Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42056461›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

Context reinstatement increases true and false recognition of associated words: Evidence from the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) illusion.

Asia Bayoud, Benton H Pierce, David A Gallo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Asia BayoudDepartment of Psychology and Special Education, East Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX, 75429, USA.
Benton H PierceDepartment of Psychology and Special Education, East Texas A&M University, Commerce, TX, 75429, USA. benton.pierce@etamu.edu.
David A GalloDepartment of Psychology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reinstating context from encoding to retrieval increases true recognition (e.g., testing object memory on reinstated versus switched background scenes), but context reinstatement also increases false recognition of similar objects (a "context reinstatement illusion"; see Doss et al., Psychological Science, 29, 914-925, 2018). Here we report three experiments extending these context reinstatement effects to semantically associated words (i.e., the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) false memory task), thereby demonstrating that the context illusion generalizes beyond the object pictures used in prior work. We found robust context reinstatement effects on both true and false recognition, even though participants were told that the encoding and retrieval context would not always match (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, context reinstatement boosted claims of "recollecting" details, thereby boosting the typical DRM illusion. By contrast, when we gave a stronger warning to avoid context as misleading (Experiment 2), context reinstatement effects on both true and false recognition were smaller and unreliable, suggesting that strategic attempts to minimize this illusion during retrieval came at the cost of context reinstatement's benefit to true recognition. Overall, our demonstration of a context reinstatement illusion using the DRM task provides another example of how context reinstatement can increase both true and false recognition. These results also provide new evidence that item-context conceptual associations can drive these misleading effects of context reinstatement during memory retrieval.

Indexed as

Conceptual fluencyContext illusionContext reinstatementDRM false memory taskRecognition memory

Identifiers

PMID42056461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.