Working memory differences in illusory recollection of critical lures

Abstract

In the present experiments, we explored the relationship between individual differences in working memory (WM) capacity and susceptibility to false recognitions and their accompanying subjective experiences. Deese/RoedigerMcDermott (DRM) associative lists were used to elicit false memories, and remember/know judgments were used to measure the recollective experiences accompanying recognition decisions. We found that WM capacity was related to false recognitions of nonpresented critical lures and to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures, such that higher WM capacity was associated with lower falserecognition rates and with lower proportions of remember responses. Importantly, these WM differences were only found when participants were forewarned about the nature of the DRM task prior to encoding (Exp. 1). When the forewarning was absent, WM capacity was not related to false recognitions or to the proportion of remember responses given to critical lures (Exp. 2). These results support the controlledattention view of WM and suggest that subjective experiences of falsely recognized lures fluctuate as a function of WM capacity.

Perfectionism and false memories: A signal detection analysis

“…This relationship between perfectionistic concerns and working memory capacity corroborates previous studies relating worry and lower working memory capacity for neutral stimuli (e.g., Leigh & Hirsch, 2011;Trezise & Reeve, 2016). Moreover, recent studies found that individuals with lower working memory capacity recall more critical lures than individuals with high levels of working memory (e.g., Bixter & Daniel, 2013). A poor working memory capacity may, therefore, account for the susceptibility to false memories in highly perfectionistic concerns individuals.…”

“…Specifically, working memory is used to maintain cognitive representations in an active state in the presence of interfering information. Consistent with this notion, working memory capacity has been found to be negatively related to performance in several highly cognitively-loaded tasks (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2002;Leppink, Paas, Van Gog, van Der Vleuten, & Van Merrienboer, 2014) including the DRM, false-memory paradigm (e.g., Bixter & Daniel, 2013;Mirandola, Toffalini, Ciriello, & Cornoldi, 2015).…”

“…Several studies have revealed individual characteristics associated with false memories that emerge with the DRM paradigm. For example, higher levels of false memories have been shown to be associated with extraversion (e.g., Sanford & Fisk, 2009), creativity (e.g., Dewhurst, Thorley, Hammond, & Ormerod, 2011), and working memory capacity (e.g., Bixter & Daniel, 2013).…”

Wpływ sprawności funkcjonowania pamięci roboczej na powstawanie fałszywych wspomnień

“…semantyczna i epizodyczna czy krótkoterminowa i trwała -obu przypadkach zwraca się uwagę, że WM może stanowić rodzaj buforu, umożliwiający transfer informacji pomiędzy tymi magazynami). Pozwala jednak na wyjaśnienie zjawiska powstawania fałszywych wspomnień w kontekście zróżnicowanej sprawności pamięci roboczej osób badanych, jednocześnie wpisując się w nurt współcześnie prowadzonych badań, które w znakomitej większości akcentują rolę procesów kontrolnych WM w genezie fałszywych wspomnień (Druey, Hübner, 2008;Bixter, Daniel, 2013;Lindsay, 2014;Kantner, Lindsay, 2014). Z tego powodu (a także ze względu na ograniczoną objętość opracowania), w dalszej części artykułu skupiono się na analizie efektywności pamięci roboczej w rozumieniu funkcji opisanych przez Friedman i Miyake (2004).…”

Effects of executive functioning on false memory in children

“…Nearly all of the studies reviewed below have used an undergraduate population and have only begun to scratch the surface of the relationship between neuropsychological functioning and false memories. Bixter and Daniel (2013) explored the relationship between false recollection and working memory using two different experiments; one with a forewarning for participants about the tendency of DRM lists to lead to false memories and another where this forewarning was absent. Those participants with larger working memory capacity had fewer false memories, but also fewer "remember" responses, or responses where the participant consciously recollected the word (as opposed to having a "feeling" that it was a word they had seen before), though this was only when a forewarning regarding the DRM task occurred.…”