An item gains and losses analysis of false memories suggests critical items receive more item-specific processing than list items

In a repeated testing paradigm, list items receiving item-specific processing are more likely to be recovered across successive tests (item gains), whereas items receiving relational processing are likely to be forgotten progressively less on successive tests. Moreover, analysis of cumulative-recall curves has shown that item-specific processing produces a slower, but steadier rate of recall than relational processing. The authors relied on these findings to determine the type of processing that both list items and critical lures receive in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott false memory procedure. The first 2 experiments revealed that critical lures produced more item gains, but only the list items resulted in a decrease in item losses across successive tests. The critical lures also produced slower but steadier cumulative recall. In Experiments 3 and 4, the critical items were physically presented during study, which resulted in the lures producing progressively fewer losses across successive tests. The authors concluded that critical items receive more item-specific processing than list items but that unless they are presented in the list, they do not become part of participants' organized retrieval scheme.     

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。     

Item-specific processing reduces false memories

We examined the effect of item-specific and relational encoding instructions on false recognition in two experiments in which the DRM paradigm was used (Deese, 1959; Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Type of encoding (item-specific or relational) was manipulated between subjects in Experiment 1 and within subjects in Experiment 2. Decision-based explanations (e.g., the distinctiveness heuristic) predict reductions in false recognition in between-subjects designs, but not in within-subjects designs, because they are conceptualized as global shifts in decision criteria. Memory-based explanations predict reductions in false recognition in both designs, resulting from enhanced recollection of item-specific details. False recognition was reduced following item-specific encoding instructions in both experiments, favoring a memory-based explanation. These results suggest that providing unique cues for the retrieval of individual studied items results in enhanced discrimination between those studied items and critical lures. Conversely, enhancing the similarity of studied items results in poor discrimination among items within a particular list theme. These results are discussed in terms of the item-specific/ relational framework (Hunt & McDaniel, 1993).     

Dissociative effects of orthographic distinctiveness in pure and mixed lists: an item-order account

We apply the item-order theory of list composition effects in free recall to the orthographic distinctiveness effect. The item-order account assumes that orthographically distinct items advantage item-specific encoding in both mixed and pure lists, but at the expense of exploiting relational information present in the list. Experiment 1 replicated the typical free recall advantage of orthographically distinct items in mixed lists and the elimination of that advantage in pure lists. Supporting the item-order account, recognition performances indicated that orthographically distinct items received greater item-specific encoding than did orthographically common items in mixed and pure lists (Experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, order memory (input–output correspondence and sequential contiguity effects) was evident in recall of pure unstructured common lists, but not in recall of unstructured distinct lists (Experiment 1). These combined patterns, although not anticipated by prevailing views, are consistent with an item-order account.     

The category access measure of relational processing

Increases in category access (CA) and items recalled per category (IPC) are associated with increases in relational and item-specific processing, respectively. However, it has also been shown that CA increases as recall level increases and that CA scores following relational processing are actually below CA scores for randomly recalled items. These results prompted M. D. Murphy (1979) to suggest that, after adjusting for recall-level differences, relational processing decreases CA scores. Results of Experiment 1, along with a reanalysis of previously published data, showed that relational processing produces lower CA scores than purely item-specific processing (or random recall), but an increase in relational processing produces an increase in CA scores even when the CA and IPC scores are adjusted for recall-level differences. These results suggest a curvilinear relationship between relational processing and CA scores.     

Gains and losses in action memory.

Enacting action phrases (SPT for subject-performed task) produces better free recall than only learning the phrases verbally (VT for verbal task). A widespread explanation of the enactment effect is based on the distinction between item-specific and relational information. There is widespread agreement that the main reason is the excellent item-specific encoding by enactment. However, there is little direct evidence in the case of free recall. The role of relational information is less clear. We suggest that content-based relational encoding is better in VTs than in SPTs. In three experiments, in which multiple free recall testing used item gains and losses as indices of item-specific and content-based relational encoding, respectively, these assumptions were confirmed. Consistently more gains (indexing better item-specific encoding) and more losses (indexing poorer relational encoding) were observed in SPTs than in VTs (Experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the content-based relational information underlying losses is not identical with order-relational information (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, it was shown that an item-specific orienting task for VTs produced an equivalent number of item gains and losses as did the SPT condition.     

Part-set cueing and the generation effect: An evaluation of a two-mechanism account of part-set cueing

The part-set cueing effect refers to paradoxical memory impairment often observed when elements from a set of items appear as ostensibly helpful retrieval cues during testing of memory for the set. We tested predictions of a two-mechanism account of part-set cueing—that, without enhanced relational processing, standard encoding leaves items susceptible to cueing-induced inhibition that persists after cues are removed; and that increasing item-specific encoding increases this persisting inhibition. Experiment 1 used antonym generation during study to increase item-specific encoding relative to standard encoding. Tests using item-specific probes revealed greater cueing-induced impairment for the generation condition, as predicted. However, when part-set cues were later removed, this impairment abated significantly in the generation condition and even disappeared in the standard-encoding condition—effects not predicted by the two-mechanism account, challenging its completeness. In Experiment 2, we ruled out an artifactual explanation of these results by replicating previously reported persisting impairment on free recall tests.     

