The difference between implicit and explicit associative processes at study in creating false memory in the DRM paradigm.

Yayoi Kawasaki; Hiroshi Yama

doi:10.1080/09658210444000520

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16423743

The difference between implicit and explicit associative processes at study in creating false memory in the DRM paradigm.

Yayoi Kawasaki·Hiroshi Yama

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The effects of implicit and explicit associative processes for false recognition were examined by manipulating exposure duration of studied items; 20 ms or 2000 ms. Participants studied lists of words that were high associates to a nonpresented word (critical lure) in either condition. After learning each list, they took a recognition test and remember/know judgements immediately (Experiment 1) or 1 minute later (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, know responses for critical lures were more in the 20 ms than in the 2000 ms conditions, while remember responses for them were more in the 2000 ms condition. Implicit associative processes create familiarity of critical lures, and explicit associative processes create details of false memories. Comparing the results of Experiment 1 with those of Experiment 2, remember responses for critical lures were increased with the prolonged time only in the 20 ms condition. Characteristics of false memory made by implicit associative processes could be changed by prolonged time.

Explore related subjects

Analysis of Variance Association Learning Female Humans Judgment Mental Recall Models, Psychological Photic Stimulation Psychological Tests Recognition, Psychology Repression, Psychology Retention, Psychology Time Factors Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Yayoi Kawasaki, Hiroshi Yama. 2006. The difference between implicit and explicit associative processes at study in creating false memory in the DRM paradigm.. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210444000520

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2025

Chemical defibrillation in acute myocardial ischaemia: a hypothesis.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2014

Molecular heterochrony and the evolution of sociality in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris).

Sibling care is a hallmark of social insects, but its evolution remains challenging to explain at the molecular level. The hypothesis that sibling care evolved from ancestral maternal care in primitively eusocial insects has been elaborated to involve heterochronic changes in gene expression. This elaboration leads to the prediction that workers in these species will show patterns of gene expression more similar to foundress queens, who express maternal care behaviour, than to established queens engaged solely in reproductive behaviour. We tested this idea in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) using a microarray platform with approximately 4500 genes. Unlike the wasp Polistes metricus, in which support for the above prediction has been obtained, we found that patterns of brain gene expression in foundress and queen bumblebees were more similar to each other than to workers. Comparisons of differentially expressed genes derived from this study and gene lists from microarray studies in Polistes and the honeybee Apis mellifera yielded a shared set of genes involved in the regulation of related social behaviours across independent eusocial lineages. Together, these results suggest that multiple independent evolutions of eusociality in the insects might have involved different evolutionary routes, but nevertheless involved some similarities at the molecular level.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2007

Comparing the small sample performance of several variance estimators under competing risks.

We examine several variance estimators for cumulative incidence estimators that have been proposed over time, some of which are derived from asymptotic martingale or counting process theory, and some of which are developed from the moments of the multinomial distribution. There is little published work comparing these variance estimators, largely because the variance estimators are algebraically complex and difficult to interpret and all but one have yet to be programmed for a standard statistical package. Through simulation and application to real data, we compare the performance of six variance estimators in relation to each other and the bootstrap in order to confirm earlier reports of their performance and to provide future direction toward their application. We find that the multinomial-moment-based estimators have performance close to that of the bootstrap, and are quite accurate for estimating the variance, even in samples of 20 subjects. All but one of the martingale theory-based estimators tend to perform poorly in small samples, tending to either overestimate or underestimate the empirical variance in samples of fewer than 100 subjects.

Analysis of Variance↗