S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Papers 187–193 Saturday Morning
tention between items more slowly when their hands were near the display.
The same results were observed for both visible and invisible
hands. This enhancement in vision for objects near the hands reveals
a mechanism that could facilitate the detailed evaluation of objects for
potential manipulation, or the assessment of potentially dangerous objects
for a defensive response.
False Memory
Seaview, Saturday Morning, 10:00–12:00
Chaired by Ken McRae, University of Western Ontario
10:00–10:15 (187)
Schema-Based Gist and Backward Associations in False Memories.
DAVID R. CANN, KEN MCRAE & ALBERT N. KATZ, University
of Western Ontario (read by Ken McRae)—We used recall and recognition
tasks to examine predictions of two major theories of false
memories. We manipulated backward associative strength, a central
factor in activation monitoring theory, and gist strength, a central factor
in fuzzy trace theory. We used common word lists from
Deese/Roediger–McDermott (DRM) studies, and developed a new
type of list (Gist lists). In recognition, the Gist lists, which are strong
in terms of schema-based gist but low on backward associative
strength, produced a similar proportion of false memories as DRM
lists which had slightly lower gist strength, but far greater backward
associative strength. Furthermore, DRM lists equated with the Gist
lists on backward associative strength but differing on gist strength
produced a lower proportion of false recognition memories. Due to
differences in source monitoring, the recall results were more consistent
with activation monitoring theory. Thus, this research provides
evidence for aspects of both theories.
10:20–10:35 (188)
Gist Effects of Emotion on True and False Memory. CHARLES J.
BRAINERD, Cornell University, L. M. STEIN, PUCRS, MARK L.
HOWE, Lancaster University, VALERIE F. REYNA, Cornell University,
& G. ROHENKOHL & R. FAVARIN DO SANTOS, PUCRS—We
report a series of experiments that dealt with how the emotional content
of study materials influences true and false memory. The object
was to determine, using conjoint-recognition methodology, whether
emotion effects were due to variations in the quality of verbatim or
gist memories. The basic procedure was the same in all experiments:
Subjects studied “emotional” DRM lists (i.e., list words varied in
emotional valence and/or arousal). The major effect was that negative
valence substantially elevated false memory and that it moderately elevated
true memory. When the data were analyzed with the conjointrecognition
model, negative valence appeared to be a pure gist effect:
The meaning-similarity parameters for false memory and true memory
were both elevated. In addition to pinpointing gist memory as the
locus of the valence effect, the model analyses ruled out some other
hypotheses (e.g., that negative emotion increases false memory by disrupting
true memories).
10:40–10:55 (189)
Source Judgments for True and False Memories Are Based on Memory
Construction Rather Than Memory Strength. IRA E. HYMAN,
REID A. NELSON, & CHRISTOPHER L. SHARP, Western Washington
University—We investigated possible distinctions between true
and false memories. Using DRM word lists, we presented participants
sets of words presented in six colors. Each set contained items related
and unrelated to a critical lure. On a recognition test, participants labeled
a target old or new, rated their confidence, and were asked to
state the color in which it had been presented. Contrary to a Single
Strength Signal Detection Theory prediction, the percentage of words
for which a color was claimed did not vary as a function of confidence.
Instead claims of source information were based on the ability
to construct source information, lending some support for Source
Monitoring theory.
29
11:00–11:15 (190)
The Role of Metacognitive Strategies in the Rejection of False
Memories. DAVIDE BRUNO & PHILIP A. HIGHAM, University of
Southampton, & TIMOTHY J. PERFECT, University of Plymouth
(sponsored by Timothy J. Perfect)—The production and rejection of
false memories has been a topic of interest for a long time in the field
of recognition memory. In particular, many studies have focused on
how memorability influences acceptance and rejection of false
alarms. If an item is very memorable (e.g., one’s own name) and such
item is employed as a distractor at test, participants will tend to reject
it very confidently. The present research is concerned with evaluating
the metacognitive strategies participants employ to reject distractors.
Experiments are presented where memorability is manipulated as a
function of item strength (repetition) and of type of item (regular
words, regular nonwords, and irregular nonwords). Also, participants’
confidence in accepting or rejecting distractors is assessed with the
aid of type-2 signal detection interpretations
11:20–11:35 (191)
Generalizing the fSAM Model: Simulation of Core False Recall
Effects. DANIEL R. KIMBALL & TROY A. SMITH, University of
Texas, Arlington—Kimball, Smith, and Kahana (Psychological Review,
in press) demonstrated that the fSAM model—the first fully
specified quantitative model of false recall—could simulate several
core findings involving false recall of DRM lists, including developmental
patterns, specific list effects, association strength effects, and
true–false correlations. Participants frequently intrude an unstudied
critical word while recalling a DRM list comprising its strongest semantic
associates. The fSAM model assumes that, during encoding,
an unstudied word’s associations to list context strengthens in proportion
to its joint strength of semantic association to all co-rehearsed
words. During retrieval, words receive preference in proportion to
their joint strength of semantic association to recently recalled words.
We now report results showing that the fSAM model generalizes to
other DRM false recall effects, including the effects of repeated study,
repeated testing, repeated study–test trials, presentation rate, levels of
processing, critical word presentation, and blocked versus random
presentation of multiple lists.
Adjustments in Speech Recognition
Shoreline, Saturday Morning, 10:20–12:00
Chaired by Lynne C. Nygaard, Emory University
10:20–10:35 (192)
Perceptual Adaptation to Systematic Variation in Speech. JESSICA
E. DUKE & LYNNE C. NYGAARD, Emory University, & JENNIFER
S. QUEEN, Rollins College (read by Lynne C. Nygaard)—The present
study investigated the time course of perceptual learning of talker- and
accent-specific properties of spoken language. Adult native English
speakers were exposed to Spanish-accented English for either 1 or 3
days of training and were tested both on the following day and six
weeks after initial training. During training, listeners transcribed
words and received feedback on their performance. At test, listeners
transcribed novel words spoken by familiar and unfamiliar accented
talkers. Overall, listeners trained on Spanish-accented speech for 1 or
3 days of training performed better than untrained controls. However,
the benefits of additional training on performance and long-term retention
may depend on the amount of variability encountered during
training. The results suggest that exposure to accented speech allows
listeners to perceptually adapt to systematic variation in the speech
signal and to generalize accent-specific learning to novel words produced
by both familiar and unfamiliar talkers.
10:40–10:55 (193)
The Effect of Experience on the Perception of Dialectal Variation.
MEGHAN SUMNER & ARTHUR G. SAMUEL, Stony Brook University—Dialectal
variation complicates the task of recognizing spo-