Abstract
False recognition memory for nonstudied items that share features with targets can be reduced by retrieval monitoring mechanisms. The recall-to-reject process, for example, involves the recollection of information about studied items that disqualifies inconsistent test probes. Monitoring for specific features during retrieval may be enhanced by an encoding orientation that is recapitulated during retrieval. In two experiments, we used concrete words or door scenes as materials and manipulated the level of processing at study and the type of distractors presented at test. We showed that for the verbal material, semantic level of processing at study results in an effective rejection of semantically inconsistent distractors. However, for the pictorial material, the perceptual level of processing leads to an effective rejection of perceptually inconsistent distractors. For targets, the effect of levels of processing was observed for words but not for pictures. The results suggest that retrieval monitoring mechanisms depend on interactions between encoding orientation, study materials, and differentiating features of distractors.
Highlights
Incidents of false memories depend on two classes of processes: error-inflating processes that are generally based on familiarity increased by the shared attributes of targets and lures, and error-editing processes that overall depend on the recollection of features that are distinctive (e.g., Arndt & Gould, 2006)
Our aim was to investigate the effects of levels of processing on disqualifying monitoring depending on the kind of study material
For the hit rate as the dependent variable, one-way ANOVA examining the effect of encoding task revealed a significantly higher hit rate in the category condition (M = 0.85, SD = 0.102) than in the colour condition (M = 0.75, SD = 0.139), F(1) = 9.61, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.16
Summary
Incidents of false memories depend on two classes of processes: error-inflating processes that are generally based on familiarity (activation) increased by the shared attributes of targets and lures, and error-editing processes that overall depend on the recollection (monitoring) of features that are distinctive (e.g., Arndt & Gould, 2006). The recollection of study details can be used to avoid false recognition through such decision mechanisms as disqualifying monitoring or diagnostic monitoring (Gallo, 2006). “recall-to-reject” processes are described that involve the recollection of information which eliminates the recognition probe as having occurred (e.g., Gallo, 2004; Gallo et al, 2006, 2007). In other words, these processes facilitate the rejection of test probes that are similar to targets by detecting their mismatch on some of the features (e.g., Carneiro et al, 2012; Rotello et al, 2000).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
