These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31902019)
21. The effect of study modality on false recognition. Smith RE; Hunt RR; Gallagher MP Mem Cognit; 2008 Dec; 36(8):1439-49. PubMed ID: 19015503 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The importance of material-processing interactions in inducing false memories. Chan JC; McDermott KB; Watson JM; Gallo DA Mem Cognit; 2005 Apr; 33(3):389-95. PubMed ID: 16156175 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. False recall and recognition of brand names increases over time. Sherman SM Memory; 2013; 21(2):219-29. PubMed ID: 22963741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Eye-closure & the retrieval of item-specific information in recognition memory. Parker A; Dagnall N Conscious Cogn; 2020 Jan; 77():102858. PubMed ID: 31837571 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Generative processing and emotional false memories: a generation "cost" for negative false memory formation but only after delay. Knott L; Wilkinson S; Hellenthal M; Shah D; Howe ML Cogn Emot; 2022 Nov; 36(7):1448-1457. PubMed ID: 36196863 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The effect of divided attention on false memory depends on how memory is tested. Dewhurst SA; Barry C; Swannell ER; Holmes SJ; Bathurst GL Mem Cognit; 2007 Jun; 35(4):660-7. PubMed ID: 17848024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Reducing False Recognition in the Deese-Roediger/McDermott Paradigm: Related Lures Reveal How Distinctive Encoding Improves Encoding and Monitoring Processes. Huff MJ; Bodner GE; Gretz MR Front Psychol; 2020; 11():602347. PubMed ID: 33329270 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A memory-interference versus the "dud"-effect account of a DRM false memory result: Fewer related targets at test, higher critical-lure false recognition. Jou J; Hwang M Psychon Bull Rev; 2022 Aug; 29(4):1397-1404. PubMed ID: 35318582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. When does memory monitoring succeed versus fail? Comparing item-specific and relational encoding in the DRM paradigm. Huff MJ; Bodner GE J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2013 Jul; 39(4):1246-56. PubMed ID: 23356241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Can false memories be corrected by feedback in the DRM paradigm? McConnell MD; Hunt RR Mem Cognit; 2007 Jul; 35(5):999-1006. PubMed ID: 17910183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. False memories in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis patients: A preliminary investigation with the DRM paradigm. Pitteri M; Vannucci M; Ziccardi S; Beccherle M; Semenza C; Calabrese M Mult Scler Relat Disord; 2020 Jan; 37():101418. PubMed ID: 32172993 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Exploring the consequences of nonbelieved memories in the DRM paradigm. Otgaar H; Moldoveanu G; Wang J; Howe ML Memory; 2017 Aug; 25(7):922-933. PubMed ID: 28029065 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effects of distinctive encoding on correct and false memory: a meta-analytic review of costs and benefits and their origins in the DRM paradigm. Huff MJ; Bodner GE; Fawcett JM Psychon Bull Rev; 2015 Apr; 22(2):349-65. PubMed ID: 24853535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. False recognition occurs more frequently during source identification than during old-new recognition. Hicks JL; Marsh RL J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 Mar; 27(2):375-83. PubMed ID: 11294439 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]