Novel Approaches and Cognitive Neuroscience Perspectives on False Memory and Deception

Abstract

The DRM (Deese–Roediger–McDermott) paradigm produces robust false memories of non-presented critical words. After studying a thematic word list (e.g., bed, rest, and pillow) participants falsely remember the critical item “sleep.” We report two false memory experiments. Study One introduces a novel use of the lexical decision task (LDT) to prime critical words. Participants see two letter-strings and make timed responses indicating whether they are both words. The word pairs Night-Bed and Dream-Thweeb both prime “sleep” but only one pair contains two words. Our primary purpose is to introduce this new methodology via two pilot experiments. The results, considered preliminary, are promising as they indicate that participants were as likely to recognize critical words (false memories) and presented words (true memories) just as when studying thematic lists. Study Two actually employs the standard DRM lists so that semantic priming is in play there as well. The second study, however, uses functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to measure activity in the prefrontal cortex during a DRM task which includes a deception phase where participants intentionally lie about critical lures. False and true memories occurred at high levels and activated many of the same brain regions but, compared to true memories, cortical activity was higher for false memories and lies. Accuracy findings are accompanied by confidence and reaction time results. Both investigations suggest that it is difficult to distinguish accurate from inaccurate memories. We explain results in terms of activation-monitoring theory and Fuzzy Trace Theory. We provide real world implications and suggest extending the present research to varying age groups and special populations. A nagging question has not been satisfactorily answered: Could neural pathways exist that signal the presence of false memories and lies? Answering this question will require imaging experiments that focus on regions of distinction such as the anterior prefrontal cortex.

Cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying false memories: misinformation, distortion or erroneous configuration?

“…Studies have shown that the MTL is important for memory reconstruction and for discriminating true memory from false memory [76] . Other research revealed that during false recognition, brain activity increased in the medial and lateral frontal cortex [3] . In the posterior sections of the parahippocampal gyrus and the occipital visual regions, activity for real memories was greater than for false memories, according to a study by [56] while the left precentral gyrus, medial superior frontal gyrus, and left inferior parietal cortex were more active for false memories retrievals than for true memories [47] .…”

“…As such, researchers have investigated and shown that false memory can be easily induced experimentally in research to participants under various manipulations using variants of the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm. In the literature, the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm [3] , is one of the earliest and most frequent behavioral psychology methods used to study false memory. Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm generates false memories based on semantic similarities across stimuli.…”

“…Reconstruction determines how accurately we remember. Therefore, understanding how false memories occur requires knowing the reconstruction process in retrieval [3] . Due to its reconstructive nature, memory is susceptible to misattribution, which occurs when a specific memory is binding to the wrong moment, location, or subject.…”

“…Various approaches have been used to understand the mechanisms underlying this process. Recent neuroscience advances including, neuroimaging, electroneurophysiological techniques, and refinement of neuropsychological testing have allowed researchers to reveal new insights into complex and dynamic associations at cellular and structural levels on the neurobiology of memory [3] . As such the pivotal question, as to whether brain activity during the initial memory encoding and consolidation or long-term retrieval differs in relation to whether items are subsequently remembered or missed, is a possibility to be explored [4] .…”

Artificial neural network models: implementation of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based spontaneous lie detection in an interactive scenario

“…In one study ( Irani et al, 2007 ) compared the features of fNIRS and fMRI and reported that fNIRS has excellent potential for psychotic and neurological applications because of its portability, simplicity, and insensitivity to motion artifacts compared to fMRI. fNIRS also has several advantages over other brain imaging techniques; it can be designed in a compact and portable form, is very cost-effective ( Muehlemann et al, 2008 ; Bhutta et al, 2014 ; Toglia et al, 2022 ), and can be used in diverse fields such as neuroscience, brain-computer interfaces ( Naseer and Hong, 2013a , b ), and rehabilitation.…”