Literature DB >> 16615388

The modality effect in false recognition: evidence for test-based monitoring.

Benton H Pierce1, David A Gallo, Jonathan A Weiss, Daniel L Schacter.   

Abstract

False recognition in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm has been shown to be greater following auditory study than following visual study, but there are competing explanations for this effect. We generalized this phenomenon in Experiment 1, finding an equivalent modality effect for associative (DRM) lists and categorized lists. Because conscious generationand subsequent monitoring of related lures during study is infrequent for categorized lists, this result is inconsistent with the idea that the modality effect is due to a study-based monitoring process. An alternative explanation is that visual study impairs relational processing relative to auditory study, which could cause a modality effect by lowering false recognition of related lures. We tested this idea in Experiment 2, by switching to a meaning-based test that is sensitive only to the retrieval of relational information. A modality effect was not obtained for either type of list on this test. The results from both experiments were predicted by a test-based monitoring account, rather than by the study-based monitoring or relational processing accounts.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16615388     DOI: 10.3758/bf03193373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  16 in total

1.  Factors that determine false recall: a multiple regression analysis.

Authors:  H L Roediger; J M Watson; K B McDermott; D A Gallo
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-09

2.  Presentation modality and mode of recall in verbal false memory.

Authors:  R T Kellogg
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall.

Authors:  J DEESE
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1959-07

4.  Does test-induced priming play a role in the creation of false memories?

Authors:  Elizabeth J Marsh; Kathleen B McDermott; Henry L Roediger
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2004-01

Review 5.  The cognitive neuroscience of memory distortion.

Authors:  Daniel L Schacter; Scott D Slotnick
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2004-09-30       Impact factor: 17.173

6.  Re-exposure to studied items at test does not influence false recognition.

Authors:  Michael D Dodd; Erin D Sheard; Colin M MacLeod
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2006-01

7.  Retrieval conditions and false recognition: testing the distinctiveness heuristic.

Authors:  D L Schacter; D L Cendan; C S Dodson; E R Clifford
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-12

Review 8.  Source monitoring.

Authors:  M K Johnson; S Hashtroudi; D S Lindsay
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 17.737

Review 9.  The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory.

Authors:  D L Schacter; K A Norman; W Koutstaal
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 24.137

10.  "If I had said it I would have remembered it": reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic.

Authors:  C S Dodson; D L Schacter
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-03
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion.

Authors:  David A Gallo
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-10

2.  How Does Distinctive Processing Reduce False Recall?

Authors:  R Reed Hunt; Rebekah E Smith; Kathryn R Dunlap
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 3.059

3.  Generation and mnemonic encoding induce a mirror effect in the DRM paradigm.

Authors:  Raymond W Guntre; Glen E Bodner; Tanjeem Azad
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-07

4.  The effects of divided attention at study and test on false recognition: a comparison of DRM and categorized lists.

Authors:  Lauren M Knott; Stephen A Dewhurst
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-12

5.  The effect of study modality on false recognition.

Authors:  Rebekah E Smith; R Reed Hunt; M Patrick Gallagher
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-12

6.  Item-specific processing reduces false recognition in older and younger adults: Separating encoding and retrieval using signal detection and the diffusion model.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Andrew J Aschenbrenner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-11

7.  How Distinctive Processing Enhances Hits and Reduces False Alarms.

Authors:  R Reed Hunt; Rebekah E Smith
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.059

8.  Study modality and false recall.

Authors:  Rebekah E Smith; Randall W Engle
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2011

9.  Effects of distinctive encoding on correct and false memory: a meta-analytic review of costs and benefits and their origins in the DRM paradigm.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner; Jonathan M Fawcett
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-04

10.  Erroneous and veridical recall are not two sides of the same coin: Evidence from semantic distraction in free recall.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Robert W Hughes; Patrik Sörqvist; C Philip Beaman; Dylan M Jones
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.051

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.