| Title |
Now you make false memories; now you do not: the order of presentation of words in DRM lists influences the production of the critical lure in Alzheimer’s disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-016-0831-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christelle Evrard, Anne-Laure Gilet, Fabienne Colombel, Elodie Dufermont, Yves Corson |
| Abstract |
Why do some Alzheimer's patients produce fewer false memories than healthy older participants in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm, which was especially designed for the study of false memories in a laboratory setting? Using a very simple methodology, this study examines a new explanatory factor inherent in the paradigm itself: the order of presentation of the words in the lists. A sample comprising 149 participants (36 younger, 40 middle-aged, 37 healthy older adults, and 36 Alzheimer's patients) performed a DRM task with either a classic descending forward associative strength (FAS) presentation order of the words or an ascending FAS presentation order. The results showed that this simple manipulation influenced the production of false memories in Alzheimer's patients only. Contrary to the other participants, Alzheimer's patients produced significantly more critical lures in the ascending FAS condition than in the descending FAS condition. These new data, interpreted in the light of serial position effects, invite a reconsideration of the relevance of the DRM paradigm for comparing the production of false memories in Alzheimer's patients and healthy older participants. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 February 2020.
All research outputs
#15,783,284
of 24,993,752 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#498
of 1,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,244
of 427,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,993,752 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.