False memory-guided eye movements: insights from a DRM-Saccade paradigm.
The Deese-Roediger and McDermott (DRM) paradigm and visually guided saccade tasks are both prominent research tools in their own right. This study introduces a novel DRM-Saccade paradigm, merging both methodologies. We used rule-based saccadic eye movements whereby participants were presented with i...
| Publicado en: | Memory Vol. 32; no. 2; pp. 223 - 237 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Feb2024
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=175702984&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 175702984 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09658211 BAY jtl: Memory issn: 09658211 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2024 vid: 32 iid: 2 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 175702984 175065790 175702984 175702984 10.1080/09658211.2024.2307921 175702984 ppf: 223 ppct: 14 formats: tig: atl: False memory-guided eye movements: insights from a DRM-Saccade paradigm. aug: au: Knott, Lauren Litchfield, Damien Donovan, Tim Marsh, John E. affil: Department of Psychology, City, University of London, London, UK sug: subj: False Memory Eye Movements Paradigms Task Performance and Analysis Saccades Recognition (Psychology) Decision Making Human Memory Female Adolescence Adult Power Analysis Data Analysis Software Descriptive Statistics Confidence Intervals Middle Age England Analysis of Variance Adolescent: 13-18 years Adult: 19-44 years Middle Aged: 45-64 years Female ab: The Deese-Roediger and McDermott (DRM) paradigm and visually guided saccade tasks are both prominent research tools in their own right. This study introduces a novel DRM-Saccade paradigm, merging both methodologies. We used rule-based saccadic eye movements whereby participants were presented with items at test and were asked to make a saccade to the left or right of the item to denote a recognition or non-recognition decision. We measured old/new recognition decisions and saccadic latencies. Experiment 1 used a pro/anti saccade task to a single target. We found slower saccadic latencies for correct rejection of critical lures, but no latency difference between correct recognition of studied items and false recognition of critical lures. Experiment 2 used a two-target saccade task and also measured corrective saccades. Findings corroborated those from Experiment 1. Participants adjusted their initial decisions to increase accurate recognition of studied items and rejection of unrelated lures but there were no such corrections for critical lures. We argue that rapid saccades indicate cognitive processing driven by familiarity thresholds. These occur before slower source-monitoring is able to process any conflict. The DRM-Saccade task could effectively track real-time cognitive resource use during recognition decisions. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|