Literature DB >> 31463566

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

Mark J Huff1, Glen E Bodner2, Matthew R Gretz3.   

Abstract

Prior research has emphasized that performing distinctive encoding on a subset of lists in the DRM paradigm suppresses false recognition; we show that its benefits can be mitigated by costs and spillover effects. Within groups read half the DRM lists and solved anagrams for the other half using a strategy that emphasized either item-specific or relational processing. Their recognition was compared to three pure-list control groups (read, item-specific generation, relational generation). Correct recognition in the within groups showed a benefit for generate items and a cost for read items, resulting in little net improvement relative to pure reading. False recognition in the within groups was reduced following item-specific vs. relational generation, but there was again little net improvement. Most surprisingly, false recognition in the within groups was greater for generate than read lists. This pattern suggests that relational processing of read lists spilled over to generate lists, boosting false recognition for generate lists. Distinctive encoding of a subset of items does not appear to globally improve memory accuracy.

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31463566     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-019-01241-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  8 in total

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

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

2.  False memories and the DRM paradigm: effects of imagery, list, and test type.

Authors:  Merrin Creath Oliver; Rebecca Brooke Bays; Karen M Zabrucky
Journal:  J Gen Psychol       Date:  2016

3.  The d-Prime directive: Assessing costs and benefits in recognition by dissociating mixed-list false alarm rates.

Authors:  Noah D Forrin; Brianna Groot; Colin M MacLeod
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  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

5.  The distinctiveness heuristic in false recognition and false recall.

Authors:  David P McCabe; Anderson D Smith
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2006-07

6.  The production effect benefits performance in between-subject designs: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jonathan M Fawcett
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2012-11-09

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

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  All varieties of encoding variability are not created equal: Separating variable processing from variable tasks.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 3.059

  8 in total
  2 in total

1.  Reducing False Recognition in the Deese-Roediger/McDermott Paradigm: Related Lures Reveal How Distinctive Encoding Improves Encoding and Monitoring Processes.

Authors:  Mark J Huff; Glen E Bodner; Matthew R Gretz
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-11-20

2.  Reactivity from judgments of learning is not only due to memory forecasting: evidence from associative memory and frequency judgments.

Authors:  Nicholas P Maxwell; Mark J Huff
Journal:  Metacogn Learn       Date:  2022-04-29
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.