Abstract In the cued criterion recognition paradigm (Stretch & Wixted, 1998b), trial-by-trial memory strength-based criterion shifts have been an elusive phenomenon. Often the criterion shifts do not occur. We suggest that the frequent failure in making criterion shifts in the literature is caused by participants’ failure to understand the rationale of the task as typically presented in an abstract format. In this study, participants studied words once or thrice and were asked at test to either classify the probes into “new,” “seen once,” or “seen 3 times” categories by pressing the corresponding keys or to make an old/new binary decision followed by an item presentation frequency, confidence, or a memory quality judgment. No memory strength cues were provided, and only one set of new items served as distractors for strong and weak targets. Robust trial-by-trial criterion shift was observed. We concluded that no cues distinguishing between strong and weak probes are necessary for obtaining this type of criterion shift when the tasks are designed to make good pragmatic sense for the participants. The reason why this type of criterion shift is typically hard to obtain in the cued criterion paradigm is not that the process itself is difficult but that the cued criterion method is hard for the participants to understand.

中文翻译：

---

为什么逐次试验、基于强度的标准变化难以观察？是心理过程本身的困难还是典型的线索标准方法的困难？

摘要在线索标准识别范式（Stretch & Wixted，1998b）中，基于逐次试验记忆强度的标准转变是一种难以捉摸的现象。通常不会发生标准偏移。我们认为，在文献中进行标准转变的频繁失败是由于参与者未能理解通常以抽象格式呈现的任务的基本原理。在这项研究中，参与者学习单词一次或三次，并在测试时被要求通过按下相应的键将探针分类为“新”、“见过一次”或“见过 3 次”类别，或者制作一个新旧二进制文件决定，然后是项目呈现频率、置信度或记忆质量判断。没有提供记忆强度提示，并且只有一组新项目可以干扰强目标和弱目标。观察到稳健的逐次试验标准转变。我们得出的结论是，当任务旨在为参与者提供良好的实用意义时，不需要区分强探测和弱探测的线索来获得这种类型的标准转变。这种类型的标准转换在线索标准范式中通常难以获得的原因不是过程本身很难，而是线索标准方法对参与者来说难以理解。