Abstract
In the Deese-Roediger/McDermott (DRM) paradigm, distinctive encoding of list items typically reduces false recognition of critical lures relative to a read-only control. This reduction can be due to enhanced item-specific processing, reduced relational processing, and/or increased test-based monitoring. However, it is unclear whether distinctive encoding reduces false recognition in a selective or global manner. To examine this question, participants studied DRM lists using a distinctive item-specific anagram generation task and then completed a recognition test which included both DRM critical lures and either strongly related lures (Experiment 1) or weakly related lures (Experiment 2). Compared to a read-control group, the generate groups showed increased correct recognition and decreased false recognition of all lure types. We then estimated the separate contributions of encoding and retrieval processes using signal-detection indices. Generation improved correct recognition by both increasing encoding of memory information for list words and by increasing memory monitoring at test. Generation reduced false recognition by reducing the encoding of memory information and by increasing memory monitoring at test. The reduction in false recognition was equivalent for critical lures and related lures, indicating that generation globally reduces the encoding of related non-presented items at study (not just critical lures), while globally increasing list-theme-based monitoring at test.
Highlights
Researchers have long been interested in techniques that can improve memory accuracy
In Experiment 2, generation did not significantly improve correct recognition over reading, unlike Experiment 1. This is not unprecedented: The generation effect is typically small in between-group designs (Bertsch et al, 2007), and we recently reported a null effect of the same generation task in free recall (Huff and Bodner, 2019)
Generation increased the amount of encoded memory information for studied list items and decreased the amount of associative/ relational memory information encoded for lures relative to the read group, a pattern consistent with an impoverished relational encoding account (Hege and Dodson, 2004)
Summary
Researchers have long been interested in techniques that can improve memory accuracy. Many of these techniques involve encoding tasks that induce a “deeper” level of processing of study materials (Craik and Lockhart, 1972; Craik, 2002). Generation Reduces False Recognition and instructing participants to stringently monitor their retrievals (Brainerd et al, 2001; Huff et al, 2011). These techniques can improve correct memory, their effects on memory errors and, in turn, on overall memory accuracy are as important. We explore how one technique improves overall memory accuracy by shaping encoding and monitoring processes
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.
