Revisiting the rise and fall of false recall: Presentation rate effects depend on retention interval

Abstract

Leading theories of false memory predict that veridical and false recall of lists of semantically associated words can be dissociated by varying the presentation speed during study. Specifically, as presentation rate increases from milliseconds to seconds, veridical recall is predicted to increase monotonically while false recall is predicted to show a rapid rise and then a slow decrease—a pattern shown by McDermott and Watson (2001) in a study using immediate recall tests. In three experiments we tested the generality of the effects of rapid presentation rates on veridical and false memory. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants exhibited high levels of false recall on a delayed recall test, even for very fast stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA)—contrary to predictions from leading theories of false memory. When we switched to an immediate recall test in Experiment 3 we replicated the pattern predicted by the theories and observed by McDermott and Watson. Follow-up analyses further showed that the relative output position of false recalls is not affected by presentation rate, contrary to predictions from fuzzy trace theory. Implications for theories of false memory, including activation monitoring theory and fuzzy trace theory, are discussed.

Keywords:

• False memory
• Activation monitoring theory
• Fuzzy trace theory
• Presentation rate
• Delayed recall

Acknowledgments

Troy A. Smith is now at Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University. This research was funded by Grant MH079357 from the National Institute of Mental Health to the second author. Portions of this research were presented in 2009 at the 50th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society in Boston, MA, and at the annual ARMADILLO Southwest Cognition Conference, in Houston, TX.

Notes

¹Because of limitations on monitor refresh rates and variations in interstimulus interval (ISI), the nominal presentation rates that were used to label the experimental conditions in many previous studies are different from the actual SOAs. To allow for precision of comparisons across studies, we used the reported refresh rates and ISIs to convert the nominal presentation rates to actual SOAs. For example, McDermott and Watson (2001) used a monitor refresh rate of 60Hz and a 33-ms ISI. Thus, in their nominal 20-ms condition, the stimuli would have been displayed for 33.3 ms each with a 33.3-ms blank screen between each stimulus, resulting in an SOA of 67 ms.

²Brainerd and Reyna (2005) do not explicitly discuss predictions for the effect of presentation rate on veridical recall; however, given their description of the time course for verbatim trace storage, it is reasonably straightforward to predict a monotonic increase in veridical recall as presentation rate slows.

³Details of the bootstrap procedure, including Python scripts, are available from the authors on request.