ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Examining the effects of pleasantness ratings on correct and false recognition in the DRM paradigm: accuracy, recollection and familiarity estimates.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distinctive encoding usually increases correct recognition while also producing a reduction in false recognition. In the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) illusion this phenomenon, called the mirror effect, occurs when participants focus on unique features of each of the words in the study list. In previous studies, the pleasantness rating task, used to foster distinctive encoding, generated different patterns of results. The main aim of our research is to examine under what circumstances this task can produce the mirror effect in the DRM paradigm, based on evidence from recognition accuracy and subjective retrieval experience. In Experiment 1, a standard version (word pleasantness rating on a 5-point Likert-type scale) was used for comparison with two other encoding conditions: shallow processing (vowel identification) and a read-only control. The standard task, compared to the other conditions, increased correct recognition, but did not reduce false recognition, and this result may be affected by the number of lists presented for study. Therefore, in experiment 2, to minimize the possible effect of the so-called retention size, the number of studied lists was reduced. In addition, the standard version was compared with a supposedly more item-specific version (participants rated the pleasantness of words while thinking of a single reason for this), also including the read-only control condition. In both versions of the pleasantness rating task, more correct recognition is achieved compared to the control condition, with no differences between the two versions. In the false recognition observed here, only the specific pleasantness rating task achieved a reduction relative to the control condition. On the other hand, the subjective retrieval experience accompanied correct and false recognition in the various study conditions. Although the standard pleasantness rating task has been considered to perform item-specific processing, our results challenge that claim. Furthermore, we propose a possible boundary condition of the standard task for the reduction of false recognition in the DRM paradigm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.