【24h】

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

机译:错误记忆的一项物料损益分析表明,关键物料比清单物料接受的物料处理更多

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

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 oil 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.
机译:在重复测试范式中,接受特定项目处理的清单项目更有可能在连续测试中恢复(项目收益),而接受相关处理的项目则可能逐渐被少了的连续石油测试遗忘。此外,对累积召回曲线的分析表明,与关系处理相比,特定项处理产生的召回率更慢但更稳定。作者根据这些发现确定了Deese-Roediger-McDermott错误记忆程序中列出的项目和关键诱饵所接受的处理类型。前两个实验表明,关键诱饵会产生更多的物品收益,但只有清单物品会导致连续测试的物品损失减少。关键诱饵还产生了较慢但稳定的累积召回率。在实验3和4中,关键项目是在研究过程中物理呈现的,从而导致诱饵在连续测试中产生的损失逐渐减少。作者得出的结论是,关键项目比列表项目接受更多的项目特定处理,但除非将它们显示在列表中,否则它们不会成为参与者组织的检索方案的一部分。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
站内服务
  • 写作辅导
  • 期刊发表
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号