“Identify-to-reject”: A specific strategy to avoid false memories in the DRM paradigm

Abstract

Previous research using the Deese-RoedigerMcDermott (DRM) paradigm has shown that lists of associates in which the critical words were easily identified as the themes of the lists produce lower levels of false memories in adults. In an attempt to analyze whether this effect is due to the application of a specific memory-editing process (the identify-to-reject strategy), two experiments manipulated variables that are likely to disrupt this strategy either at encoding or at retrieval. In Experiment 1, lists were presented at a very fast presentation rate to reduce the possibility of identifying the missing critical word as the theme of the list, and in Experiment 2, participants were pressed to give yes/no recognition answers within a very short time. The results showed that both of these manipulations disrupted the identifiability effect, indicating that the identifyto-reject strategy and theme identifiability play a major role in the rejection of false memories in the DRM paradigm.

Normative study of theme identifiability: Instructions with and without explanation of the false memory effect

“…As a consequence, identifiability tasks could provide valuable data for how error-editing processes work in the human mind throughout a lifespan. In a more recent study, Carneiro et al (2012) replicated the identifiability effect (lower false memory rates for higher identifiable critical words), in both visual and auditory conditions. Moreover, these authors proved that speeded presentation rates in the study phase and a speeded response condition at test interfere with the startup of the identify-to-reject strategy, eliminating the identifiability effect or even reversing the pattern (i.e., higher false-memory rates for more identifiable critical words).…”

“…In traditional one-critical-word DRM lists, the theme identifiability is the proportion of participants who identify the critical word in each list (e.g., Carneiro & Fernandez, 2013;Carneiro et al, 2009;Carneiro et al, 2011;Carneiro et al, 2012). In the present normative study, our goal was to investigate the theme identifiability for three-critical-word lists.…”

“…Getting to know how identifiable a critical word is after all of its associated items are presented constitutes an optimal way to explore how editing processes work when participants are shown a DRM list in false-memory experiments. More specifically, these editing processes are particularly efficient in lists with highly identifiable critical words, for which false-memory rates are lower (e.g., Carneiro et al, 2009;Carneiro et al, 2012;Carneiro & Fernandez, 2013; but see also Neuschatz et al, 2003, where false-memory rates decreased only when there was prior warning of the false-memory effect). To reach these conclusions, Carneiro et al (2009) conducted a study in which they obtained theme identifiability indexes for onecritical-word lists while they explored false-memory production in both children and adults.…”

“…One of the strategies employed in disqualifying monitoring is the identify-to-reject strategy (e.g., Carneiro et al, 2012). This strategy requires that, first, participants are able to detect the associative nature of the lists, noticing that all of the words in a list are related to a common theme.…”

rTMS stimulation on left DLPFC increases the correct recognition of memories for emotional target and distractor words

“…Thus, the different effects of the left and right DLPFC on memory recognition may be due to the emotional valence of the stimuli and to the distinct contributions that the two hemispheres may have in manipulating stimuli from different emotional categories. In the present study, we intended to verify the impact of the stimulus valence and to investigate the mechanisms involved in discarding information that produce interference during recognition when a potential interference is produced in cases of stimulus acceptance/rejection (Carneiro et al, 2011). To accomplish this, we explored the recognition process in the presence of distractors (new stimuli) that were either semantically related or unrelated to the targets (old stimuli).…”