Retrieval Failure Contributes to Gist-Based False Recognition

Abstract

People often falsely recognize items that are similar to previously encountered items. This robust memory error is referred to as gist-based false recognition. A widely held view is that this error occurs because the details fade rapidly from our memory. Contrary to this view, an initial experiment revealed that, following the same encoding conditions that produce high rates of gist-based false recognition, participants overwhelmingly chose the correct target rather than its related foil when given the option to do so. A second experiment showed that this result is due to increased access to stored details provided by reinstatement of the originally encoded photograph, rather than to increased attention to the details. Collectively, these results suggest that details needed for accurate recognition are, to a large extent, still stored in memory and that a critical factor determining whether false recognition will occur is whether these details can be accessed during retrieval.

Figure 1

Recognition test conditions in Experiment 1. The participant’s task was to select one of the three items as old (studied) or reject all three items as new. The correct response is to select the silver anchor when it is present and reject all three items when it is not. See Rationale and Design. Stimuli were presented in color.

Figure 2

Accuracy data from Experiment 1. The color of each bar indicates the participant’s choice. In the examples provided in Figure 1, the scissors, bulldozers, and beavers are examples of paired unrelated foils. The apple and diskette are examples of single unrelated foils. Error bars show SEM.

Figure 3

Eye tracking data from Experiment 1. The color of each bar indicates the participant’s choice. We exclude incorrect responses (with the exception of false alarms to related foils in the single related item condition) because these occurred infrequently and are associated with high estimation error and missing data values for certain participants. Error bars show SEM.

Figure 4

Recognition test conditions in Experiment 2. The task is the same as Experiment 1 (cf. Figure 1), except for the inclusion of the two related items condition. Stimuli were presented in color.

Figure 5

Accuracy data from Experiment 2. The color of each bar indicates the participant’s choice. In the examples provided in Figure 4, the piggybanks, cats, and pretzels are examples of paired unrelated foils. The basketball, accordion, and cow are examples of single unrelated foils. Error bars show SEM.

Figure 6

Eye tracking data from Experiment 2. The color of each bar indicates the participant’s choice. We exclude incorrect responses (with the exception of false alarms to related foils in the single related item condition and the two related items condition) because these occurred infrequently and are associated with high estimation error and missing data values for certain participants. Error bars show SEM.

Figure 7

Confidence data from Experiment 2, collected in a separate group of 30 participants run outside the MRI environment. The color of each bar indicates the participant’s choice. We exclude incorrect responses (with the exception of false alarms to related foils in the single related item condition and the two related items condition) because these occurred infrequently and are associated with high estimation error and missing data values for certain participants. Error bars show SEM.