Children and adults are differentially affected by presentation modality in the DRM paradigm

APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGYAppl. Cognit. Psychol. (2008)Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1519
*O

C

Children and Adults are Differentially Affected byPresentation Modality in the DRM Paradigm

MAYA M. KHANNA1* and MICHAEL J. CORTESE2

1Department of Psychology, Creighton University, USA2Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA

SUMMARY

Using the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) method for free recall, we examined mode of listpresentation and association type in 8–9 year old children and adults. Participants verbally recalledlists of associates that were presented orally (Experiment 1) or visually (Experiment 2). Listsconsisted of semantic associates (e.g. hound, puppy, etc.), phonological associates (e.g. log, dot, etc.)and both semantic and phonological associates (e.g. hound, dot, etc.) to a nonpresented lure word(e.g. dog). Interestingly, the ratio of false to true recall was higher in children than adults only whenlists were presented orally. These results suggest that children rely more on sublexical information oritem-specific information than adults when reading lists, and, thus, are less likely to activate thecritical lure via lexical associations. Furthermore, these results suggest that information processingdifferences at encoding between children and adults need to be taken into account when interpretingfree recall studies. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The examination of false memory has been an area of active research for many years dating

back to Bartlett’s (1932) classic work. A well-known procedure for studying false memory

is the Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm (e.g. Deese, 1959; Roediger &

McDermott, 1995; also see Read, 1996). In this procedure, participants are presented with a

list of words all related to a theme word (i.e. the critical lure) that does not appear on the

list. Upon testing, participants will often falsely recall and/or falsely recognize the critical

lure.

Childhood to adulthood developmental trends in false recall and false recognition in the

DRM paradigm recently have received a great deal of interest (e.g. Anastasi & Rhodes,

2008; Brainerd & Reyna, 2007; Brainerd, Reyna, & Forrest, 2002; Carneiro, Albuquerque,

Fernandez, & Esteves, 2007; Ghetti, Qin, & Goodman, 2002; Howe, Gagnon, & Thouas,

2008; Metzger, Warren, Shelton, Price, Reed, & Williams, 2008). Developmental studies

of the DRM paradigm are important because two leading theories make contrasting

predictions about the developmental trajectory of true and false memories produced via the

DRM paradigm. The activation monitoring framework (AMF, e.g. Roediger, Watson,

McDermott, & Gallo, 2001) predicts that false recall will decrease with age while true

Correspondence to: Maya M. Khanna, Department of Psychology, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza,maha, NE 68178, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

opyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. M. Khanna and M. J. Cortese

recall increases, and the fuzzy-trace theory (FTT, e.g. Reyna & Brainerd, 1995; Brainerd &

Reyna, 1998) predicts that false recall as well as true recall will increase with age.1

The AMF assumes that a source monitor is responsible for differentiating between

episodic memories of list items and those activated in semantic memory via associative

mechanisms (e.g. spreading activation, Collins & Loftus, 1975). This source monitor

presumably develops along with general attentional capabilities and, thus, is under-

developed in children. An underdeveloped source monitor will lead to a relatively high

level of false recall of the critical lure. In other words, children should produce higher

levels of false recall than adults.

In the FTT, memory for lists of words is represented by verbatim and gist traces. The

verbatim trace provides the participant with item-specific features of the list items. On the

other hand, the gist trace represents the general theme of the list. And so, true recall of list

items is sub-served by both verbatim and gist traces while false recall of the critical lure is

mediated by the gist trace only. The FTT assumes that both verbatim and gist traces are

underdeveloped in children. Accordingly, children should produce true and false memories

at lower rates than adults.

Several studies have reported results consistent with the predictions of the FTT. For

example, Brainerd et al. (2002) presented typical DRM lists to 5, 7 and 11 year olds as well

as to young adults. They found that the three groups of children produced lower levels of

false recall (and recognition) for the critical lure than did young adults. A very similar

developmental trend has been reported in additional studies (cf. Brainerd, Holliday, &

Reyna, 2004; Holliday & Weekes, 2006; Metzger et al., 2008; but see Carneiro et al., 2007;

Ghetti et al., 2002).

Although, it is important to acknowledge the utility of examining false memory

processing in children to distinguish between theoretical models of memory processing, it

is also important to examine the developmental differences in cognitive processes that

underlie the DRM paradigm. This is especially important given the popularity of this

method for studying false memory. Specifically, differences in the production of true and

false memories in children and adults may be explained by age related differences in

working memory capacity (Gathercole, 1999; Hale, 1990), and word-processing (Chall,

1983; Kamhi & Catts, 1991; Reimer, 2006). The current study focuses mainly on the latter

of these two issues.

Previous examinations of false memory production in adults via the DRM paradigm

have rarely focused on the word recognition processes involved (however, see Cortese,

Khanna, White, Vejlkovic, & Drumm, 2008). Despite the fact that some studies utilizing

the DRM paradigm with children have focused on developmental differences in

phonological and semantic processing (Dewhurst & Robinson, 2004; Holliday & Weekes,

2006), they have not focused on developmental differences in word recognition processes,

per se. In the current study, we have examined the production of true and false memories

during oral recall via the DRM paradigm with children and adults in both the written and

verbal presentation modalities. In addition, we have utilized the hybrid cue technique

(Watson, Balota, & Sergent-Marshall, 2001; Watson, Balota, & Roediger, 2003) to

examine developmental differences in processing phonological, semantic and hybrid lists

(consisting of both phonological and semantic associates).

1These prediction of the FTT and the AMF are true if one assumes that the strength of association among list itemsis the same across age groups and that both age groups display similar levels of automatic activation of list items.We examine/discuss these issues as they relate to the present experiment in the ‘General Discussion’ Section.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/acp

DRM children and adults

There is good reason to believe that presentation modality will affect the type of

processing in which children engage. Based on findings and theories in the word

recognition literature (see Jackson & Coltheart, 2001, for a review) we hypothesize that

adults will likely use lexical information when encoding lists of words regardless of the

presentation modality. In contrast, 8- to 9-year-old children will be more likely to rely on

sublexical information when lists are presented visually than when lists are presented

orally. We feel that this differential effect of presentation modality between adults and

children is related to the automaticity of the reading process in adults and the still-

developing reading process in children. The reading process for 8- to 9-year-old children is

more likely to rely on the active decoding of words more so than is the adult reading

process (Jackson & Coltheart, 2001). Specifically, relative to adults, children will focus

more on sublexical information in the visual presentation modality because their

orthographic lexicon has not yet been well established. However, in the verbal presentation

modality, attention may remain focused on lexical processing because the phonological

representations of many words are firmly established by age 8 or 9.

According to the dual-route cascaded (DRC) model of visual word recognition

(Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001), word recognition can occur via either

lexical processing or sublexical processing. The lexicon can be likened to a mental

dictionary that contains orthographic, phonological and semantic information for all the

words a reader knows. When one is involved in lexical processing, (s)he will be more likely

to engage in associative processes because of the interconnections among word

representations in the lexicon. The sublexical route contains grapheme-to-phoneme

conversion (GPC) rules for converting graphemes into phonemes. It is important to note

that, in the DRC model, there are separate lexicons for orthography and phonology. In

terms of development, a child will begin forming a phonological lexicon at a very early age,

but (s)he will not begin forming an orthographic lexicon until much later (Jackson &

Coltheart, 2001). Typical 8- or 9-year-old children have been reading for about 3 years, and

college undergraduates have been reading for about 13 years. Therefore, the orthographic

lexicons of adults will be much more established than that of 8- or 9-year-old children.

While the sublexical and lexical routes are thought to operate simultaneously,

differential emphasis on one route or the other may be necessary depending on the

orthographic stimulus under consideration and/or the skill of the reader. For example,

irregular words (e.g. yacht) require lexical access because the application of GPC rules

would produce an incorrect pronunciation code (e.g. ‘yatched’). In contrast, a nonword

(e.g. blark) requires access of GPC rules because there is no lexical entry for a nonword. In

addition, the sublexical route is thought to be more influential for processing less familiar

low-frequency words than very common high-frequency words. Therefore, because

children are less skilled at the reading process and less familiar with words, in general, than

adults, they should be more likely to rely on the sublexical route. This sublexical

processing is less likely to activate associative information than is lexical processing.

Furthermore, because the application of the GPC rules used in sublexical processing is not

needed for verbally presented lists, and the phonological lexicons are fairly well

established by age 8 or 9, we can assume that children will engage in associative processing

more so for verbally presented lists than for visually presented lists. This difference in

processing styles (lexical and sublexical processing in verbally and visually presented lists,

respectively) suggests that the rate of false recall in children will be relatively high for lists

presented verbally and relatively low for lists presented visually whereas the difference in

the rate of false recall as a function of presentation modality should be less extreme for


DOI: 10.1002/acp


adults because they will engage in lexical processing for both verbally and visually

presented lists.

While presentation modality in the DRM paradigm has been examined in adults, we

know of no study that has examined this factor in children. In the adult literature, most

studies have shown that oral presentation produces a slightly (but significantly) higher rate

of false recall and false recognition than visual presentation (e.g. Smith & Hunt, 1998).

Interestingly, nearly all of these studies have tested participants in the written recall

modality (see Gallo, 2006 for a review). In a free recall study conducted by Kellogg (2001)

on adults, no difference in presentation modality was observed when participants gave their

responses orally. Since, in our studies, participants recalled list items orally, we did not

expect a large effect of presentation modality in adults.

As stated above, we have utilized the hybrid cue technique (Watson et al., 2001, 2003) to

examine developmental differences in processing phonological, semantic and hybrid lists.

Hybrid lists contain both types of associates, (e.g. for the critical lure sleep, items might

include the semantic associates: bed, rest, awake, etc. and the phonological associates:

sweep, steep, slip, which are alternated in the hybrid list: bed, sweep, rest, steep, awake,

slip, etc.). That is, the hybrid lists were created by using the associates from the odd serial

position of the semantic lists and the associates from the even serial positions of the

phonological lists.2 Watson et al. (2001, 2003) used similar types of hybrid lists and found

that these lists produced a higher rate of false memories than either semantic or

phonological lists. We expect to replicate this basic finding in both our child and adult

samples. According to Watson and colleagues (2001, 2003 and based on the AMF), when

lists contain entirely semantic associates, one can distinguish list items from the critical

lure by focusing on perceptual (i.e. orthographic and/or phonological) information. That is,

the list items have strongly activated the semantic code of the critical lure, but the critical

lure’s perceptual representation(s) has/have not been strongly activated. In contrast, the

perceptual representations of the list items have been strongly activated because they were

processed directly. In this situation, if one focuses on perceptual information, then false

memory can be avoided. On the other hand, when lists contain entirely phonological

associates, one can avoid a false memory by focusing on conceptual information to

distinguish between list items and the critical lure. However, in hybrid lists when the list

contains both semantic and phonological associates, one is unable to focus on solely

conceptual or perceptual information to distinguish the list items from the critical lure. This

inability is what will lead to higher rates of false recall in the hybrid lists as compared to the

phonological or semantic pure lists.

