表象编码对基于词表的错误记忆的影响

采用DRM范式,探讨不同表象编码时间和不同表象编码加工程度对基于词表的错误记忆的影响。在学习阶段,被试对呈现的词进行记忆。在测试阶段,被试在每个词列表学习结束后立即对该词列表进行自由回忆,分心任务结束后进行再认测试。实验结果发现：（1）被试在5秒编码条件下的错误记忆率显著低于3秒编码条件下的错误记忆率;（2）在5秒表象编码时间条件下,深加工组被试的错误记忆率显著低于浅加工组。这说明在较长的编码时间里,时间越长记住的细节信息越多,错误记忆率越低;加工程度越深,错误记忆率越低。     

表象编码方式影响错误记忆的研究

考察表象编码方式对错误记忆的影响。结果发现,与整合表象编码比,个别表象编码能够促进项目的特异性加工,使项目更有区分性,阻止(或减弱)诱饵词的内隐表象激活,有利于个体获取表象的激活路径,减少错误记忆发生,说明表象编码方式对错误记忆具有重要影响。根据研究结果提出表象激活混淆假设,认为个体虽然可以使用表象作为信息表征方式,却无法直接获取与之联系的激活路径。当个体推测表象激活的来源时,容易混淆表象激活的来源,错误记忆就发生了。表象激活混淆假设为视觉表象引发错误记忆的心理机制提供了说明。     

情绪词编码的不同方式对ECM的影响

该研究采用ECM实验范式,操纵被试编码阶段加工方式,分析被试情绪状态与记忆成绩之间关系。情绪电影片段诱发被试高兴或悲伤情绪后,要求被试在学习情绪词时进行有意记忆或熟悉判断或结构判断,完成分心任务后进行自由回忆。结果发现:高兴组和悲伤组采用三种加工方式学习情绪词时均出现ECM;在高兴或悲伤状态下,被试进行结构判断学习情绪词时ECM效应量大,进行有意记忆和熟悉判断学习情绪词时ECM效应量小。     

表象加工水平对错误记忆的影响

从表象加工水平角度考察引发错误记忆的因素。结果发现,深的表象加工水平能够抑制诱饵词产生较大的激活,减少错误记忆的发生。随着表象加工水平的加深,有意表象的错误记忆效应显著低于无意表象,而正确记忆效应则显著高于无意表象,表明表象加工水平对错误记忆具有重要影响。根据研究结果提出表象激活混淆假设,认为人们虽然可以用表象作为信息表征的方式,却无法直接获取与之联系的激活路径。当人们推测表象激活的来源时,容易混淆表象激活的来源,产生错误记忆。     

自尊和同伴压力对关联性错误记忆的影响

目的:探索不同自尊水平的初中生在无同伴压力或有同伴压力下完成记忆任务时,产生的关联性错误记忆情况.方法:使用自尊量表(SES)从78名中学生中挑出高自尊和低自尊学生42人,采用错误记忆研究的DRM范式,探讨自尊、同伴压力对关联性错误记忆的影响.结论:(1)关键诱饵的错误再认率高于有关项目和无关项目,有关项目的错误再认率高于无关项目；(2)自尊和同伴压力对关联性错误记忆会产生影响,高自尊和低自尊被试在有无同伴压力条件下对三种未学习词的错误再认率有所不同；在有同伴压力条件下,三种未学习词的错误再认率在高自尊被试和低自尊被试间都不存在显著差异,产生了记忆一致性效应.     

编码方式对陌生字形记忆的影响

采用学习-再认范式,分别以韩字、英文假词为实验材料,考察了编码方式对陌生字形记忆的影响。在学习阶段,通过随机呈现整体和部分探测刺激,引导被试分别以整体编码和部分编码方式学习陌生字形,并在学习结束后一小时进行再认记忆测试。结果发现,无论以韩字还是以英文假词为材料,部分编码条件的记忆成绩均显著好于整体编码。该结果说明部分编码相比于整体编码能促进陌生字形记忆,并且这种优势效应具有跨文字系统的一致性。     

