Manipulations of List Type in the DRM Paradigm: A Review of How Structural and Conceptual Similarity Affect False Memory

Abstract

The use of list-learning paradigms to explore false memory has revealed several critical findings about the contributions of similarity and relatedness in memory phenomena more broadly. Characterizing the nature of “similarity and relatedness” can inform researchers about factors contributing to memory distortions and about the underlying associative and semantic networks that support veridical memory. Similarity can be defined in terms of semantic properties (e.g., shared conceptual and taxonomic features), lexical/associative properties (e.g., shared connections in associative networks), or structural properties (e.g., shared orthographic or phonological features). By manipulating the type of list and its relationship to a non-studied critical item, we review the effects of these types of similarity on veridical and false memory. All forms of similarity reviewed here result in reliable error rates and the effects on veridical memory are variable. The results across a variety of paradigms and tests provide partial support for a number of theoretical explanations of false memory phenomena, but none of the theories readily account for all results.

Dynamics of working memory process revealed by independent component analysis in an fMRI study

“…Many experimental paradigms have been used to study human memory and its failings. One of the most popular is Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm (for the review, see: REF 17 ), used for studying memory distortions, because of its simplicity, controllability, and flexibility 18 . In this paradigm, participants study a list of related words, each of which converges on a non-studied critical lure.…”

“…This variant of the DRM task allows to effectively separate the encoding (presentation of the memory set) and retrieval processes (remembering whether or not the recognition probe was presented in the preceding memory set). While most DRM tasks focus on the distorting effects of semantic similarity, memory distortions due to phonological similarity (based on surface/structural content) are also investigated 17 , 18 . In a review by Chang and Brainerd (2021) 18 , the authors showed that there are differences between semantic and phonological distortions examined using DRM paradigm under both short-term and long-term memory conditions as well as due to the test modality (auditory versus visually presented items).…”

Is there a survival processing effect in metacognition?

“…In addition to increasing recall and recognition performance, survival processing may also be expected to prevent false memories (Otgaar & Smeets, 2010 ). False memories are defined as the memory trace of an experience that in fact did not happen or remembering it in a different way than the fact (Roediger & McDermott, 1995 ) and can arise due to various factors, including inferences that a person makes regarding the event (Roediger & McDermott, 1995 ), which can be influenced by interference of events that happened afterward (e.g., Loftus et al, 1978 , Schooler et al 1990 , Goff et al 1998 , Tversky et al 2000 ), sleep deprivation (Chatburn et al, 2017 ), and similarity between to be remembered information (Coane et al, 2021 ), or general metacognitive beliefs about how memory works (Mazzoni & Kirsch, 2002 ).…”

Questioning the Role of Forward Associative Strength in False Memories: Evidence From Deese-Roediger-McDermott Lists With Three Critical Lures

“…On a subsequent memory test, critical lures are often mistakenly recalled or recognized (e.g., Arndt and Beato, 2017;Pitarque et al, 2018;Huff et al, 2020;Beato and Arndt, 2021). While this paradigm produces robust false memory, there is substantial variability in the false recognition that occurs across DRM lists (e.g., Gallo and Roediger, 2002;Beato and Díez, 2011;Cadavid and Beato, 2017;Coane et al, 2021).…”