Table 2.

Recognition memory data I^a

Experiment	Total (‘sure’ and unsure)				High-confidence (‘sure’)
	True		Related lure		True		Related lure
	Congruent	Incongruent	Congruent	Incongruent	Congruent	Incongruent	Congruent	Incongruent
1	0.77 (0.01)	0.74 (0.02)	0.71 (0.02)	0.68 (0.02)	0.89 (0.01)	0.86 (0.01)	0.82 (0.02)	0.77 (0.02)
2	0.77 (0.02)	0.71 (0.02)	0.71 (0.02)	0.64 (0.02)	0.88 (0.02)	0.82 (0.02)	0.80 (0.03)	0.72 (0.03)
3	0.78 (0.03)	0.78 (0.03)	0.70 (0.03)	0.70 (0.04)	0.91 (0.02)	0.90 (0.02)	0.76 (0.05)	0.76 (0.05)
4	0.77 (0.02)	0.72 (0.02)	—	—	0.90 (0.02)	0.86 (0.02)	—	—

^ap Data are mean (SEM) for congruent, incongruent, true, related lure, total responses collapsed across confidence levels, and high-confidence ‘sure’ responses. Values were obtained by comparing either true hit rates or related lure rates with unrelated false-alarms with the following formula: Response rate/(Response rate + Unrelated false alarm rate) (Urgolites et al., 2015). Single-sample t test showed that each of the conditions was higher than chance (>0.50). In other words, subjects were able to distinguish both true and related lure words from unrelated new words (all p < 0.001).