Remember-Know and source memory instructions can qualitatively change old-new recognition accuracy: The modality-match effect in recognition memory.

Mulligan, Neil W.; Besken, Miri; Peterson, Daniel J.

doi:10.1037/a0018408

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effect of sensory modality-match manipulation could not be found on false memories; it was found, however, on true memories, with words presented in the 'matching' condition being better recognized (72%) than words presented in the 'mismatching' condition (65%). This modality-match effect on true recognition did not confirm the result obtained recently by Mulligan et al [16], who found no modality-match effect on simple recognition tasks (see also Curran and Dien [17]). According to their data, modality-match facilitation seems to arise only when modality is made salient and/or relevant at test (see also Mulligan and Osborn [18]).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Modality-match effect in false recognition

Boldini¹,

Beato²,

Cadavid³

2013

NeuroReport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, participants falsely recall or recognize a nonpresented word (critical lure), highly associated with previously studied words. As numerous DRM studies have found a robust false memory effect at the behavioural level, event-related potentials (ERPs) studies have searched for possible overlapping in brain electrical activity between true and false memory. Using the DRM paradigm, the present experiment manipulated the sensory modality of stimulus presentation (auditory vs. visual) in the study phase to analyse the effect of modality match between study and test on true and false recognition. Words were therefore presented either visually or auditorily at study and always visually at test. True recognition was found to be significantly higher in the modality 'match' condition (visual-visual) than in the 'mismatch' condition (auditory-visual), whereas there was no modality-match effect on false recognition of critical lures. A general, overlapping was found between ERP correlates of true and false recognition: FN400 (300-500 ms), left-parietal (400-800 ms) and late right-frontal (1000-1500 ms) old/new effects were similar for both studied words and critical lures. No sensory modality-match effect was associated with FN400 or left-parietal old/new effects. Only the late right-frontal activity was modulated by modality manipulation, with significantly more positive ERPs in the modality-match condition. Sensory modality match of stimulus presentation, therefore, dissociated true and false recognition memory only at the behavioural level but not at the ERP level. Overall, true and false recognition memories seem to share common underlying processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Modality-match effect in false recognition

Boldini¹,

Beato²,

Cadavid³

2013

NeuroReport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Memory span is affected by presentation modality (e.g., Watkins & Peynircioğlu, 1983), and working memory models posit separate systems for processing visually and auditorily presented items (e.g., Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). In long-term memory, a modality match between encoding and retrieval enhances recognition, especially if modality is made a salient attribute or if the retrieval task also relies on the use of perceptual information (e.g., Mulligan, Besken, & Peterson, 2010;Mulligan & Osborn, 2009). In short, modality of presentation matters in memory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intensifying the intensity illusion in judgments of learning: Modality and cue combinations

Peyni̇rci̇oğlu

Tatz

2018

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We showed that judgments of learning (JOLs) were not affected by presentation modality in a list-learning task, although the typical font-size and loudness illusions emerged in that large-font visual presentations and loud auditory presentations elicited higher JOLs than their less intense counterparts. Further, when items were presented in both modalities simultaneously, largefont/quiet and small-font/loud items received similar JOLs (and were recalled similarly). Most importantly, when the intensity manipulation was compounded across modalities, the magnitude of the illusion increased beyond that observed in a single modality, showing the influence of combining cues. Whereas recall was still the same, large-font/loud items received higher JOLs than either small-font/loud items or large-font/quiet items, and not-intense items received very low JOLs. These differences emerged only when all conditions were presented within a single list and not in a between-subjects design, underscoring the importance of comparative judgments.

show abstract

“…That is, because we did not include a condition in which participants made simple old/ new recognition decisions, it is conceivable that the metacognitive ratings artificially produced the listcomposition effects that we observed. In this vein, there is evidence in the literature that recognition accuracy can be qualitatively changed with the addition of rememberÁknow and source (modality) judgements (e.g., see Mulligan, Besken, & Peterson, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of study list composition on the word frequency effect and metacognitive attributions in recognition memory

Higham

Bruno

Perfect

2010

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, study-list composition was manipulated and its impact was observed on metacognitive judgements associated with recognition hits (Hs) and false alarms (FAs). Both studies involved recognition of high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) words, and focused on the FA portion of the word frequency effect. Our hypothesis was that participants can actively reject items that are distinctive from the study list, and that this effect may be strong enough to overcome the FA word frequency effect. Experiment 1 manipulated list composition with a conjunctive rule and Experiment 2 varied it by having participants study either HF or LF items prior to a test consisting of words of both frequencies. In each study H rate, FA rate, and metacognitive attributions underlying recognition decisions were investigated. In both studies, participants reported rejecting test items predominantly through a process of active rejection, which was more often reported for LF items. This effect was strong enough to reverse the FA portion of the word frequency effect in Experiment 2, but not Experiment 1. The results are discussed in terms of metacognitive rejection mechanisms in recognition memory.

show abstract

Remember-Know and source memory instructions can qualitatively change old-new recognition accuracy: The modality-match effect in recognition memory.

Cited by 25 publications

References 44 publications

Modality-match effect in false recognition

Modality-match effect in false recognition

Intensifying the intensity illusion in judgments of learning: Modality and cue combinations

Effects of study list composition on the word frequency effect and metacognitive attributions in recognition memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About