错误记忆影响因素的实验研究

本研究采用DRM范式,考察了关联性、学习程度和时间间隔对错误记忆的影响,结果表明:(1)低学习程度和中学习程度下的再认错误率显著高于高学习程度下的再认错误率,说明错误记忆随着学习程度的增加而降低;(2)低关联程度下的再认错误率显著低于中关联程度和高关联程度下的再认错误率,说明关联性高低是引发错误记忆的重要变量;(3)时间间隔对错误再认率没有影响,说明错误记忆不具有时间上的衰退效应,一旦产生后极其顽固,不容易消退,可能更多地受无意识加工的影响。实验结果揭示了错误记忆与真实记忆之间存在着较为复杂的关系。真实记忆可能是错误记忆的根源,而二者的关系在不同影响因素条件下则既有共变又有分离。     

自尊与记忆偏向的关系

采用2（外显自尊：高、低）×2（内隐自尊：高、低）×2（编码深度：浅、深）×3（词汇效价：积极、中性、消极）混合设计,考察了89名不同自尊类型的大学生在不同编码深度下对不同效价形容词的再认记忆。结果发现：（1）在浅水平编码组中,低内隐自尊被试比高内隐自尊被试有更强的积极记忆偏向,而高低不同水平的外显自尊者对于词语记忆偏向没有显著差异;（2）在深程度编码组中不同自尊水平影响被试对积极词的无意识提取;（3）所有被试均有积极记忆偏向。     

来源检测对表象引发的错误记忆的影响

采用“学习-再认”模式,考察来源检测对表象引发的错误记忆的影响。结果发现,在再认任务中,正确再认观察项目与想象项目的反应时差异不显著,但在源检测中,正确再认观察项目显著快于正确再认想象项目; 再认时与源检测时的错误再认率差异不显著,但对想象项目的错误再认率显著高于对观察项目。这表明,表象会导致错误记忆发生,提高来源检测操纵并不能够削弱表象引发的错误记忆。根据研究结果提出“表象激活混淆假设”,认为人们虽然使用表象的信息表征方式,却无法获取与之联系的激活路径,容易混淆表象激活的来源。表象激活混淆是表象引发错误记忆的机制。     

协作抑制的多机制解释:来自编码加工方式和编码相似性的证据

协作抑制是指小组提取的信息量比等量个体单独提取的信息总量要少。对于协作过程降低小组成员提取潜能的机制解释,不同研究之间仍有争论。本研究实验1使用经典的生存加工范式,实验2使用联想记忆训练法,分别考察编码加工方式和编码相似性对协作提取成绩的影响,从而检验提取抑制和策略破坏机制是否能分别影响协作抑制。研究结果表明,被试在生存和非生存(愉悦度和自我经历)加工条件下都出现协作抑制现象,而生存加工条件下的协作抑制量显著小于非生存加工条件;在使用联想记忆训练法之后,相同学习顺序组没有出现协作抑制,而不同学习顺序组出现了经典的协作抑制。本研究结果为协作抑制的可能存在的多机制解释提供了证据。     

Re-exposure to studied items at test does not influence false recognition

In two experiments, we investigated whether re-exposure to previously studied items at test affects false recognition in the DRM paradigm. Furthermore, we examined whether exposure to the critical lure at test influences memory for subsequently presented study items. In Experiment 1, immediately following each studied DRM list, participants were given a recognition test. The tests were constructed such that the number of studied items preceding the critical lure varied from zero to five. Neither false recognition for critical lures nor accurate memory for studied items was affected by this manipulation. In Experiment 2, we replicated this pattern of results under speeded conditions at test. Both experiments confirm that exposure to previously studied items at test does not affect true or false recognition in the DRM paradigm. This pattern strongly suggests that retrieval processes do not influence false recognition in the DRM paradigm.     

Re-exposure to studied items at test does not influence false recognition

In two experiments, we investigated whether re-exposure to previously studied items at test affects false recognition in the DRM paradigm. Furthermore, we examined whether exposure to the critical lure at test influences memory for subsequently presented study items. In Experiment 1, immediately following each studied DRM list, participants were given a recognition test. The tests were constructed such that the number of studied items preceding the critical lure varied from zero to five. Neither false recognition for critical lures nor accurate memory for studied items was affected by this manipulation. In Experiment 2, we replicated this pattern of results under speeded conditions at test. Both experiments confirm that exposure to previously studied items at test does not affect true or false recognition in the DRM paradigm. This pattern strongly suggests that retrieval processes do not influence false recognition in the DRM paradigm.     

