Illusory recollection of voices

Henry L. Roediger, Kathleen B. McDermott, David B. Pisoni, David A. Gallo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We investigated source misattributions in the DRM false memory paradigm (Deese, 1959, Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Subjects studied words in one of two voices, manipulated between-lists (pure-voice lists) or within-list (mixed-voice lists), and were subsequently given a recognition test with voice-attribution judgements. Experiments 1 and 2 used visual tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 1), subjects frequently attributed related lures to the corresponding study voice, despite having the option to not respond. Further, these erroneous attributions remained high with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 2). Thus, even when their related lists were not associated with a particular voice, subjects misattributed the lures to one of the voices. Attributions for studied items were fairly accurate in both cases. Experiments 3 and 4 used auditory tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 3), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding study voice, regardless of the test voice. In contrast, with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 4), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding test voice, regardless of the study voice. These findings indicate that source attributions can be sensitive to voice information provided either at study or at test, even though this information is irrelevant for related lures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)586-602
Number of pages17
JournalMemory
Volume12
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2004

Fingerprint

Recollection
Experiment
Attribution
Paradigm
Hearing
False Memory
Recognition (Psychology)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Roediger, H. L., McDermott, K. B., Pisoni, D. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2004). Illusory recollection of voices. Memory, 12(5), 586-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000125

Illusory recollection of voices. / Roediger, Henry L.; McDermott, Kathleen B.; Pisoni, David B.; Gallo, David A.

In: Memory, Vol. 12, No. 5, 01.09.2004, p. 586-602.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roediger, HL, McDermott, KB, Pisoni, DB & Gallo, DA 2004, 'Illusory recollection of voices', Memory, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 586-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000125
Roediger HL, McDermott KB, Pisoni DB, Gallo DA. Illusory recollection of voices. Memory. 2004 Sep 1;12(5):586-602. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000125
Roediger, Henry L. ; McDermott, Kathleen B. ; Pisoni, David B. ; Gallo, David A. / Illusory recollection of voices. In: Memory. 2004 ; Vol. 12, No. 5. pp. 586-602.
@article{65a746f28428496e9dea6f46257e91f4,
title = "Illusory recollection of voices",
abstract = "We investigated source misattributions in the DRM false memory paradigm (Deese, 1959, Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Subjects studied words in one of two voices, manipulated between-lists (pure-voice lists) or within-list (mixed-voice lists), and were subsequently given a recognition test with voice-attribution judgements. Experiments 1 and 2 used visual tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 1), subjects frequently attributed related lures to the corresponding study voice, despite having the option to not respond. Further, these erroneous attributions remained high with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 2). Thus, even when their related lists were not associated with a particular voice, subjects misattributed the lures to one of the voices. Attributions for studied items were fairly accurate in both cases. Experiments 3 and 4 used auditory tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 3), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding study voice, regardless of the test voice. In contrast, with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 4), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding test voice, regardless of the study voice. These findings indicate that source attributions can be sensitive to voice information provided either at study or at test, even though this information is irrelevant for related lures.",
author = "Roediger, {Henry L.} and McDermott, {Kathleen B.} and David Pisoni and Gallo, {David A.}",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1080/09658210344000125",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "586--602",
journal = "Memory",
issn = "0965-8211",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Illusory recollection of voices

AU - Roediger, Henry L.

AU - McDermott, Kathleen B.

AU - Pisoni, David B.

AU - Gallo, David A.

PY - 2004/9/1

Y1 - 2004/9/1

N2 - We investigated source misattributions in the DRM false memory paradigm (Deese, 1959, Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Subjects studied words in one of two voices, manipulated between-lists (pure-voice lists) or within-list (mixed-voice lists), and were subsequently given a recognition test with voice-attribution judgements. Experiments 1 and 2 used visual tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 1), subjects frequently attributed related lures to the corresponding study voice, despite having the option to not respond. Further, these erroneous attributions remained high with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 2). Thus, even when their related lists were not associated with a particular voice, subjects misattributed the lures to one of the voices. Attributions for studied items were fairly accurate in both cases. Experiments 3 and 4 used auditory tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 3), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding study voice, regardless of the test voice. In contrast, with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 4), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding test voice, regardless of the study voice. These findings indicate that source attributions can be sensitive to voice information provided either at study or at test, even though this information is irrelevant for related lures.

AB - We investigated source misattributions in the DRM false memory paradigm (Deese, 1959, Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Subjects studied words in one of two voices, manipulated between-lists (pure-voice lists) or within-list (mixed-voice lists), and were subsequently given a recognition test with voice-attribution judgements. Experiments 1 and 2 used visual tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 1), subjects frequently attributed related lures to the corresponding study voice, despite having the option to not respond. Further, these erroneous attributions remained high with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 2). Thus, even when their related lists were not associated with a particular voice, subjects misattributed the lures to one of the voices. Attributions for studied items were fairly accurate in both cases. Experiments 3 and 4 used auditory tests. With pure-voice lists (Experiment 3), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding study voice, regardless of the test voice. In contrast, with mixed-voice lists (Experiment 4), subjects frequently attributed related lures and studied items to the corresponding test voice, regardless of the study voice. These findings indicate that source attributions can be sensitive to voice information provided either at study or at test, even though this information is irrelevant for related lures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4544242842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4544242842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09658210344000125

DO - 10.1080/09658210344000125

M3 - Article

C2 - 15615317

AN - SCOPUS:4544242842

VL - 12

SP - 586

EP - 602

JO - Memory

JF - Memory

SN - 0965-8211

IS - 5

ER -