The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Recognition memory and decision processes: A meta-analysis of remember, know, and guess responses
Abstract
A meta-analysis of proportions of remember, know, and guess responses was carried out on observations from 86 experimental conditions in 23 different recognition memory experiments. Unlike remember and know responses, guess responses revealed no memory for the test items that elicited them. A signal detection analysis of these data showed that A' estimates of the strength of the memory trace depended on response criteria. A' estimates increased significantly when know responses were added to remember responses, and decreased significantly when guess responses were added to remember and know responses. It was guessing, rather than knowing, that was most strongly correlated with overall response criteria. Nor were remembering and knowing correlated significantly. These results do not support a quantitative trace strength model according to which these responses merely reflect different response criteria. They support theories that ascribe remembering and knowing to qualitatively distinct memory systems or processes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tulving, E. (1985) · Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne · doi:10.1037/h0080017 · Cited by 4,638
Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.
Mandler, G. (1980) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.87.3.252 · Cited by 2,849
Cited by
The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans?
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x07001975 · Cited by 2,031
Functional-anatomic correlates of remembering and knowing
Wheeler, M. E., & Buckner, R. L. (2004) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.001 · Cited by 434
Episodic memory in normal aging and Alzheimer disease: Insights from imaging and behavioral studies
Tromp, D., Dufour, A., Lithfous, S., Pebayle, T., & Després, O. (2015) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2015.08.006 · Cited by 390
Gardiner, J. M. (2008) · Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference · doi:10.1016/b978-012370509-9.00167-4 · Cited by 370
Self-citationA case of unusual autobiographical remembering
Parker, E. S., Cahill, L., & McGaugh, J. L. (2006) · Neurocase · doi:10.1080/13554790500473680 · Cited by 318
Metadata
- Authors
- Gardiner, J. M., Ramponi, C., & Richardson-Klavehn, A.
- Venue
- Memory
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 83-98
- ISSN
- 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0686
- OpenAlex
- W2048247129
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recognition memory and decision processes: A meta-analysis of remember, know, and guess responses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09658210143000281
- The paper
- Gardiner, J. M., Ramponi, C., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2002). Recognition memory and decision processes: A meta-analysis of remember, know, and guess responses. Memory. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210143000281
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.