Literature DB >> 23356241

When does memory monitoring succeed versus fail? Comparing item-specific and relational encoding in the DRM paradigm.

Mark J Huff1, Glen E Bodner.   

Abstract

We compared the effects of item-specific versus relational encoding on recognition memory in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. In Experiment 1, we directly compared item-specific and relational encoding instructions, whereas in Experiments 2 and 3 we biased pleasantness and generation tasks, respectively, toward one or the other type of processing. A read condition was tested in each experiment for comparison purposes. Across experiments, item-specific and relational encoding both boosted correct recognition relative to reading, but only item-specific encoding typically reduced false recognition. Signal-detection measures revealed that less information was encoded about critical items after item-specific than after relational encoding. In contrast, item-specific and relational encoding led to equivalent increases in strategic monitoring at test (e.g., use of a distinctiveness heuristic). Thus, monitoring at test was less successful after relational than item-specific encoding because more information had been encoded about critical lures. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23356241     DOI: 10.1037/a0031338

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  18 in total

1.  Distinctive encoding of a subset of DRM lists yields not only benefits, but also costs and spillovers.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner; Matthew R Gretz
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2019-08-28

2.  The effect of language proficiency and associative strength on false memory.

Authors:  Maria Soledad Beato; Jason Arndt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-01-02

3.  The use of metacognitive strategies to decrease false memories in source monitoring in patients with mild cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Rebecca G Deason; Neil A Nadkarni; Michelle J Tat; Sean Flannery; Bruno Frustace; Brandon A Ally; Andrew E Budson
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 4.027

4.  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

5.  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

6.  The influence of strategic encoding on false memory in patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia.

Authors:  Michelle J Tat; Anothai Soonsawat; Corinne B Nagle; Rebecca G Deason; Maureen K O'Connor; Andrew E Budson
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2016-09-17       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  The ironic effect of guessing: increased false memory for mediated lists in younger and older adults.

Authors:  Jennifer H Coane; Mark J Huff; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn       Date:  2015-09-22

8.  Is it all in the details? Description content and false recognition errors.

Authors:  Rebecca Brooke Bays; Mary Ann Foley; Annelise Cohen
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2020-01-04

9.  List blocking and longer retention intervals reveal an influence of gist processing for lexically ambiguous critical lures.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Jaimie McNabb; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2015-11

10.  The costs and benefits of testing and guessing on recognition memory.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; David A Balota; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.051

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.