Although we know of no other studies that have used the hybrid cue technique in

examining the production of true and false memories in children, we should note that recent

examinations of developmental trends in false memory production have been expanded to

include lists of phonological associates (e.g. Holliday & Weekes, 2006). Holliday and

Weekes (2006) argue that the FTT predicts that phonological false memories will decrease

with age. This claim is based on specific properties of language. For example, Holliday and

Weekes assert that the number of meanings in a language is infinite, and the number of

2Watson et al., 2003 also employed hybrid lists that interleaved the associates from the even serial positions of thesemantic lists and the odd serial positions of the phonological lists. For their analyses, they combined the data fromthe two types of hybrid lists, suggesting that there were not big differences in the true and false recall ratesproduced by these two types of hybrid lists. In addition, the pattern of true and false recall that we observed inadults for all list types (including hybrid lists) was very similar to that obtained by Watson et al. Thus, it is unlikelythat the choice to use one type of sequencing for the hybrid lists affected the results.


DOI: 10.1002/acp


phonemes is finite. Children learn how to decompose and combine these phonemes at a

young age, thus learning the phonological representations of words much before learning

the meanings of words. In addition, words sharing similar phonological structures (e.g.

sleep and sleet) often have different meanings. Presumably, these linguistic constraints

cause older children to focus more on verbatim phonological information than on verbatim

semantic information. In other words, language development biases individuals to focus on

verbatim information more so when a DRM list contains phonological associates to a

critical lure than when it contains semantic associates to a critical lure.

Conversely, the AMF would not necessarily propose different developmental

trajectories for the production of semantic and phonological false memories. Assuming

the activation level of a critical lure is similar for semantic and phonological associates (as

Sommers & Lewis, 1999 found) an attentional limitation would influence the occurrence of

phonological and semantic false memories in a similar way. Thus, as the source monitor

matures and attention capacity increases, the proportions of false memories should

decrease for both semantic and phonological lists. However, the hybrid lists containing

both semantic and phonological associates will require participants to focus on both

conceptual and perceptual information to distinguish the list items from the critical lure.

This process of focusing on both perceptual and conceptual features of list items will place

greater strain on the source monitor, as compared to processing pure semantic or

phonological lists. Thus, participants will not distinguish the critical lure from list items as

successfully as they do with pure lists. This will lead to relatively higher rates of false recall

for the hybrid lists as compared to either type of pure list.

It is not clear what, if any, specific predictions the FTT and the AMF would make about

whether the true and false memories produced via the three list types would be

differentially affected by presentation modality. However, we may gain some leverage on

this issue if we refer to the DRC model of word recognition (Coltheart et al., 2001). If one

assumes that, in terms of the DRC model, the activation of the critical lure occurs via

associative processing that occurs in the semantic lexicon for semantic associates and the

orthographic, and phonological lexicons for phonological associates, then we should not

observe an interaction between list type and presentation modality in either children or

adults. Specifically, the more that one emphasizes sublexical processes, the less that (s) he

will engage in lexical/associative processes and vice versa. Therefore, across list types, we

expect that adults will emphasize lexical/associative processes for both presentation

modalities and children will emphasize sublexical processes for printed words and lexical

processes for auditory presentation. In adults, this situation would produce relatively little

change in false recall as a function of presentation modality. In children, we would expect

that false recall would be reduced for all list types under the written presentation modality

relative to auditory presentation.

It seems reasonable to assume that, when processing semantic associates, the critical lure

is activated via lexical/associative processes. However, it is possible that activation of

the critical lure via phonological associates occurs via sublexical processes because the

individual phonemes associated with the lure are activated sublexically. For example,

regarding the critical lure dog, the sublexical units corresponding to / g/ may be activated

by log, hog, etc. and the sublexical unit /d/ may be activated by dodge, dot, etc. Thus, all of

the phonemes for dog could be activated via sublexical processes and, thus, would produce

a high rate of false recall when sublexical processes are emphasized. If this were the case,

we might expect children to show a relatively high level of false recall for phonological lists

under written presentation and a relatively high level of false recall for semantic lists under


DOI: 10.1002/acp


verbal presentation. A relatively low level of false recall for phonological lists would be

expected under verbal presentation, and a relatively lower level of false recall for semantic

lists would be expected under written presentation. Adults, on the other hand, would

produce a relatively high level of false recall for semantic lists and a relatively lower level

of false recall for phonological lists regardless of the list type.

