1. Effects of Shared Sound and Spelling on False Word Recognition
Christine Malone, Kristen Bouwman, Susan Johnson, Julie Przekwas
Minnesota State University, Moorhead

2. Background Information
False memories can be induced in a list learning paradigm.
The most commonly used paradigm is the DRM Paradigm
Studied words with common semantic (bed, rest, wake) or sound (paradise) information can induce false recognitions of their corresponding base words on the test list (sleep and paradox, respectively) (e.g., Roediger & McDermott, 1995; Wallace, Malone, & Spoo, 2000).
Both sound and spelling influence spoken word recognition in a priming paradigm (e.g., Slowiaczek, Soltano, Wieting, & Bishop, 2003).
example

3. Rationale for Study
Previous work has shown both sound and spelling to influence spoken word recognition in a priming paradigm.
Previous false memory research has manipulated only spelling or sound and left the other factor free to vary.
We aimed to systematically study sound and spelling information to understand their individual and combined contributions in creating false recognitions of unpresented words.

4. Sample Stimuli Initial Sound: centigrade – sentiment
Ending Sound: peppermint – sentiment
Initial Spelling: gentle – genius
Ending Spelling: radius – genius
Initial Both: tickle – ticket
Ending Both: pocket – ticket
Unrelated: welfare – ticket

5. Hypothesis
If sound and spelling are automatically activated as the study word unfolds, study words with both shared sound and spelling (parasite) should activate their corresponding target (paragraph) to a greater extent during study and seem more familiar at test. This should lead to a greater proportion of false recognition errors to their target (e.g., report having heard paragraph on the study list, when, in fact, it was parasite).

6. Method Participants Design 86 MSUM psychology undergraduates
2 (position: initial & end) x 3 (shared information: sound, spelling, & both) within-subjects design

7. Procedure Recognition Memory Paradigm
Participants were asked to listen carefully to a study list consisting of 186 words.
The study list contained 90 words which were each randomly presented twice. Also, the list included 3 buffer words at the beginning and end of presentation.
Participants were then presented a second, shorter list and were asked to respond “old” or “new” after each word.
“Old” indicated that the word appeared on the first list
“New” indicated that the word did not appear on the first list

8. Results
There was a significant difference between the three shared information variables, F (2, 85)= 23.15, p <
An interaction was found between position and shared information, F (2, 85)= 3.40, p < .036.