Memory updating after retrieval: when new information is false or correct

Can we learn from errors? Retrieval facilitates the correction of false memories for pragmatic inferences

“…The detection of an error made by someone else might trigger some degree of unintentional retrieval given that participants were not explicitly told whether or not the response was an error [ 62 , 63 ]. However, the recent study by Carneiro et al, [ 44 ] –using a similar restudy condition as our Experiment 1 –did not observe differences in the subsequent retrieval of correct and incorrect sentences that were restudied. Moreover, previous studies have been able to distinguish the retrieval mode from involuntary uses of episodic memory using electrophysiological techniques [ 64 – 66 ], which in addition to Tulving’s proposal that retrieval mode is only engaged through a conscious experience of recollection [ 41 ], led us to conclude that it is unlikely that our restudy and passive recognition conditions captured explicit retrieval.…”

“…This is consistent with a large body of previous findings [ 3 , 8 , 53 ], and with the observation that surprising feedback improved memory for the content and its source when presented in response to correct guesses or errors made with high confidence [ 54 ]. In our study, we have not compared different features of feedback but we have chosen the parameters that have been proven to be most effective for the correction of false memories, such as explicitly providing the correct answer [ 18 , 55 ], being distinctive [ 8 , 17 ], and appearing immediately after the related false memory [ 44 ]. Moreover, future studies should further extend these findings with the current paradigm exploring how the confidence degree of the retrieved errors and the monitoring of the error source modulates its correction.…”

“…Participants. The sample size was determined according to sample resources availability on a priori grounds-based on previous studies with similar experimental protocols manipulating error correction [44] or using pragmatic inferences as experimental material [50]. 120 university students from the University of Lisbon participated in the experiment (M age = 21.05 ± 6.24; 100 female) and were rewarded with 10€ vouchers for their participation.…”

“…Carneiro and colleagues provided evidence for this hypothesis, using DRM lists that required the study of semantically related words (e.g., “bed, tired, rest, pillow, dream”), that often led to falsely remembering a non-studied critical lure (e.g., “sleep”) at a later memory test. The authors compared the effect of presenting new information, (i.e., corrective feedback) when provided after retrieval vs. after restudy [ 44 ]. Consistent with the MUAR framework, their results suggested that retrieval followed by feedback is a better learning environment than restudy.…”

“…And second, previous research has shown that the associative memory errors generated with the DRM lists correlate poorly with other types of memory errors such as false-event suggestion (remembering an event that did not happen) or misinformation (updating a previous memory with false information), that involve the episodic recall of real-life events [ 45 ]. Therefore, it becomes critical to extend the results obtained by Carneiro et al [ 44 ] and study the effect of retrieval on error correction but using materials that involve episodic retrieval and are more ecologically valid.…”