List blocking and longer retention intervals reveal an influence of gist processing for lexically ambiguous critical lures

Abstract

In two experiments, we examined veridical and false memory for lists of associates from two meanings (e.g., stumble, trip, harvest, pumpkin, etc.) that converged upon a single, lexically ambiguous critical lure (e.g., fall), in order to compare the activation-monitoring and fuzzy-trace false memory accounts. In Experiment 1, we presented study lists that were blocked or alternated by meaning (within subjects), followed by a free recall test completed immediately or after a 2.5-min delay. Correct recall was greater for blocked than for alternated lists. Critical-lure false recall was greater for blocked lists on an immediate test, whereas both list types produced equivalent false recall on a delayed test. In Experiment 2, lists blocked and alternated by meaning were presented via a between-subjects design, in order to eliminate possible list-type carryover effects. Correct recall replicated the result from Experiment 1; however, blocking lists increased false recall on delayed, but not on immediate, tests. Across the experiments, clustering correct recall by meaning increased across the delay selectively for the alternated lists. Our results suggest that thematic (i.e., gist) processes are influential for false recall, especially following a delay, a pattern consistent with fuzzy-trace theory.

Effects of survival processing and retention interval on true and false recognition in the DRM and category repetition paradigms

“…The increase in remembering/recollection that was found could then represent the outcome of such activation processes culminating in conscious awareness of activated words (Dewhurst, et al, 2005;Roediger et al, 1998). However, one problem with the activationbased account is that related false memories and their phenomenological characteristics are long-lived and difficult to explain by short-lived activation mechanisms (Flegal & Reuter-Lorenz, 2014;Huff, McNabb, & Hutchinson, 2015;Reyna et al, 2016).…”

Reducing False Recognition in the Deese-Roediger/McDermott Paradigm: Related Lures Reveal How Distinctive Encoding Improves Encoding and Monitoring Processes

“…Relevant to the present study, study tasks that encourage distinctive processing have been very fruitful, including perceptual manipulations, such as presenting study list words in unique fonts ( Arndt and Reder, 2003 ) or paired with pictures ( Israel and Schacter, 1997 ; Schacter et al, 1999 ; but see Smith and Hunt, 2020 ), and distinctive encoding tasks, such as mental images ( Foley et al, 2006 ; Gunter et al, 2007 ; Robin, 2010 ; Oliver et al, 2016 ; Bodner et al, 2017 ), pleasantness ratings ( Gunter et al, 2007 ; Huff and Bodner, 2013 ), and generation from anagram cues ( McCabe and Smith, 2006 ; Huff et al, in press ). Anagram generation, explored in our study, often yields an increase in correct recognition and a decrease in false recognition relative to a non-distinctive control task, a pattern termed a mirror effect ( Glanzer and Adams, 1990 ; see Huff et al, 2015b for a review).…”

“…To circumvent this confound, researchers have had to employ different list types (e.g., homograph or mediated false memory lists) to reduce thematic coherence while maintaining associative strength ( Hutchison and Balota, 2005 ; Huff et al, 2012 ). Studies taking these approaches suggest that both mechanisms can play a role (see Huff et al, 2015b ).…”

“…Several methods have been used to separate encoding and retrieval processes (see Huff et al, 2015b for a review and discussion). We have advocated for using a signal-detection approach when memory is tested via recognition ( Gunter et al, 2007 ; Huff and Bodner, 2013 ; Bodner et al, 2017 ; Huff et al, in press ).…”

“…Critical lures have a high number of semantic associates (hence, their use as DRM critical lures), and they also tend to be higher in word frequency and concreteness – characteristics that can affect recognition accuracy ( Balota and Neely, 1980 ; Roediger et al, 2001b ). Indeed, false alarms to critical lures from non-studied lists (i.e., critical lure controls) are typically 5–7% greater than false alarms to list words from non-studied lists ( Huff et al, 2015b ). The reduction in false recognition enjoyed following distinctive encoding may, therefore, be restricted to critical lures due to their unique characteristics, rather than occurring globally to different types of recognition lures.…”