Using cumulative-recall curves to assess the extent of relational and item-specific processing

Although distinguishing between item-specific and relational information has proved to be a useful approach for understanding a variety of important memory phenomena, finding measurement tools for assessing the amount and type of information processed has proven difficult. Using the repeated-testing procedure, Burns (1993) demonstrated that item gains (the recall of items on a later test that were not recalled on earlier tests) and item losses (the forgetting of items on a later test that were recalled on earlier tests) reflected differences in amount of item-specific and relational information processed, respectively. Although several researchers have begun to use the measures with apparent success, the present research demonstrates that the accuracy of the item-gain measure is largely dependent on the rather arbitrary choice of recall-test length. We also show that a related but alternative measure, analysis of cumulative-recall curves, avoids some of the shortcomings of the item gain and loss measures. Moreover, we provide evidence for the generality of the cumulative-recall approach by demonstrating its effectiveness in mixed-list designs.     

Using cumulative-recall curves to assess the extent of relational and item-specific processing

Although distinguishing between item-specific and relational information has proved to be a useful approach for understanding a variety of important memory phenomena, finding measurement tools for assessing the amount and type of information processed has proven difficult. Using the repeated-testing procedure, Burns (1993) demonstrated that item gains (the recall of items on a later test that were not recalled on earlier tests) and item losses (the forgetting of items on a later test that were recalled on earlier tests) reflected differences in amount of item-specific and relational information processed, respectively. Although several researchers have begun to use the measures with apparent success, the present research demonstrates that the accuracy of the item-gain measure is largely dependent on the rather arbitrary choice of recall-test length. We also show that a related but alternative measure, analysis of cumulative-recall curves, avoids some of the shortcomings of the item gain and loss measures. Moreover, we provide evidence for the generality of the cumulative-recall approach by demonstrating its effectiveness in mixed-list designs.     

Effects of item-specific and relational information on hypermnesic recall

The role of encoding conditions in producing hypermnesia (increased recall over successive trials) was examined by manipulating the availability of item-specific and relational information at encoding. Our findings demonstrate that encodings providing item-specific information (e.g., elaborative encodings) produce hypermnesia by facilitating the recovery of new items over trials, whereas encodings providing relational information (e.g., organizational encodings) produce hypermnesia by protecting against the loss of previously recalled items. Thus, the effects of encodings on hypermnesia may be understood by considering the type of trace information they make available.     

Recall and recognition of self-performed acts

Summary In Experiment 1, recall and recognition of 80 action phrases were compared under two encoding conditions: verbal and motor (performing the denoted acts). Memory performance was better under motor encoding than under verbal encoding, and more so in recognition than in recall. We assume that this finding is due to the item-specific effect of a specific motor component in the memory trace after enacting. In Experiments 2 and 3 we further investigated whether false-alarm rates are dependent on the motoric similarity of distractor items. The rate of false alarms was lower under motor encoding than under verbal encoding, but the motoric similarity of distractor items to list items did not influence the false alarms. The results were interpreted as support for the assumption that motor encoding enhances item-specific information in relation to verbal encoding, but that during verbal recognition the motoric quality of the depicted movement is not processed.     

Why distinctive information reduces false memories: evidence for both impoverished relational-encoding and distinctiveness heuristic accounts

Two accounts explain why studying pictures reduces false memories within the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm (J. Deese, 1959; H. L. Roediger & K. B. McDermott, 1995). The impoverished relational-encoding account suggests that studying pictures interferes with the encoding of relational information, which is the primary basis for false memories in this paradigm. Alternatively, the distinctiveness heuristic assumes that critical lures are actively withheld by the use of a retrieval strategy. When participants were given inclusion recall instructions to report studied items as well as related items, they still reported critical lures less often after picture encoding than they did after word encoding. As the impoverished relational-encoding account suggests, critical lures appear less likely to come to mind after picture encoding than they do after word encoding. However, the results from a postrecall recognition test provide evidence in favor of the distinctiveness heuristic.     

Adapting to test structure: Letting testing teach what to learn

We propose that we encode and store information as a function of the particular ways we have used similar information in the past. More specifically, we contend that the experience of retrieval can serve as a powerful cue to the most effective ways to encode similar information in comparable future learning episodes. To explore these ideas, we did two studies in which all participants went through study–test cycles of single category lists while we manipulated the nature of the recognition tests. The recognition tests either included only same-category lures or only different-category lures. The experience of repeated testing leads participants to avoid conceptual-based strategies but only when conceptual knowledge was poorly diagnostic for recognition (i.e., in the same-category lures condition). In a second study with a similar manipulation, we showed that repeated testing with lures from the same category as study items improved performance in a final recall surprise test compared to conditions in which different-category lures were used. Such a difference is akin to the one obtained when encoding instructions focus on distinctive item features compared to cases in which the focus is on relational processing. We suggest that testing requirements lead to adaptive changes at encoding.     

