Theory and hypotheses
False memories are a common phenomenon that anyone can experience, due to the reconstructive properties of memory. The cognitive mechanisms underlying false memories have been widely studied in recent decades and these studies have given rise to numerous experimental paradigms, wich the most frequently used is DRM (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Both the enactment effect and the effect of kinesthetic motor imagery have been demonstrated in numerous studies as facilitating the memorization of information due to the presence of dual sensory-motor and semantic encoding. In the study of false memories, the observation of variations in the rate of false memories according to the types of processes used has led to the hypothesis that certain sensory cues and cognitive activity present during the process offer the possibility of rejecting false memories through the heuristic of distinctiveness (Schacter, Israel, & Racine, 1999; Dodson & Schacter, 2001). Our study aimed to explore the possible use of sensory-motor information present at processing as distinctive cues to reduce the rate of false recognition. In order to better understand what could serve as a distinctive cue between the mental representation associated with movement and the integration of sensory-motor codes, we explored the impact of enactment, but also of kinesthetic motor imagery. While mental imagery has repeatedly demonstrated a reducing effect of false memories, it is hypothesized that kinesthetic motor imagery will have a similar effect. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that the enactment effect will also reduce the rate of false memories, since it allows for less contextual and relational encoding than verbal encoding (Engelkamp & Dehn, 2000; Engelkamp, 1995; Koriat, Ben-Zur & Druch, 1991; Koriat & Pearlman-Avnion, 2003; Hornstein & Mulligan, 2004). To conduct our study, the performance of 59 young adults divided into three groups (action, imaging and control) on a recognition test in an DRM-type task was studied.
Results and conclusion
As expected, the action and imaging conditions gave similar results, indicating that it is indeed the representation of the motion, and not the “motor codes” that improve the memorization in the enactment effect. However, while the action and imaging conditions did allow a greater number of correct recognitions than the control condition, no significant difference was found between the three conditions regarding to the false recognition rate of the critical lure. This result goes against our hypothesis that the presence of sensory-motor information at the encoding would support a rather item-specific then a relational process. Nevertheless, the results show that false recognition of distractors (control actions and control lures) is significantly lower among participants in the action and imagery groups. It would thus seem that the mobilization of the movement representation can serve as a distinctive cue to reject the actions not encountered during the process phase, but at the same time it activates enough scripts in semantic memory to lead to confusion between the actions studied and the critical lures. This observation is in line with the notion found in the theories of embodied cognition according to which each concept in semantic memory is associated with a sensory-motor representation corresponding to the experience encountered by the individual when he learnt this concept. Further research could clarify the link between concepts in semantic memory and sensory-motor representations in order to explain the lack of reduction of false memories under sensory-motor encoding conditions.
Bibliography
Dodson, C.S. & Schacter, D.L. (2001). “If I had said it I would have remembered it”: Reducing false memories with a distinctiveness heuristic. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(1), 155-161. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196152
Engelkamp, J. (1995). Visual imagery and enactment of actions in memory. British Journal of Psychology, 86, p. 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02558.x
Engelkamp, J. & Dehn, D.M. (2000). Item and Order Information in Subject-Performed Tasks and Experimenter-Performed Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26(3), 671-682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.671
Horstein, S.L. & Mulligan, N.W. (2004). Memory for actions : Enactment and source memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(2), 367-372. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196584
Koriat, A., Ben-Zur, H. & Druch, A. (1991). The contextualization of input and output events in memory. Psychological Research, 53, 260-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00941396
Koriat, A., & Pearlman-Avnion, S. (2003). Memory organization of action events and its relationship to memory performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.435
Roediger, H.L., McDermott, K.B. (1995). Creating False Memories: Remembering Words Not Presented in Lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803-814
Schacter, D.L., Israel, L. & Racine, C. (1999). Suppressing False Recognition in Younger and Older Adults: The Distinctiveness Heuristic. Journal of Memory and language, 40, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2611
Words I have learned : – enactment effect = effet de l’activité motrice
– kinesthetic motor imagery = imagerie motrice kinesthésique
– dual coding = double encodage
– heuristic of distinctiveness = heuristique de distinctivité
– item-specific VS relational process = encodage spécifique à l’item VS relationnel
– embodied cognition = cognition incarnée