CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Likelihood ratio decisions in memory: Three implied regularities

Glanzer, Murray, Hilford, Andrew, Maloney, Laurence T.·2009·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/pbr.16.3.431
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/pbr.16.3.431

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Arndt, J., & Reder, L. M. (2002). Word frequency and receiver operating characteristic curves in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual-process interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 830–842. · DOI
  2. Balakrishnan, J. D., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Testing models of decision making using confidence ratings in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 615–633. · DOI
  3. Balota, D. A., Burgess, G. C., Cortese, M. J., & Adams, D. R. (2002). The word-frequency mirror effect in young, old, and early-stage Alzheimer’s disease: Evidence for two processes in episodic recognition performance. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 199–226. · DOI
  4. Criss, A. H., & McClelland, J. L. (2006). Differentiating the differentiation models: A comparison of the retrieving effectively from memory model (REM) and the subjective likelihood model (SLiM). Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 447–460. · DOI
  5. DeCarlo, L. T. (2007). The mirror effect and mixture signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 18–33. · DOI
  6. Duda, R. O., Hart, P. E., & Stork, D. G. (2001). Pattern classification (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
  7. Elam, L. E. (1991). Variance of memory-strength distributions and the list-length effect. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
  8. Gehring, R. E., Toglia, M. P., & Kimble, G. A. (1976). Recognition memory for words and pictures at short and long retention intervals. Memory & Cognition, 4, 256–260. · DOI
  9. Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D. J. (1987). Detection and discrimination: From thresholds to statistical inference. In G. Gigerenzer & D. J. Murray (Eds.), Cognition as intuitive statistics (pp. 29–204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  10. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 13, 8–20. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 5–16. · DOI
  12. Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G. J., & Kim, K. (1993). The regularities of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 100, 546–567. · DOI
  13. Glanzer, M., Kim, K., Hilford, A., & Adams, J. K. (1999). Slope of the receiver-operating characteristic in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 25, 500–513. · DOI
  14. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1974). Signal detection theory and psychophysics (Reprint with corrections). Huntington, NY: Krieger. (Original work published 1966)
  15. Gregg, V. (1976). Word frequency, recognition and recall. In J. Brown (Ed.), Recall and recognition (pp. 183–216). New York: Wiley.
  16. Gronlund, S. D., & Elam, L. E. (1994). List-length effect: Recognition accuracy and variance of underlying distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 1355–1369. · DOI
  17. Heathcote, A. (2003). Item recognition memory and the receiver operating characteristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1210–1230. · DOI
  18. Heathcote, A., Ditton, E., & Mitchell, K. (2006). Word frequency and word likeness mirror effects in episodic recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 34, 826–838. · DOI
  19. Hirshman, E., Fisher, J. Henthorn, T., Arndt, J., & Passannante, A. (2002). Midazolam amnesia and dual-process models of the word-frequency mirror effect. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 499–516. · DOI
  20. Johnson, N. L., & Kotz, S. (1970a). Continuous univariate distributions (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.
  21. Johnson, N. L., & Kotz, S. (1970b). Continuous univariate distributions (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.
  22. Joordens, S., & Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1534–1555. · DOI
  23. McClelland, J. L., & Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 105, 724–760. · DOI
  24. Mickes, L., Wixted, J. T., & Wais, P. E. (2007). A direct test of the unequal-variance signal detection model of recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 858–865. · DOI
  25. Morrell, H. E. R., Gaitan, S., & Wixted, J. T. (2002). On the nature of the decision axis in signal-detection-based models of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 1095–1110. · DOI
  26. Mueller, S. T., & Weidemann, C. T. (2008). Decision noise: An explanation for observed violations of signal detection theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 465–494. · DOI
  27. Murdock, B. B. (1998). The mirror effect and attention-likelihood theory: A reflective analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 524–534. · DOI
  28. Ratcliff, R., McKoon, G., & Tindall, M. (1994). Empirical generality of data from recognition memory receiver-operating characteristic functions and implications for the global memory models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 763–785. · DOI
  29. Ratcliff, R., Sheu, C.-F., & Gronlund, S. D. (1992). Testing global memory models using ROC curves. Psychological Review, 99, 518–535. · DOI
  30. Royall, R. M. (1999). Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
  31. Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145–166. · DOI
  32. Singer, M., & Wixted, J. T. (2006). Effect of delay on recognition decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift. Memory & Cognition, 34, 125–137. · DOI
  33. Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998a). Decision rules for recognition memory confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1397–1410. · DOI
  34. Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998b). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1379–1396. · DOI
  35. Wickens, T. D. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Wixted, J. T., & Gaitan, S. C. (2002). Cognitive theories as reinforcement history surrogates: The case of likelihood ratio models of human recognition memory. Animal Learning & Behavior, 30, 289–305. · DOI
  37. Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-operating characteristics in recognition memory: Evidence for a dual-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 1341–1354. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 39

Metadata

Authors
Glanzer, M., Hilford, A., & Maloney, L. T.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-06
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
431-455
ISSN
  • 1069-9384
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/pbr.16.3.431
Cited by
39
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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: Likelihood ratio decisions in memory: Three implied regularities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3758/pbr.16.3.431
The paper
Glanzer, M., Hilford, A., & Maloney, L. T. (2009). Likelihood ratio decisions in memory: Three implied regularities. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/pbr.16.3.431