Evidence for adult age-invariance in associative false recognition

Pansuwan, Tanrada; Breuer, Friederike; Gazder, Taranah; Lau, Zen Juen; Cueva, Sara; Swanson, Lee A.; Taylor, Michelle; Wilson, Maximiliano A.; Morcom, Alexa M.

doi:10.1080/09658211.2019.1705351

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 87 publications

(155 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also acknowledge that our method included a prior cued-recall test with substantial intrusion errors that could have impacted 5AFC performance (Panuswan et al, 2020). It is possible that the cued-recall test altered underlying memory representations in a way that affected recognition performance, such as by reinforcing recall intrusions errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Older adults have been reported to have deficits in accuracy of RCJs (e.g., Kelley & Sahakyan, 2003). They are prone to being falsely confident when making a recognition memory false alarm (e.g., Chua et al, 2009; Dodson et al, 2007; Fandakova et al, 2013, 2018; Shing et al, 2009), especially in tasks designed to produce memory errors (e.g., Tun et al, 1998; but see Panuswan et al, 2020). In source monitoring experiments, they are less likely to reconsider inaccurate source memory attributions by searching for disconfirming evidence (Henkel et al, 1998; Johnson, 2006).…”

Section: Age Differences In Memory Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory?

Hertzog¹,

Curley²,

Dunlosky³

2021

Psychology and Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Older adults often demonstrate a monitoring deficit by producing more high-confidence memory errors on recognition memory tests. To eliminate lower memory performance by older adults (OA) as a candidate explanation, we studied how distinctive encoding enhances the retrieval-monitoring accuracy in older adults and younger adults (YA) under different delays (2-day delay for OA, 7-day delay for YA). Individuals viewed items consisting of four randomly selected exemplars (e.g., SALMON, BASS, PERCH, and SHARK) from a taxonomic category (e.g., FISH), one being designated as the to-be-remembered target. Participants were randomly assigned to two encoding conditions: Shared (generate a shared feature of all exemplars, e.g., GILLS) or Distinctive (generate a distinctive feature of the designated target). We collected retrospective confidence judgments (RCJs) after a five-alternative forced-choice (5AFC) recognition test, with the lures being either previously presented (old) exemplars or new category exemplars. Recall and recognition memory were better with distinctive encoding, with shared feature generation producing more high-confidence false alarms (HCFAs). Distinctive encoding dramatically reduced HCFAs and improved RCJ resolution. Comparison of OA with 2-day delay YA revealed age differences in HCFA consistent with previous studies. As important, age differences in memory for OA and 7-day delay YA were minimized, eliminating age deficits in HCFAs. Matching OAs to a subset of 7-day delay YAs on recognition memory produced additional evidence favoring the null hypothesis of age-equivalence in HCFAs. The results therefore indicated that age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring in a forced-choice recognition test are an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Age Differences In Memory Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory?

Hertzog¹,

Curley²,

Dunlosky³

2021

Psychology and Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we examined the effects of warnings and guessing the CI from NCA and C+A lists in a sample of older adults. Healthy aging is associated with preserved automatic processes and declines in controlled processing, and older adults have equivalent or elevated false memories compared to younger adults (e.g., Schacter et al, 1997;Balota et al, 1999;Liu and Cao, 2002;Huff and Aschenbrenner, 2018;Pansuwan et al, 2020). Older adults are also less likely than younger adults to benefit from a warning (McCabe and Smith, 2002), and there is evidence of different lifespan time courses for reliance on taxonomic (i.e., categorical) and associative or thematic information (Mirman et al, 2017;Belacchi and Artuso, 2018).…”

Section: Decomposing Semantic and Associative Similaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulations of List Type in the DRM Paradigm: A Review of How Structural and Conceptual Similarity Affect False Memory

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of list-learning paradigms to explore false memory has revealed several critical findings about the contributions of similarity and relatedness in memory phenomena more broadly. Characterizing the nature of “similarity and relatedness” can inform researchers about factors contributing to memory distortions and about the underlying associative and semantic networks that support veridical memory. Similarity can be defined in terms of semantic properties (e.g., shared conceptual and taxonomic features), lexical/associative properties (e.g., shared connections in associative networks), or structural properties (e.g., shared orthographic or phonological features). By manipulating the type of list and its relationship to a non-studied critical item, we review the effects of these types of similarity on veridical and false memory. All forms of similarity reviewed here result in reliable error rates and the effects on veridical memory are variable. The results across a variety of paradigms and tests provide partial support for a number of theoretical explanations of false memory phenomena, but none of the theories readily account for all results.

show abstract

“…There are reasons to predict that older adults would be more susceptible to pragmatic inferences than their younger counterparts. First, previous studies on false memory have shown that older adults are misled more often, and have higher false alarm rates, than young adults in eyewitness testimony paradigm (LaVoie, Mertz, & Richmond, 2007;Roediger III & Geraci, 2007), in Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Dehon & Br edart, 2004;Dennis, Kim, & Cabeza, 2008;Pansuwan et al, 2020) and in pragmatic inference paradigm (McDermott & Chan, 2006). Second, this age-related susceptibility to pragmatic inference could be modulated by the content of advertisement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of age on memory for pragmatic implications in advertising

Peng

Yan

2021

Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People employ automatic inferential processing when confronting pragmatically implied claims in advertising. However, whether comprehension and memorization of pragmatic implications differ between young and older adults is unclear. In the present study, we used eye-tracking technology to investigate online cognitive processes during reading of misleading advertisements. We found an interaction between age and advertising content, manifested as our older participants generated higher misleading rates in health-related than in health-irrelevant products, whereas this content-bias did not appear in their younger counterparts. Eye movement data further showed that the older adults spent more time processing critical claims for the health-related products than for the health-irrelevant products. Moreover, the correlations between fixation duration on pragmatic implications and misleading rates showed opposite trends in the two groups. The eye-tracking evidence novelly suggests that young and older adults may adopt different information processing strategies to comprehend pragmatic implications in advertising: More reading possibly enhances young adults’ gist memory whereas it facilitates older adults’ verbatim memory instead.

show abstract

Evidence for adult age-invariance in associative false recognition

Abstract: A M (2019) Evidence for adult age-invariance in associative false recognition. Memory. pp. 1-15.

Cited by 7 publications

References 87 publications

Are age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory?

Are age differences in recognition-based retrieval monitoring an epiphenomenon of age differences in memory?

Manipulations of List Type in the DRM Paradigm: A Review of How Structural and Conceptual Similarity Affect False Memory

Effects of age on memory for pragmatic implications in advertising

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About