False Memories

Marsh, Elizabeth J.; Eslick, Andrea N.; Fazio, Lisa K.

doi:10.1016/b978-012370509-9.00144-3

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 120 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dual-process theories, on the other hand, historically have accounted for false memories only as resulting from misattribution of familiarity (i.e., familiarity responses not corrected by recollection). False memories reported with high confidence, recollection, or remember responses (see, e.g., Lindsay, 2008; Marsh, Eslick, & Fazio, 2008, for reviews), for example to new items, have been assumed by some dual-process theorists to be situations in which participants simply were not following task instructions properly (e.g., Yonelinas & Parks, 2007). Correct old item recognition accompanied by an incorrect source attribution is sometimes argued, from the dual-process perspective, to signal that the memory decision is based on familiarity (e.g., Kirwan, Wixted, & Squire, 2008; Wais, Squire, & Wixted, 2008).…”

Section: The Source Monitoring Framework Versus Dual-process Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?

Mitchell

Johnson

2009

Psychological Bulletin

577

506

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systematic study of source memory provides a useful approach to investigating the features that give memories their episodic character, the associative, organizational, or binding processes that connect features, and the access and evaluation processes involved in attributing current mental experiences to memories of past events. This review illustrates how neuroimaging is contributing to our understanding of the brain mechanisms involved in source memory. Focusing primarily on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we review evidence regarding the roles of various subregions of the medial temporal lobes, prefrontal cortex, posterior representational areas, and parietal cortex in source memory. We also consider relevant studies assessing the qualitative characteristics of episodic memories, the encoding and remembering of emotional information, and false memories, as well as studies of several populations that show disrupted source memory (older adults, individuals with depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, or schizophrenia). Although there is still substantial work to be done, functional neuroimaging is making good on its promise to advance our understanding of source memory. A continued twoway interaction between cognitive theory, as illustrated by the Source Monitoring Framework (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993), and evidence from systematic cognitive neuroimaging studies should help further clarify our conceptualization of cognitive processes (e.g., feature binding, retrieval, monitoring), prior knowledge (e.g., semantics, schemas), and specific features (e.g., perceptual and emotional information), and of how they combine to create true and false memories.In 1993, Psychological Bulletin published a paper titled Source Monitoring (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993) that outlined a conceptual framework for organizing empirical findings and theorizing about the factors involved in attributing the source of mental experiences (the Source Monitoring Framework [SMF]; see also, Johnson & Raye, 1981). Since then, across many labs, the SMF has provided a useful approach to investigating the features that give memories their episodic character, the associative (organizational, binding) processes that connect features, and the access and evaluation processes involved in taking subjective experiences to be representations of past events. In the 1993 paper, Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay included a brief discussion of the brain areas likely involved in source monitoring that was based primarily on findings from neuropsychological studies of patient populations and cognitive aging studies, but they also made passing reference to the promise of "new developments in neuroimaging" techniques to advance our Correspondence to: Karen J. Mitchell, Department of Psychology, Yale University, Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520-8205, karen.mitchell@yale.edu, Phone: 203.432.4654, Fax: 203.436.4617. Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subje...

show abstract

Section: The Source Monitoring Framework Versus Dual-process Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?

Mitchell

Johnson

2009

Psychological Bulletin

577

506

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More broadly, facilitative effects of imagery encoding on false memory rates contrast sharply with the negative effects of imagery on memory accuracy under conditions in which participants are guided through the image generations by the experimenter (e.g., Garry, Manning, Loftus, & Sherman, 1996;Marsh et al, 2008;Thomas, Hannula, & Loftus, 2007). Although these negative effects are exacerbated when the sensory details guiding the imagery scripts are fairly elaborate (Foley, in press), the nature of the additional details may modulate the negative effects (e.g., Qin, Ogle, & Goodman, 2008).…”

Section: Misattributions and The Phenomenological Qualities Of Memoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These high false recognition rates also exceed those observed under standard baseline conditions, such as the presentation of thematically unrelated materials (e.g., Underwood, 1965). Although controversial (e.g., Pezdek & Lam 2007), false recognition errors induced in the DRM task are often referred to as false memories (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005;Ceci & Loftus, 1994;Marsh et al, 2008;Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Therefore this reference to false recognition rates as false memories is adopted here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Individuals' false recognition errors (expressed as incorrect ''yes'' responses to the related lures) are relatively high, ranging from 50% to 80% (e.g., Roediger & McDermott, 1995). False recognition errors induced by the DRM task are impervious to the manipulation of many task features, and are persistent across a wide range of encoding and testing conditions (Deese, 1959; for reviews, see Gallo, 2006: Hunt, 2006Marsh, Eslick, & Fazio, 2008;Roediger, McDermott, & Robinson, 1998;Schacter & Wiseman, 2006). These high false recognition rates also exceed those observed under standard baseline conditions, such as the presentation of thematically unrelated materials (e.g., Underwood, 1965).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Imagery encoding and false recognition errors: Examining the role of imagery process and imagery content on source misattributions

Foley

Foy

Schlemmer

et al. 2010

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imagery encoding effects on source-monitoring errors were explored using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm in two experiments. While viewing thematically related lists embedded in mixed picture/word presentations, participants were asked to generate images of objects or words (Experiment 1) or to simply name the items (Experiment 2). An encoding task intended to induce spontaneous images served as a control for the explicit imagery instruction conditions (Experiment 1). On the picture/word source-monitoring tests, participants were much more likely to report "seeing" a picture of an item presented as a word than the converse particularly when images were induced spontaneously. However, this picture misattribution error was reversed after generating images of words (Experiment 1) and was eliminated after simply labelling the items (Experiment 2). Thus source misattributions were sensitive to the processes giving rise to imagery experiences (spontaneous vs deliberate), the kinds of images generated (object vs word images), and the ways in which materials were presented (as pictures vs words).

show abstract

“…Studying memory errors provides information on how the memory operates. In order to investigate memory illusions, various paradigms have been devised, such as the misinformation paradigm, the misattribution paradigm, the memory conjunction errors paradigm (for a recent presentation of these paradigms, see Marsh, Eslick & Fazio, 2008) and the Deese‐Roediger‐McDermott paradigm (DRM: Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). We will focus on the DRM paradigm, which has attracted considerable interest in the last 15 years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition and Spacing Effects on True and False Recognition in the DRM Paradigm

Dubuisson¹,

Fiori²,

Nicolas³

2012

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, the repetition effect on false memory had never been clarified. More importantly, the spacing effect on false memory was never directly investigated. So, we carried out two experiments to examine these effects on true and false recognition. In experiment 1, participants studied DRM lists which were presented one, three or five times. In experiment 2, we manipulated the repetition mode (massed vs. spaced with a short interval or a long interval) to explore the spacing effect. The results showed that true recognition increased monotonically with list repetition (experiment 1) and repetition spacing (experiment 2). The most striking finding was a similar spacing effect but no repetition effect on false recognition. Thus, these results were principally discussed in the light of the activation-monitoring framework.

show abstract

False Memories

Cited by 6 publications

References 120 publications

Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?

Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?

Imagery encoding and false recognition errors: Examining the role of imagery process and imagery content on source misattributions

Repetition and Spacing Effects on True and False Recognition in the DRM Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About