Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
G. D. Zannino and E. Ambrosini contributed equally to this work.
In everyday life, human beings can report memories of past events that did not occur or that occurred differently from the way they remember them because memory is an imperfect process of reconstruction and is prone to distortion and errors. In this recognition study using word stimuli, we investigated whether a specific operationalization of semantic similarity among concepts can modulate false memories while controlling for the possible effect of associative strength and word co-occurrence in an old–new recognition task. The semantic similarity value of each new concept was calculated as the mean cosine similarity between pairs of vectors representing that new concept and each old concept belonging to the same semantic category. Results showed that, compared with (new) low-similarity concepts, (new) high-similarity concepts had significantly higher probability of being falsely recognized as old, even after partialling out the effect of confounding variables, including associative relatedness and lexical co-occurrence. This finding supports the feature-based view of semantic memory, suggesting that meaning overlap and sharing of semantic features (which are greater when more similar semantic concepts are being processed) have an influence on recognition performance, resulting in more false alarms for new high-similarity concepts. We propose that the associative strength and word co-occurrence among concepts are not sufficient to explain illusory memories but is important to take into account also the effects of feature-based semantic relations, and, in particular, the semantic similarity among concepts.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Andrews, M., Vinson, D., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Inferring a probabilistic model of semantic memory from word association norms. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1941–1946).
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. CrossRef
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Comastri, F., Piccioni, L., Volpi, A., Aston, G., et al. (2004). Introducing the La Repubblica corpus: a large, annotated, TEI (XML)-compliant corpus of newspaper Italian. Proceedings of LREC, 2(5), 163.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 0.999999-0.
Bertinetto, P. M., Burani, C., Laudanna, A., Marconi, L., Ratti, D., Rolando, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2005). Corpus e lessico di frequenza dell’italiano scritto (CoLFIS) [Corpus and frequency lexicon for written Italian]. Retrieved from http://www.istc.cnr.it/grouppage/colfisEng.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2002). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 164–169. CrossRef
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359. CrossRef
Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 163–201. doi: 10.1037/0096-34184.108.40.206. CrossRef
Forster, K. I., & Dickinson, R. G. (1976). More on the language-as-fixed effect: Monte-Carlo estimates of error rates for F1, F2, F′, and minF′. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 135–142. CrossRef
Gallo, D. A., & Roediger, H. L, I. I. I. (2002). Variability among word lists in eliciting memory illusions: evidence for associative activation and monitoring. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(3), 469–497. CrossRef
Guida, A., & Lenci, A. (2007). Semantic properties of word associations to Italian verbs. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 19, 293–326.
Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528–551. CrossRef
McRae, K. (2004). Semantic memory: some insights from feature-based connectionist attractor networks. The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, 45, 41–86. CrossRef
McRae, K., & Boisvert, S. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(3), 558–572. CrossRef
McRae, K., & Jones, M. (2013). Semantic memory. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 206–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McRae, K., Khalkhali, S., & Hare, M. (2012). Semantic and associative relations in adolescents and young adults: examining a tenuous dichotomy. In The Adolescent Brain: Learning, Reasoning, and Decision Making (pp. 39–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, xviii. doi: 10.1037/13493-002.
Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2013b). The “subjective” pupil old/new effect: Is the truth plain to see? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(1), 48–56.
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Reason, 4(2), 61–64.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407. CrossRef
Ponzetto, S. P., & Strube, M. (2007). Knowledge derived from wikipedia for computing semantic relatedness. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 30, 181–212.
Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803–814. CrossRef
Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization and memory. New York: Academic Press.
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. (2002). Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cognition, 85(3), B61–B69.
Yee, E., Overton, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Looking for meaning: Eye movements are sensitive to overlapping semantic features, not association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 869–874
Zannino, G. D., Perri, R., Pasqualetti, P., Paola, M. D., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, G. A. (2006c). The role of semantic distance in category-specific impairments for living things: evidence from a case of semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 44(7), 1017–1028. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.006. CrossRefPubMed
Zeelenberg, R., Boot, I., & Pecher, D. (2005). Activating the critical lure during study is unnecessary for false recognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(2), 316–326.
- Semantic similarity between old and new items produces false alarms in recognition memory
Gian Daniele Zannino
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg