Two models of recognition memory: A test.

Paul, Lawrence M.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.5.1.45

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This outcome replicates the standard false-recognition effect first reported by Underwood (1965). The false-recognition rate for weakly related lures was greater than obtained in many prior studies (e.g., L. M. Paul, 1979), and the rate for the critical nonpresented words was dramatically larger than the rate for the weakly related words. As shown in Table 1, the false-alarm rate for the critical nonstudied lures (.84) approached the hit rate (.86), r(35) < 1,SEM =.036,™.…”

Section: Output Quintilesupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Although there have been a few reports of robust false recognition effects (Hintzman, 1988), in many experiments the false recognition effect was either rather small or did not occur at all. For example, in a study by L. M. Paul (1979), in which synonyms were presented at various lags along with other, unrelated lures, the false recognition effect was only 3% (a 20% false-alarm rate for synonyms and a 17% rate for unrelated lures). Gillund and Shiffrin (1984) failed to find any false recognition effect for semantically related lures in a similar paradigm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.

Roediger¹,

McDermott²

1995

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

2,869

221

3,744

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments (modeled after J. Deese's 1959 study) revealed remarkable levels of false recall and false recognition in a list learning paradigm. In Experiment 1, subjects studied lists of 12 words (e.g., bed, rest, awake); each list was composed of associates of 1 nonpresented word (e.g., sleep). On immediate free recall tests, the nonpresented associates were recalled 40% of the time and were later recognized with high confidence. In Experiment 2, a false recall rate of 55% was obtained with an expanded set of lists, and on a later recognition test, subjects produced false alarms to these items at a rate comparable to the hit rate. The act of recall enhanced later remembering of both studied and nonstudied material. The results reveal a powerful illusion of memory: People remember events that never happened.

show abstract

Section: Output Quintilesupporting

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.

Roediger¹,

McDermott²

1995

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

2,869

221

3,744

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After a seminal paper published by Roediger and McDermott 2 , interest of false memory research skyrocketed (see 7 ), resulting in over 2,800 citations of that article to date. According to Roediger and McDermott, they revived the experimental design created by Deese because there was no reliable laboratory paradigm to induce false recall, while evidence of false recognition (e.g., 8,9 ) did "little to discourage the belief that more natural, coherent materials are needed to demonstrate powerful false memory effects" 2 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Pardilla‐Delgado

Payne

2017

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Deese, Roediger and McDermott (DRM) task is a false memory paradigm in which subjects are presented with lists of semantically related words (e.g., nurse, hospital, etc.) at encoding. After a delay, subjects are asked to recall or recognize these words. In the recognition memory version of the task, subjects are asked whether they remember previously presented words, as well as related (but never presented) critical lure words ('doctor'). Typically, the critical word is recognized with high probability and confidence. This false memory effect has been robustly demonstrated across short (e.g., immediate, 20 min) and long (e.g., 1, 7, 60 d) delays between encoding and memory testing. A strength of using this task to study false memory is its simplicity and short duration. If encoding and retrieval components of the task occur in the same session, the entire task can take as little as 2 - 30 min. However, although the DRM task is widely considered a 'false memory' paradigm, some researchers consider DRM illusions to be based on the activation of semantic memory networks in the brain, and argue that such semantic gist-based false memory errors may actually be useful in some scenarios (e.g., remembering the forest for the trees; remembering that a word list was about "doctors", even though the actual word "doctor" was never presented for study). Remembering the gist of experience (instead of or along with individual details) is arguably an adaptive process and this task has provided a great deal of knowledge about the constructive, adaptive nature of memory. Therefore, researchers should use caution when discussing the overall reach and implications of their experiments when using this task to study 'false memory', as DRM memory errors may not adequately reflect false memories in the real world, such as false memory in eyewitness testimony, or false memories of sexual abuse.

show abstract

“…He showed that these pairedassociate distractors were often falsely recognized at test. However, in many paired-associate false-memory studies, the falserecognition effect was small or not found at all (e.g., Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984;Paul, 1979).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Latent variable modeling of cognitive processes in true and false recognition of words: A developmental perspective.

Bouwmeester

Verkoeijen

2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed at testing theoretical predictions of the fuzzy-trace theory about true and false recognition. The effects of semantic relatedness and study opportunity on true and false recognition of words from Deese, Roediger, McDermott lists (J. Deese, 1959; D. R. Read, 1996; H. L. Roediger & K. B. McDermott, 1995) were evaluated in 7- to 12-year-old children (N = 151). Instead of a traditional analysis of variance, the authors used a relatively novel statistical analysis technique, latent class factor analysis, to test the hypotheses pertaining to the effect of semantic relatedness and study opportunity on children's true and false recognition given their low or high verbatim-trace and gist-trace level. The results showed that variation in true recognition of target words from semantically related and unrelated word lists that were either studied once or repeated could be explained well by variation in verbatim-trace and gist-trace level. Variation in false recognition of semantically related distractors also could be explained by variation in gist-trace level, but the recollection-rejection hypothesis was not confirmed. The variable age was positively but weakly related to gist-trace level, but no significant relationship was found between age and verbatim-trace level.

show abstract

Two models of recognition memory: A test.

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.

Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists.

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Latent variable modeling of cognitive processes in true and false recognition of words: A developmental perspective.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About