| Title |
Comparison of activation level between true and false items in the DRM paradigm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Processing, July 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10339-009-0271-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vincenzo Paolo Senese, Ida Sergi, Tina Iachini |
| Abstract |
The aim of the present study was to compare the activation levels of true and false memories in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm. For this purpose, we used a lexical decision task (LDT) that can be considered a relative pure measure of activation. Participants had to study a list of words that were semantically associated to a critical non-presented word (CI), and afterwards had to classify the actually studied words, the CI and new words in the LDT. Results indicated that the classification latency of the CI was the same as actually studied words and shorter than new words. The results might be interpreted as evidence that the false and true memory items have the same activation level and that the false memory effect can be based on the indirect activation of the CI at the encoding. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 27% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 16 | 73% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
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 02 October 2013.
All research outputs
#13,688,529
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#157
of 335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,392
of 95,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 95,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.