项目特异性加工和关系加工对非熟练中-英双语者跨语言错误记忆的影响

采用DRM范式进行跨语言错误记忆的研究较为鲜见, 而且得出了许多不同的结果, 关于错误记忆跨语言产生的理论解释也是各执己见。研究以非熟练中-英双语大学生为被试, 采用DRM范式对非熟练中-英双语者的跨语言错误记忆进行了研究。在2个实验中, 分别探讨了项目特异性加工和关系加工条件下, 语义激活的不同水平对跨语言错误记忆的影响。结果发现：1)非熟练中-英双语者也存在跨语言的错误记忆; 2)在项目特异性加工和关系加工条件下, 相同语言内与不同语言间发生关键诱词的错误再认的结果是不同的; 3)只在项目特异性加工条件下, 长词表比短词表会诱发更多的对关键诱词的错误再认。研究结果支持了激活-监测理论。     

When false memories do not occur: not thinking of the lure or remembering that it was not heard?

The aim of the present study was to evaluate two explanations for the non-occurrence of false memories in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm. One explanation was that a critical lure is not recalled because the list failed to evoke it in the participant's mind. Another possible explanation was that the participant would identify the critical lure and would remember, at the time of recall, that the lure was not produced by an external source. In order to explore these two possible explanations for the non-occurrence of false memories, an experimental phase was added to the usual DRM paradigm: participants were asked to recall items they thought of but did not recall because these items were not members of the list presented by the experimenter. Among participants who did not recall the critical lure during the standard recall task, those who recalled the critical lure during the additional phase outnumbered those who did not recall it. This result is more consistent with the second explanation than with the first one.     

Priming and false memories from Deese-Roediger-McDermott lists on a fragment completion test with children

This study examined priming and false memories with children on a word fragment completion task using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm. Forty-five 4th- and 5th-grade children were shown lists of words and instructed to fill in fragments with the first word that came to mind (implicit instructions) or with the words that were presented during study (explicit instructions). Reliable priming to critical lure words was found under implicit retrieval instructions, and false memory to critical lure words was found under explicit retrieval instructions. However, priming under implicit retrieval instructions did not depend on whether the critical lure word was in the study list. In addition, greater false memory was observed under explicit test instructions. The results replicate and extend research on DRM false memory illusion with children to include implicit retrieval and word fragment completion. Explanations of false memory including gist failure (Brainerd, Reyna, & Forrest, 2002) and implicit associative response (Underwood, 1965) are considered.     

错误记忆的自我参照效应：易化的作用

采用DRM范式,设置三种参照对象条件（自我、他人和中性参照）,考察错误记忆是否存在自我参照效应。结果发现：（1）与正确记忆一样,错误记忆中亦存在自我参照效应;（2）无论是正确记忆还是错误记忆,自我参照条件下的回忆成分均显著多于他人参照和中性参照,但熟悉性成分在三种不同参照对象条件下没有显著差异;（3）当词表中学习项目由分组呈现变为随机呈现时,错误记忆的自我参照效应仍稳定存在。结果揭示,自我参照效在促进正确记忆的同时,亦可易化错误记忆效应。     

When false memories do not occur: Not thinking of the lure or remembering that it was not heard?

The aim of the present study was to evaluate two explanations for the non-occurrence of false memories in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm. One explanation was that a critical lure is not recalled because the list failed to evoke it in the participant's mind. Another possible explanation was that the participant would identify the critical lure and would remember, at the time of recall, that the lure was not produced by an external source. In order to explore these two possible explanations for the non-occurrence of false memories, an experimental phase was added to the usual DRM paradigm: participants were asked to recall items they thought of but did not recall because these items were not members of the list presented by the experimenter. Among participants who did not recall the critical lure during the standard recall task, those who recalled the critical lure during the additional phase outnumbered those who did not recall it. This result is more consistent with the second explanation than with the first one.     

The role of test structure in creating false memories

In the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, studying lists of semantic associates results in high rates of false recognition of a nonpresented critical word. The present set of experiments was designed to measure the contribution of additional processing of list items at test to this false memory effect. The participants studied sets of lists and then performed a recognition task for each set. In three experiments, using this paradigm, we investigated false recognition when the number of studied list items presented at test (0, 6, or 12) was manipulated. In Experiments 2 and 3, false recognition of critical lures associated to both studied and nonstudied lists increased significantly as the number of list items included in the test increased. These results indicate that processes occurring at retrieval contribute to false memory effects found with the DRM paradigm.