In sum, the present studies were employed to examine developmental differences as a

function of presentation modality in the DRM paradigm. Specifically, false memory

production in 8- to 9-year-old children and college-aged adults was examined via semantic,

phonological and hybrid lists (cf. Watson et al., 2001, 2003). Lists were presented orally in

Experiment 1 and visually in Experiment 2. While 8- to 9-year-old children have acquired

considerable reading skills during their 3 years or so of reading, these skills are still quite

distinct from that of college-aged readers who have been reading for about 13 years (Kamhi

& Catts, 1991). As a result, we expect children to rely more on sublexical information when

processing printed words than when processing words presented orally. Therefore, if we

assume that false memories are produced via lexical associative processes, in children, the

rate of false memories should be much higher for lists presented orally than lists presented

visually. In contrast, adults should rely on lexical information when processing words in

either modality. Thus, the rate of false memories should be relatively the same across

modalities. Alternatively, if phonological false memories are the result of sublexical

processes, we expect an elevated rate of false recall for phonological lists in the written

modality for children only. Finally, based on the work of Watson et al. (2001, 2003), we

expect hybrid lists to produce a higher rate of false memories than pure semantic or pure

phonological lists.

EXPERIMENT 1 —VERBAL PRESENTATION

Method

Design

List type (semantic, phonological and hybrid) was manipulated within subjects, while age

group (children, young adults) served as a between subjects variable. The proportion of

true recall, the proportion of false recall and relative false recall (i.e. the ratio of false-to-

true recall) served as dependent variables.

Participants

There were 64 participants in this study. The young adult participants (n¼ 30, mean

age¼ 19.2 years, 7 males) were students attending a Southeastern United States public

university and received course credit for participating. The undergraduates were

predominately Caucasian and middle-class. The child participants (n¼ 34, mean

age¼ 9.2 years, 17 males) were predominantly Caucasian and middle-class. They were

recruited from after-school programmes in a mid-sized Southeastern United States city

once school officials and parents/guardians gave permission for their child to participate.

Each child received a small prize (e.g. a pencil) in exchange for his/her participation.

Materials

Watson et al.’s (2003) lists were used to base the construction of 12-item lists for nine

critical items: dog, cold, back, sleep, rain, chair, hit, cat and sweet. We constructed a


DOI: 10.1002/acp


semantic list, a phonological list and a hybrid list for each critical item. This produced a

total of 27 lists (see Appendix). However, semantic associates from Watson et al. (2003)

that were deemed inappropriate for children were replaced by age-appropriate items from

the Nelson, McEvoy, and Schreiber (1998) free association norms. The appropriateness of

list-inclusion was determined by using a combination of age-of-acquisition norms for

monosyllabic words (Cortese & Khanna, 2007, 2008) and the judgment of elementary

school teachers. Phonological associates shared all but one phoneme with the critical item.

The unshared phoneme may have appeared at the beginning, middle or the end of the word

(e.g. log, dig and dot were all associates of dog). Again, words were included only if they

were age-appropriate. Finally, the hybrid lists were created by alternating 6 semantic and

6 phonological associates from the semantic and phonological lists. Each participant was

presented with one type of list for each item. Thus, each participant heard 3 semantic lists,

3 phonological lists and 3 hybrid lists. Lists were counterbalanced across participants such

that lists corresponding to a given critical item occurred equally often as a semantic list, a

phonological list and a hybrid list.

Procedure

Participants were tested individually in a quiet room while interacting with an

experimenter. Children were tested at their schools during their after-school programme,

while young adult participants were tested in a psychology lab on the university’s campus.

Participants were informed that they would be given lists of words they were to remember.

They were told that the experimenter would read each list of words one word at a time and

that when the experimenter was finished reading the list, (s)he would look up at the

participant. At that time, the participant was to begin recalling aloud the items from the list.

