Models of recognition: A review of arguments in favor of a dual-process account

227Citations
Citations of this article
225Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The majority of computationally specified models of recognition memory have been based on a single-process interpretation, claiming that familiarity is the only influence on recognition. There is increasing evidence that recognition is, in fact, based on two processes: recollection and familiarity. This article reviews the current state of the evidence for dual-process models, including the usefulness of the remember/know paradigm, and interprets the relevant results in terms of the source of activation confusion (SAC) model of memory. We argue that the evidence from each of the areas we discuss, when combined, presents a strong case that inclusion of a recollection process is necessary. Given this conclusion, we also argue that the dual-process claim that the recollection process is always available is, in fact, more parsimonious than the single-process claim that the recollection process is used only in certain paradigms. The value of a well-specified process model such as the SAC model is discussed with regard to other types of dual-process models. Copyright 2006 Psychonomic Society, Inc.

References Powered by Scopus

A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory

3101Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research

3053Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence

2215Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The medial temporal lobe and recognition memory

2065Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Event-related potentials and recognition memory

1050Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory

783Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Diana, R. A., Reder, L. M., Arndt, J., & Park, H. (2006). Models of recognition: A review of arguments in favor of a dual-process account. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. Springer New York LLC. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193807

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 105

58%

Researcher 41

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 22

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 13

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 128

78%

Neuroscience 17

10%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13

8%

Computer Science 6

4%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free