Suppr超能文献

产生错误记忆的单词列表规范。

Norms for word lists that create false memories.

作者信息

Stadler M A, Roediger H L, McDermott K B

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia 65202, USA. stadlerm@.missouri.edu

出版信息

Mem Cognit. 1999 May;27(3):494-500. doi: 10.3758/bf03211543.

Abstract

Roediger and McDermott (1995) induced false recall and false recognition for words that were not presented in lists. They had subjects study 24 lists of 15 words that were associates of a common word (called the critical target or critical lure) that was not presented in the list. False recall and false recognition of the critical target occurred frequently in response to these lists. The purpose of the current work was to provide a set of normative data for the lists Roediger and McDermott used and for 12 others developed more recently. We tested false recall and false recognition for critical targets from 36 lists. Despite the fact that all lists were constructed to produce false remembering, the diversity in their effectiveness was large--60% or more of subjects falsely recalled window and sleep following the appropriate lists, and false recognition for these items was greater than 80%. However, the list generated from king led to 10% false recall and 27% false recognition. Possible reasons for these wide differences in effectiveness of the lists are discussed. These norms serve as a useful benchmark for designing experiments about false recall and false recognition in this paradigm.

摘要

罗迪格和麦克德莫特(1995年)诱导出了对未在列表中呈现的单词的错误回忆和错误识别。他们让受试者学习24组每组15个单词的列表,这些单词都是一个未在列表中呈现的常见单词(称为关键目标或关键诱饵)的关联词汇。对关键目标的错误回忆和错误识别在对这些列表的反应中频繁出现。当前这项研究的目的是为罗迪格和麦克德莫特使用的列表以及最近新编制的12个列表提供一组规范数据。我们测试了来自36个列表的关键目标的错误回忆和错误识别。尽管所有列表都是为了产生错误记忆而构建的,但它们的有效性差异很大——在合适的列表之后,60%或更多的受试者错误回忆起了“窗户”和“睡眠”,对这些项目的错误识别超过了80%。然而,由“国王”衍生出的列表导致了10%的错误回忆和27%的错误识别。文中讨论了这些列表有效性存在巨大差异的可能原因。这些规范为设计该范式下关于错误回忆和错误识别的实验提供了有用的基准。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验