MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114909976 · doi:10.5406/19398298.138.3.06

Encoding Perceptual Features in the Deese–Roediger–McDermott Paradigm: Different Consequences for Studied Items and False Memories

2025· article· en· W7114909976 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallPerceptionFalse memoryRecognition memoryEncoding (memory)Contrast (vision)Word (group theory)Word recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Previous studies have shown that the incidence of false memories in the Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm is reduced when studied words are accompanied by their pictures or images and also reduced when monitoring activities are enhanced at retrieval. In the present experiment, studied words were accompanied by perceptual features to be learned (word color and location on the screen), and monitoring at retrieval was enhanced by asking participants to recall word location, color, or both features for words identified as old in a recognition test. In contrast to our predictions, we found that recognition of studied words was impaired as more perceptual features to be learned were added, but the number of false memories was not reduced by these additions. We attribute this differential effect to the division of attention at encoding associated with learning perceptual features reducing the subsequent explicit recollection of list items while having no effect on the implicit conceptual representations supporting the false familiarity-based recognition of critical lures. Although the false recognition of critical lures was as high as the correct recognition of studied words in some conditions, vividness ratings were significantly lower for false memories, in line with previous findings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of PsychologySame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207