Repetition Can Have Similar or Different Effects on Accurate and False Recognition

Seamon, John G.; Luo, Chun R.; Schwartz, Michael; Jones, Kaya J.; Lee, Duncan M.; Jones, Serena J.

doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2811

Cited by 82 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We have interpreted our findings in terms of dualprocess models of recognition memory, and as we have already noted, these have also been invoked to explain the influences of repetition, deadline, and aging in associative recognition (e.g., Cleary, Curran, & Greene, 2001;Jones & Jacoby, 2001;Kelley & Wixted, 2001;Light et al, 2004), as well as in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott paradigm (e.g., Benjamin, 2001;Kensinger & Schacter, 1999;Seamon et al, 2002;Watson et al, 2004). Alternative single-process models for plurality discrimination have also been proposed by Malmberg, Holden, and Shiffrin (2004).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Effects of repetition and response deadline on item recognition in young and older adults

Light¹,

Chung²,

Pendergrass³

et al. 2006

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 69%

Effects of repetition and response deadline on item recognition in young and older adults

Light¹,

Chung²,

Pendergrass³

et al. 2006

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For false memory susceptibility, the estimate was computed from false alarms to related and unrelated critical words. This procedure, used previously by Koutstaal and Schacter (1997) and Seamon, Luo, et al (2002;, treated false recognitionsof related critical words as "hits" in order to provide a measure of the extent to which the participants were fooled by these words. In terms of fuzzy trace theory, the Pr, d9, and A9 measures of false memory susceptibility can be viewed as measures of "gist" memory that differ from item-specific or "verbatim" memory.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are false memories more difficult to forget than accurate memories? The effect of retention interval on recall and recognition

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the effect of retention interval on accurate and false recollection in the Deese, Roediger, and McDermott (DRM) procedure? Previous researchhas suggestedthat false recall is more persistent than accurate recall, but the recognition results have been inconsistent. In two parametric studies, we tested recall and recognition for the same DRM lists, over retention intervals that ranged from no delay to a 2-month delay. We found that accurate and false memory were diminished by increases in retention interval, false memory persistence was present for recall and recognition, greater persistence for false memory than for accurate memory was more readily observed for recall than recognition, and the highthreshold (P r ), signal detection (d9), and nonparametric (A9) recognition measures differed in their sensitivity for detecting change. The effect of retention interval on accurate and false memory is consistent with expectations from fuzzy trace theory. In the DRM procedure, truth is not more memorable than fiction.

show abstract

“…False memories may be distinguished from true memories in terms of their responses to repeated presentations. Although repeated presentation is consistently found to improve accurate memory, the findings on false memory have varied from one study to another as a function of variations in the procedural details of the learning and testing tasks (for a comprehensive review, see Seamon et al, 2002). Seamon et al concluded that there is an interaction between presentation repetitions and word exposure duration.…”

Section: Variables Manipulated In the Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How similar is false recognition to veridical recognition objectively and subjectively?

Jou¹,

Matus²,

Aldridge³

et al. 2004

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three recognition memory experiments were conducted using modified Deese-RoedigerMcDermott (DRM) and DRM paradigms. In Experiment 1, the reaction time (RT) of the false alarms to critical nonpresented words 1 (false memory) was compared with the RT of hits to the critical presented words and with the RT of hits to the studied list words (true memory). The RT of the false alarms to the critical nonpresented words was significantly longer than that of the hits to the critical words and than that of the studied list words. In Experiment 2, in addition to RT, participants' confidence level was measured on a 4-point scale for a yes or no response. Confidence rating was significantly higher for the hits to the critical presented words and to the list words than for the false alarms to the critical nonpresented words. Experiment 3 further showed that how similar false memory experience was to that of true memory was a function of retention size (number of lists of words retained in memory). In all three experiments, the participants' recognition RTs distinguished false memory from veridical memory, and in Experiments 2 and 3, so did their confidence ratings. Therefore, false memory and veridical memory differ at both the objective and the subjective levels. The results are consistent with a single familiarity dimension model of recognition memory.

show abstract

Repetition Can Have Similar or Different Effects on Accurate and False Recognition

Cited by 82 publications

References 50 publications

Effects of repetition and response deadline on item recognition in young and older adults

Effects of repetition and response deadline on item recognition in young and older adults

Are false memories more difficult to forget than accurate memories? The effect of retention interval on recall and recognition

How similar is false recognition to veridical recognition objectively and subjectively?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About