Table 1.

Data sets used in the fits

Data Set	Source	N	Obs.	Con.	Variables
1	Criss (2010) Ex. 1	14	983.7	4	Item type (target, lure); Target proportion (30%, 70%)
2	Criss (2010) Ex. 2	16	1520.3	8	Item type (target, lure); List strength (strong, weak); Word frequency (high, low)
3	SRW (2012) Mixed and Pure-Within	98	208.9	4	Item type (target, lure); List strength (strong, weak)
4	SRW (2012) Weak Pure-Between	41	118.9	2	Item type (target, lure)
5	SRW (2012) Strong Pure-Between	43	118.1		Item type (target, lure)
6	RTM (2004) Young	39	1357.3	18	Item type (weak target, strong target, lure); Word frequency (high, low, very low); Speed vs. accuracy emphasis
7	RTM (2004) Older	41	1766.8	18	(same as above)
8	RTM (2010) Young	43	794.6	6	Item type (weak target, strong target, lure); Word frequency (high, low)
9	RTM (2010) Older	41	795.0	6	(same as above)

Notes: N = number of subjects; Obs. = average number of observations for each subject; Con. = number of conditions; SRW = Starns, Ratcliff, & White; RTM = Ratcliff, Thapar, & McKoon. Some subjects reported in the original papers were removed due to chance performance, including five subjects in Data Set 1, two from Data Set 8, and one from Data Set 9. An additional participant was removed from Data Set 9 because they had no errors for lure items in any condition (making it impossible to define the RT distributions).