ArticleMemory & cognition2020
Using the DRM paradigm to assess language processing in monolinguals and bilinguals.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Importance of Studying the Cognitive Neuroscience of Aging Across Cultures.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026Review
- The role of minority language bilingualism in spotting agreement attraction errors: Evidence from Italian varieties.PloS one · 2024Article
- Data from "A Registered Report Testing the Effect of Sleep on DRM False Memory: Greater Lure and Veridical Recall but Fewer Intrusions After Sleep".Journal of open psychology data · 2024Article
- A registered report testing the effect of sleep on Deese-Roediger-McDermott false memory: greater lure and veridical recall but fewer intrusions after sleep.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- The Role of Language Proficiency in False Memory: A Mini Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Fuzzy Lexical Representations in Adult Second Language Speakers.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both languages are jointly activated in the bilingual brain, requiring bilinguals to select the target language while avoiding interference from the unwanted language. This cross-language interference is similar to the within-language interference created by the Deese-Roediger-McDermott false memory paradigm (DRM; Roediger & McDermott, 1995, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21[4], 803-814). Although the mechanisms mediating false memory in the DRM paradigm remain an area of investigation, two of the more prominent theories-implicit associative response (IAR) and fuzzy trace-provide frameworks for using the DRM paradigm to advance our understanding of bilingual language processing. Three studies are reported comparing accuracy of monolingual and bilingual participants on different versions of the DRM. Study 1 presented lists of phonological associates and found that bilinguals showed higher rates of false recognition than did monolinguals. Study 2 used the standard semantic variant of the task and found that bilinguals showed lower false recognition rates than did monolinguals. Study 3 replicated and extended the findings in Experiment 2 in another semantic version of the task presented to younger and older adult monolingual and bilingual participants. These results are discussed within the frameworks of IAR and fuzzy-trace theories as further explicating differences between monolingual and bilingual processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31975029What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.