²-test (α = β): 120.24 11% of individuals rejected → not significant Group A: G²(84) = 92.29, p =.25; Critical value in a compromise power χ²-test (α = β) : 179.2 0% of individuals rejected → not significant Group B: G²(84) = 104.43,p =.06 ; Critical value in a compromise power χ²-test (α = β) : 179.2 11% of individuals rejected → not significant Group A: G²(28) = 507.31, p <.001 89% of individuals rejected → significant Group B: G²(28) = 338.70, p <.001 93% of individuals rejected → significant Group A: G²(56) = 3069.83, p <.001 93% of individuals rejected → significant Group B: G²(56) = 456.16, p <.001 57 % of individuals rejected → significant Group AGroup B D n D o (once) D o (thrice) g 1 (extreme) g 1 (standard) g 2 (extreme) g 2 (standard).26.29.59.30.25.92.48.18.26.52.21.24.28.39