Episodic Memory
Process Dissociation Task
Also called: process dissociation procedure, inclusion exclusion task, Jacoby process dissociation, opposition procedure
Separate recollection from familiarity: words judged in one list and learned in another are recognized under inclusion and exclusion rules.
8-10 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 48
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 4
What it measures
Separates recollection from familiarity in recognizing words. Words are judged in one list and learned in another, then recognized under two rules: Yes for a word from either list, or Yes only for a word from the learned list.
Constructs
- Recollection
- Familiarity
- Recognition memory
- Episodic memory
Research uses
- Recognition memory and dual-process research
- Aging and memory research
- Research on attention and the control of memory
How the paradigm works
The Process Dissociation Task separates two ways of recognizing a word: recollection, remembering where the word was met, and familiarity, a sense of having met it without that detail. It is the recognition form of Jacoby's (1991) process dissociation procedure. Words are studied in two distinct ways. In a first list, participants decide for each word whether the thing it names is bigger than a shoebox, with nothing said about memory. In a second list of other words, each shown for 2 seconds, they try to remember the words for a memory test. After 60 seconds of true-or-false arithmetic, the test has two halves, in an order drawn for each session, each mixing first-list, second-list and new words. In the inclusion half, participants answer Yes for a word from either list. In the exclusion half, they answer Yes only for a word from the second list, and No for first-list words and new words; they are told that no word was in both lists, so a word remembered from the first list was not in the second. A short practice of every part, with feedback, comes first.
More about the paradigm
The standard session has 24 words in each list and 72 test words, 12 of each kind in each half; a setting allows 8 to 12 of each kind. The words are concrete nouns written for this task in each of the eight app languages, and each session gives every word its role at random.
A first-list word accepted under inclusion was recollected or felt familiar; one accepted under exclusion felt familiar but was not recollected, since recollecting it would have led to No. Assuming the two work independently (Jacoby 1991; Yonelinas and Jacoby 1996), the recollection estimate is the inclusion Yes rate for first-list words minus their exclusion Yes rate, and the familiarity estimate is the exclusion rate divided by one minus the recollection estimate. The main score is the recollection estimate. The six Yes rates, including those for new words, which are false alarms under each rule, the accuracy and answer times of each half, and the order of the halves are also reported, so that other corrections for guessing can be computed. With 12 first-list words in each half, one person's estimates are noisy and can fall below 0 by chance, so they are best used to compare groups. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Recollection Estimate%
- First-list words answered Yes under inclusion minus first-list words answered Yes under exclusion.
- Higher means more recollection
- Familiarity Estimate%
- First-list words answered Yes under exclusion, over one minus the recollection estimate; empty when recollection is 1.
- Higher means more familiarity without recollection
- Inclusion Yes Rate, First List%
- Share of first-list words answered Yes in the inclusion half.
- Higher is better
- Inclusion Yes Rate, Second List%
- Share of second-list words answered Yes in the inclusion half.
- Higher is better
- Inclusion Yes Rate, New Words%
- Share of new words answered Yes in the inclusion half: false alarms.
- Lower is better
- Exclusion Yes Rate, First List%
- Share of first-list words answered Yes in the exclusion half, where the right answer is No.
- Lower means more recollection
- Exclusion Yes Rate, Second List%
- Share of second-list words answered Yes in the exclusion half.
- Higher is better
- Exclusion Yes Rate, New Words%
- Share of new words answered Yes in the exclusion half: false alarms.
- Lower is better
- Inclusion Accuracy%
- Answers right under the inclusion rule.
- Higher is better
- Exclusion Accuracy%
- Answers right under the exclusion rule.
- Higher is better
- Median Answer Time, Inclusionms
- Median time to answer in the inclusion half.
- Context for the rates
- Median Answer Time, Exclusionms
- Median time to answer in the exclusion half.
- Context for the rates
- Inclusion Half Firstflag
- 1 when the inclusion half ran first, 0 when the exclusion half did.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Test answers under 100 ms, left out of every rate.
- Lower is better
- Words Testedcount
- Test words shown in the two halves.
- Informational
- First-List Judgmentscount
- First-list words judged Yes or No for size.
- Shows the first list was done
- Delay Arithmetic Accuracy%
- Share of the true-or-false arithmetic answered correctly in the delay.
