False recognition of instruction-set lures

False remembering has been examined using a variety of procedures, including the Deese-Roediger-McDermott procedure, the false fame procedure and the two-list recognition procedure. We present six experiments in a different empirical framework examining false recognition of words included in the experimental instructions (instruction-set lures). The data show that participants' false alarm rate to instruction-set lures was twice their false alarm rate to standard lures. That result was statistically robust even when (1) the relative strength of targets to instruction-set lures was increased, (2) participants were warned about the instruction-set lures, (3) the instruction-set lures were camouflaged in the study instructions and (4) the instruction-set lures were presented verbally at study but visually at test. False recognition of instruction-set lures was only mitigated when participants were distracted between encountering the instruction-set lures and studying the training list. The results confirm the ease with which recognition succumbs to familiarity and demonstrate the robustness of false recognition.     

Does stimulus complexity determine whether working memory storage relies on prefrontal or sensory cortex?

Traditionally, working and short-term memory (WM/STM) have been believed to rely on storage systems located in prefrontal cortex (PFC). However, recent experimental and theoretical efforts have suggested that, in many cases, sensory or other task-relevant cortex is the actual storage substrate for WM/STM. What factors determine whether a given WM/STM task relies on PFC or sensory cortex? In the present article, we outline recent experimental findings and suggest that the dimensionality or complexity of the to-be-remembered property or properties of a stimulus can be a determining factor.     

Strength-based mirror effects in item and associative recognition: Evidence for within-list criterion changes

Strength-based mirror effects occur when the hit rate is higher and the false alarm rate is lower following strongly encoded study lists than when following more weakly encoded study lists. In Experiments 1A and 1B, strength-based mirror effects were observed in separate tests of single item and associative recognition for random word pairs. In Experiment 2, strength-based mirror effects were again seen when item and associative recognition were tested together. Finally, in Experiments 3 and 4, opposing strength-based mirror effects were observed for item and associative recognition when individual words and word pairs were presented at different rates in the same study lists. Strength-based mirror effects could result from participants' adopting a more conservative decision criterion following strong lists than following weak ones. If this is the case for both item and associative recognition, the present results demonstrate that subjects can adopt different response criteria for different recognition tasks and can alternate between them on a trial-by-trial basis.