ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Context reinstatement increases true and false recognition of associated words: Evidence from the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) illusion.
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.
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
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
Identifiers
42056461What 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.