Global semantic similarity effects in recognition memory: Insights from BEAGLE representations and the diffusion decision model

•BEAGLE enables calculation of similarity between words.•We used BEAGLE to calculate global similarity between the probe and all study list words.•Global similarity was linked to RTs and accuracy via the diffusion decision model (DDM).•Global similarity exerted the largest influences on lure stimuli.•BEAGLE’s item vectors exerted greater impairments than its order vectors. Recognition memory models posit that false alarm rates increase as the global similarity between the probe cue and the contents of memory is increased. Global similarity predictions have been commonly tested using category length designs where it has been found that false alarm rates increase as the number of studied items from a common category is increased. In this work, we explored global similarity predictions within unstructured lists of words using representations from the BEAGLE model (Jones & Mewhort, 2007). BEAGLE differs from traditional semantic space models in that it contains two types of representations: item vectors, which encode unordered co-occurrence, and order vectors, in which words are similar to the extent to which they are share neighboring words in the same relative positions. Global similarity among item and order vectors was regressed onto drift rates in the diffusion decision model (DDM: Ratcliff, 1978), which unifies both response times and accuracy. We implemented this model in a hierarchical Bayesian framework across seven datasets with lists composed of unrelated words. Results indicated clear deficits due to global similarity among item vectors, but only a minimal impact of global similarity among the order vectors. We also found evidence for a linear relationship between global similarity and drift rate and did not find any evidence that global similarity differentially affected performance in speed vs. accuracy emphasis conditions. In addition, we found that global semantic similarity could only partially account for the word frequency effect, suggesting that other factors besides semantic similarity may be responsible.