- Shows the delay task was done
Use and evidence
48 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 259 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 9 |
| 2024 | 16 |
| 2023 | 4 |
| 2022 | 10 |
| 2021 | 9 |
| 2020 | 10 |
| 2019 | 3 |
| 2018 | 11 |
| 2017 | 7 |
| 2016 | 15 |
| 2015 | 18 |
| 2014 | 9 |
| 2013 | 12 |
| 2012 | 19 |
| 2011 | 16 |
| 2010 | 15 |
| 2009 | 15 |
| 2008 | 17 |
| 2007 | 18 |
| 2006 | 19 |
| 2005 | 19 |
| 2004 | 23 |
| 2003 | 15 |
| 2002 | 22 |
| 2001 | 14 |
| 2000 | 24 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 32
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 4
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Study
- Two lists of 24 words each (standard; 16 to 24). First list: each word judged Yes or No for whether the thing is bigger than a shoebox, with no time limit and nothing said about memory. Second list: other words, each for 2,000 ms after a 500 ms cross, to remember for a memory test.
- Delay
- 60 seconds (standard; 0 to 120) of true-or-false arithmetic.
- Test
- Two halves in an order drawn for each session, each with 12 first-list, 12 second-list and 12 new words (standard; 8 to 12 of each). Inclusion: Yes for a word from either list. Exclusion: Yes only for a second-list word. The rule stays above every word; no more than 4 words of one kind in a row; no time limit and no feedback.
- Words
- Concrete nouns written for this task in each of the eight languages; each session gives every word its role at random.
- Scores
- Recollection: the inclusion Yes rate for first-list words minus their exclusion Yes rate. Familiarity: the exclusion rate over one minus recollection (Jacoby 1991). All six Yes rates are reported, new-word false alarms included.
- Practice
- Every part in short: 2 words judged, 2 learned, and 4 test words under each rule, with feedback.
The words were written for this task in eight languages; no published word list is used.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: process_dissociation_test from the scored run, one Yes or No answer per test word under its half's rule (inclusion: Yes for either list; exclusion: Yes only for the second list), and the delay arithmetic from the same run. Accuracy against each half's rule significantly below chance (one-sided exact binomial, p < .05, chance 50%) invalidates; accuracy not above chance over 10 or more answers is flagged. The same answer on 90% of the words invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Answers under 200 ms on at least half of 4 or more answered words invalidate. Fewer than 90% of the planned test words answered invalidates. A recollection estimate of 0 or less with second-list words accepted no more often than first-list words under exclusion is flagged and withholds the percentile. No arithmetic answered in the delay, or delay arithmetic at or below chance over at least 10 answers, is flagged. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
Each half has a right answer for every word, and a person answering at random is right half the time whatever the mix of words: Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. The exclusion half asks the participant to turn down words they may find familiar; accepting first-list words as often as second-list words, with no recollection estimated, can be real forgetting but also a rule that was not followed, so the percentile is withheld for review. Skipping the delay arithmetic means that part of the procedure may not have been followed. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Words of each kind | 12 | 8 to 12 |
| Delay before the test (seconds) | 60 | 0 to 120 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Process Dissociation Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Jacoby, 1991; Yonelinas & Jacoby, 2012), with the standard settings (words of each kind: 12; delay before the test (seconds): 60). The main score was recollection estimate (first-list words answered Yes under inclusion minus first-list words answered Yes under exclusion).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 513-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90025-F
- Yonelinas, A. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (1996). Response bias and the process-dissociation procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 422-434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.4.422The recognition procedure and the estimates.
- Yonelinas, A. P., & Jacoby, L. L. (2012). The process-dissociation approach two decades later: Convergence, boundary conditions, and new directions. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 663-680. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0205-5
- Komar, G. F., Mieth, L., Buchner, A., & Bell, R. (2023). Animacy enhances recollection but not familiarity: Convergent evidence from the remember-know-guess paradigm and the process-dissociation procedure. Memory & Cognition, 51(1), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01339-6A browser version with a judged list and a learned list.
Source papers
- Jacoby LL (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5):513-541.Paradigm source
- Yonelinas AP, Jacoby LL (2012). The process-dissociation approach two decades later: Convergence, boundary conditions, and new directions. Memory & Cognition, 40(5):663-680.Paradigm source
Questions
How long does the Process Dissociation Task take?
About 8 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Recollection Estimate, Familiarity Estimate, Inclusion Yes Rate, First List, Inclusion Yes Rate, Second List, Inclusion Yes Rate, New Words, Exclusion Yes Rate, First List, Exclusion Yes Rate, Second List, Exclusion Yes Rate, New Words, Inclusion Accuracy, Exclusion Accuracy, Median Answer Time, Inclusion, Median Answer Time, Exclusion, Inclusion Half First, Anticipations, Words Tested, First-List Judgments and Delay Arithmetic Accuracy. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Process Dissociation Task used in research?
48 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 4% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 259 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Process Dissociation Task have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 4 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Words of each kind (8 to 12) and delay before the test (seconds) (0 to 120). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.