ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
False memories as a function of language proficiency: Differences between semantic and phonological processing.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies using verbal list-learning tasks have examined how language proficiency affects intrusion rates using semantic/associative lists. Typically, false memories decrease as language proficiency decreases; a finding consistent with fuzzy trace theory (gist extraction is less effective when items are less familiar; Brainerd & Reyna, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 164-169, 2002) and with the activation/monitoring framework (semantic networks are less developed; Roediger et al., 2001). Native and non-native speakers (high and low proficiency, determined based on subjective and objective measures) studied phonological, semantic, and hybrid (half semantic, half phonological) lists to determine whether language proficiency affects errors across different types of associates. False recall was observed in all three proficiency groups; however, the patterns of errors differed. High proficiency and native speakers did not differ from one another: Both groups made the most errors with hybrid lists and similar error rates with semantic and phonological lists. In contrast, low proficiency speakers made significantly fewer semantic than hybrid and phonological errors. All groups showed a strong hyper-additive effect for Hybrid lists. Less proficient speakers might rely less on semantic than phonological information compared to more proficient speakers. The present work indicates that language proficiency modulates false memory broadly. (192 words).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40329095What 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.