The instructions emphasized accuracy. The experimenter read the list items to the

participants at a rate of 1 word every 1.5 seconds. The experimenter recorded the words

recalled by the participants in the order that they were reported. Participants were given as

much time as needed to recall the list items. These steps were repeated for 9 lists for each

participant.

Results

The mean proportion of true recall by age and list type is presented in Figure 1, the mean

proportion of false recall by age and list type is presented in Figure 2 and the relative rate of

false-to-true recall by age and list type is presented in Figure 3. In the analyses that follow,

all ps< .05 unless noted.

True recall

A 2 (age group)� 3 (list type) mixed factor ANOVA revealed no interaction between the

factors, although there was a weak trend, F(2, 124)¼ 2.37, MSE¼ .005, p¼ .098. The

adults had higher levels of true recall than did the children (0.49, and 0.31, respectively),

F(1, 62)¼ 68.18, MSE¼ .022. A main effect of list type was also observed, F(2,

124)¼ 67.74, MSE¼ .005. Post hoc pair-wise t-tests revealed that the semantic list items

were recalled at a higher rate than were the items from the phonological and hybrid lists,

t(63)¼ 10.12 and 7.18, respectively. Also, the rate of true recall was higher in the hybrid

list condition than in the phonological list condition, t(63)¼ 3.52.


DOI: 10.1002/acp

Figure 1. The proportion of true recall for children and adults for the three list types in the auditorypresentation modality

Figure 2. The proportion of false recall for children and adults for the three list types in the auditorypresentation modality

Figure 3. Relative false recall rates for the three list types for children and adults in the auditorypresentation modality


DOI: 10.1002/acp



False recall

We conducted a 2 (age group)� 3 (list type) mixed factor ANOVA on the proportion of

false recall of the critical lure. It revealed no interaction between the factors and no main

effect of age. However, we found a main effect of list type, F(2, 126)¼ 24.99, MSE¼ .075.

Post hoc pair-wise t-tests indicated that the hybrid lists produced higher levels of false

recall than did the semantic and phonological lists, t(63)¼ 5.84 and 6.28, respectively. The

proportion of false recall for the semantic and phonological lists was not significantly

different, t(63)¼ 0.766, p> 0.44.

Comparing true and false recall

Next, we compared the proportion of overall true and false recall between the groups. The

2 (memory type: True vs. false)� 2 (age group: Child vs. adult) mixed factors ANOVA

revealed a highly reliable interaction, F(1, 62)¼ 23.98, MSE¼ .02, reflecting the higher

levels of true recall for the adults paired with the similar levels of false recall across the

groups. Post hoc pair-wise t-tests revealed that children produced a higher proportion of

false recall than true recall, t(33)¼ 2.85, and adults produced a higher proportion of true

recall than false recall, t(29)¼ 4.02.

Relative false recall

Watson et al. (2001) indicate that it is appropriate to consider the ratio of false to true recall

(i.e. relative false recall), especially for individuals who have relatively low levels of true

recall. Specifically, because individuals with limited executive functioning (e.g. attentional

control) and limited episodic memory recall relatively few list items, it is quite substantial

that they do falsely recall the critical lures. There are two reasons for this. First, because

their true memories are relatively low, they are receiving limited activation of the critical

lure during retrieval. Second, the number of words that are recalled by individuals with

limited attentional control is so low, that it is even more interesting that one of these few

recalled words would be the critical lure. Children in the present examination may fit these

characteristics (Anderson, 2002; Diamond, 2002; Kaye & Rushkin, 1990).

An overall 2 (age group)� 3 (list type) mixed factors ANOVA revealed no interaction,

p> .27. However, it did reveal a main effect of age group, F(1, 62)¼ 11.86, p< .001. Post

hoc independent t-tests indicated that the children produced higher levels of relative false

recall than did the adults (1.45, and 0.71, respectively) as can be seen in Figure 3. The age

difference was consistent across all three list types, all ts> 2.61.