False memory in a short-term memory task

The Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM; Roediger & McDermott, 1995) paradigm reliably elicits false memories for critical nonpresented words in recognition tasks. The present studies used a Sternberg (1966) task with DRM lists to determine whether false memories occur in short-term memory tasks and to assess the contribution of latency data in the measurement of false memories. Subjects studied three, five, or seven items from DRM lists and responded to a single probe (studied or nonstudied). In both experiments, critical lures were falsely recognized more often than nonpresented weak associates. Latency data indicated that correct rejections of critical lures were slower than correct rejections of weakly related items at all set sizes. False alarms to critical lures were slower than hits to list items. Latency data can distinguish veridical and false memories in a short-term memory task. Results are discussed in terms of activation-monitoring models of false memory.     

提取抑制对错误记忆的影响

该研究探讨提取抑制能否减少错误记忆的发生.以自编的DRM词表为实验材料,实验1采用有意遗忘范式（有意抑制）,实验2采用部分线索效应范式（无意抑制）.实验1结果发现：关键诱饵在“记住”条件下的错误回忆成绩显著高于“遗忘”条件下的错误回忆成绩;学过项目在“记住”条件下的正确回忆成绩显著高于“遗忘”条件下的正确回忆成绩.实验2结果发现：关键诱饵在“无部分线索”条件下的错误回忆成绩显著高于“部分线索”条件下的错误回忆成绩;学过项目在“无部分线索”条件下的正确回忆成绩显著高于“部分线索”条件下的正确回忆成绩.研究结果提示：有意和无意两种提取抑制都可以降低错误记忆,结果支持基于激活与监测的双加工理论的观点.     

分类学习与混合学习下的注意促进效应比较

注意促进效应(ABE)是指目标探测性质的干扰会促进与之同时进行的背景刺激的记忆编码, 产生比分心拒绝下更优的记忆成绩。Spataro等人(2017)对此提出项目特异性解释, 认为目标探测主要促进的是对项目的特异性信息而非关系性信息加工。本研究采用混合学习和分类学习的方式形成对背景刺激的特异性信息和关系性信息加工。结果表明, 与混合学习相比, 分类学习下的ABE有所减少(实验2), 甚至消失(实验1), 表明当编码过程中对背景刺激的加工主要依赖于关系性信息时, 目标探测所产生的促进效应会被削弱, 从而为ABE的项目特异性解释提供更为直接的证据。     

Adaptive memory: determining the proximate mechanisms responsible for the memorial advantages of survival processing

J. S. Nairne, S. R. Thompson, and J. N. S. Pandeirada (2007) suggested that our memory systems may have evolved to help us remember fitness-relevant information and showed that retention of words rated for their relevance to survival is superior to that of words encoded under other deep processing conditions. The authors present 4 experiments that uncover the proximate mechanisms likely responsible. The authors obtained a recall advantage for survival processing compared with conditions that promoted only item-specific processing or only relational processing. This effect was eliminated when control conditions encouraged both item-specific and relational processing. Data from separate measures of item-specific and relational processing generally were consistent with the view that the memorial advantage for survival processing results from the encoding of both types of processing. Although the present study suggests the proximate mechanisms for the effect, the authors argue that survival processing may be fundamentally different from other memory phenomena for which item-specific and relational processing differences have been implicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).     

Organisation and Recall in Verbal Tasks and in Subject-performed Tasks

In memory for subject-performed tasks (SPTs), subjects encode a list of simple action phrases (e.g. "lift the pen", "open the book") by performing these actions during learning. Performing tasks has proved to be a much more efficient type of encoding than verbal tasks (VTs), in which subjects only listen to the action phrases in order to memorise them. It is assumed that good item-specific encoding after SPTs plays an important role in the SPT effect. The role of relational encoding for the SPT effect is less clear, as is the question of whether SPT encoding is automatic or controlled. Two experiments were conducted to address these issues. Subjects learned lists which were categorically structured in VTs and SPTs, under focal attention or divided attention. The results indicated that relational encoding does not differ between VTs and SPTs, and that free recall is impaired in both cases by divided attention, more so in VTs than in SPTs. It is concluded that the SPT effect is primarily based on item-specific information rather than on relational information, and that VTs are more dependent than SPTs on active encoding.     

The effects of a levels-of-processing manipulation on false recall

The present study attempted to determine the effect of a levels-of-processing manipulation on the incidence of false recall. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in either a vowel counting task or a concrete/abstract rating task; in Experiment 2, participants engaged in either a vowel counting task or a category sorting task. Results of both experiments demonstrated that participants who engaged in a deeper level of processing (i.e., concrete/abstract ratings or category sorting) recalled significantly more list items and critical lures. The present findings thus lend support to theories that attribute false memories to activation-based factors.