TY - JOUR
T1 - The diagnosticity of individual data for model selection
T2 - Comparing signal-detection models of recognition memory
AU - Jang, Yoonhee
AU - Wixted, John T.
AU - Huber, David E.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant RMH081084A to D.E.H. We thank David Smith and Matthew Duncan for making their data available and Daniel Navarro for his valuable comments.
PY - 2011/8
Y1 - 2011/8
N2 - We tested whether the unequal-variance signal-detection (UVSD) and dual-process signal-detection (DPSD) models of recognition memory mimic the behavior of each other when applied to individual data. Replicating previous results, there was no mimicry for an analysis that fit each individual, summed the goodness-of-fit values over individuals, and compared the two sums (i. e., a single model selection). However, when the models were compared separately for each individual (i. e., multiple model selections), mimicry was substantial. To quantify the diagnosticity of the individual data, we used mimicry to calculate the probability of making a model selection error for each individual. For nondiagnostic data (high model selection error), the results were compatible with equal-variance signal-detection theory. Although neither model was justified in this situation, a forced-choice between the UVSD and DPSD models favored the DPSD model for being less flexible. For diagnostic data (low model selection error), the UVSD model was selected more often.
AB - We tested whether the unequal-variance signal-detection (UVSD) and dual-process signal-detection (DPSD) models of recognition memory mimic the behavior of each other when applied to individual data. Replicating previous results, there was no mimicry for an analysis that fit each individual, summed the goodness-of-fit values over individuals, and compared the two sums (i. e., a single model selection). However, when the models were compared separately for each individual (i. e., multiple model selections), mimicry was substantial. To quantify the diagnosticity of the individual data, we used mimicry to calculate the probability of making a model selection error for each individual. For nondiagnostic data (high model selection error), the results were compatible with equal-variance signal-detection theory. Although neither model was justified in this situation, a forced-choice between the UVSD and DPSD models favored the DPSD model for being less flexible. For diagnostic data (low model selection error), the UVSD model was selected more often.
KW - Dual-process signal-detection model
KW - Model flexibility
KW - Model mimicry
KW - Recognition memory
KW - Unequal-variance signal-detection model
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959983730&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3758/s13423-011-0096-7
DO - 10.3758/s13423-011-0096-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 21538201
AN - SCOPUS:79959983730
SN - 1069-9384
VL - 18
SP - 751
EP - 757
JO - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
JF - Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
IS - 4
ER -