Literature DB >> 23345118

Working memory differences in illusory recollection of critical lures.

Michael T Bixter1, Frances Daniel.   

Abstract

In the present experiments, we explored the relationship between individual differences in working memory (WM) capacity and susceptibility to false recognitions and their accompanying subjective experiences. Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) associative lists were used to elicit false memories, and remember/know judgments were used to measure the recollective experiences accompanying recognition decisions. We found that WM capacity was related to false recognitions of nonpresented critical lures and to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures, such that higher WM capacity was associated with lower false-recognition rates and with lower proportions of remember responses. Importantly, these WM differences were only found when participants were forewarned about the nature of the DRM task prior to encoding (Exp. 1). When the forewarning was absent, WM capacity was not related to false recognitions or to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures (Exp. 2). These results support the controlled-attention view of WM and suggest that subjective experiences of falsely recognized lures fluctuate as a function of WM capacity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23345118     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0293-x

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


  48 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.  Sum-difference theory of remembering and knowing: a two-dimensional signal-detection model.

Authors:  Caren M Rotello; Neil A Macmillan; John A Reeder
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  "Identify-to-reject": a specific strategy to avoid false memories in the DRM paradigm.

Authors:  Paula Carneiro; Angel Fernandez; Emiliano Diez; Leonel Garcia-Marques; Tânia Ramos; Mário B Ferreira
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-02

4.  A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments.

Authors:  John T Wixted; Laura Mickes
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  In defense of the signal detection interpretation of remember/know judgments.

Authors:  John T Wixted; Vincent Stretch
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-08

6.  Divided attention at retrieval disrupts knowing but not remembering.

Authors:  Lauren M Knott; Stephen A Dewhurst
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2007-08

7.  Illusory recollection in older adults and younger adults under divided attention.

Authors:  Erin I Skinner; Myra A Fernandes
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2009-03

Review 8.  Source monitoring.

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

9.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening.

Authors:  Gregory J H Colflesh; Andrew R A Conway
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-08

10.  Attention during memory retrieval enhances future remembering.

Authors:  Nicole M Dudukovic; Sarah Dubrow; Anthony D Wagner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.