Abstract
For more than a decade, the high threshold dual process (HTDP) model has served as a guide for studying the functional neuroanatomy of recognition memory. The HTDP model's utility has been that it provides quantitative estimates of recollection and familiarity, two processes thought to support recognition ability. Important support for the model has been the observation that it fits experimental data well. The continuous dual process (CDP) model also fits experimental data well. However, this model does not provide quantitative estimates of recollection and familiarity, making it less immediately useful for illuminating the functional neuroanatomy of recognition memory. These two models are incompatible and cannot both be correct, and an alternative method of model comparison is needed. We tested for systematic errors in each model's ability to fit recognition memory data from four independent data sets from three different laboratories. Across participants and across data sets, the HTDP model (but not the CDP model) exhibited systematic error. In addition, the pattern of errors exhibited by the HTDP model was predicted by the CDP model. We conclude that the CDP model provides a better account of recognition memory than the HTDP model.