Discussion

This experiment yielded four important results. First, adults produced higher levels of true

recall than children. Second, the rate of false recall was relatively higher in the hybrid

condition than in the semantic and phonological conditions which produced similar rates of

false recall. Third, for children, the rate of false recall was greater than the rate of true

recall, but for adults the rate of true recall was greater than the rate of false recall. Fourth,

children produced a higher rate of relative false recall than adults across list types.

We note that there are at least two possible reasons for why children produced a higher

rate of relative false recall than adults. First, children may be less adept at source

monitoring (i.e. differentiating between memories for the list items and the mental

representation for the critical lure that has been activated via associative processing) than

adults. This idea coincides with what we know about the developmental trajectory of the

frontal lobes and the executive functions subserved by these areas. That is, Diamond (2002)


DOI: 10.1002/acp


argues that executive functions such as attentional control and information monitoring are

controlled by areas of the frontal lobe (e.g. the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) that are not

yet fully developed in school-aged children. Interestingly, the pattern of higher levels of

relative false recall that we observed for participants with weaker attentional control was

also reported by Balota et al. (1999) and Watson et al. (2001) except that their participants

were older adults and individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type (DAT).

Another possible reason why children produced a higher rate of false recall than adults

may have been due to our emphasis on including words that are appropriate for children. It

may have been that the relationship between the list items and the critical lure is stronger

for children than adults. We return to this issue in the ‘General Discussion’ Section.

However, we will note here that since the same lists are used in both experiments, the

strength of association remains constant across modalities for a particular participant

group. Therefore, any difference in false recall that is due to a change in modality cannot be

due to differences in strength of association, but to a difference in processing across

presentation modalities.

Although our emphasis is on the influence of presentation modality on development in

true and false recall, our results also highlight possible memory processing differences

between children and adults. Others have argued that children should produce lower levels

of false recall than do adults in the DRM paradigm because the children may not form the

gist traces that underlie the activation of the critical lure (see Brainerd et al., 2002).

However, we did not find this to be the case. Instead, we found similar levels of false recall

among children and adults and higher levels of relative false recall in children than in

adults. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the children remembered

fewer list items than did the adults. That is, the critical items received less activation (via

associative processing) at recall in the children than in the adults, but the children still

produced the critical lure. These findings provide evidence that verbatim memory

processing does increase with age, but that the same cannot be said for gist processing.

Despite the fact that our results are different from those found in many studies that support

the FTT (Anastasi & Rhodes, 2008; Brainerd et al., 2002; Brainerd & Reyna, 2007; Howe

et al., 2008; Metzger et al., 2008), they do coincide with other studies that one can argue

support the claims of the AMF (e.g. Ghetti et al., 2002; Carneiro et al., 2007). Again, this

highlights the need to focus on how memory processing and word processing differences in

children and adults may influence true and false recall rates. We will return to this

consideration in the ‘General Discussion’ Section.

EXPERIMENT 2 —WRITTEN PRESENTATION

Method

Design

List type (semantic, phonological and hybrid) was manipulated within subjects, and age

group (children, young adults) served as a between subjects variable. The naming latencies

for targets as well as the proportion of true recall, the proportion of false recall and relative

false recall (i.e. the ratio of false-to-true recall) served as dependent variables.

Participants

There were 47 participants in this study. The young adult participants (n¼ 27, mean

age¼ 19.6 years, 11 males) were students attending a Midwestern United States university


DOI: 10.1002/acp


and received course credit for participating. The undergraduates were predominately

Caucasian and middle-class. The child participants (n¼ 20, mean age¼ 8.6 years, 6 males)

were predominantly Caucasian and middle-class. They were recruited from after-school

programmes in a mid-sized Midwestern United States city once school officials and

parents/guardians gave permission for their child to participate. Each child received a small

prize (e.g. a pencil) in exchange for his/her participation.

Materials

The lists were comprised of the same words as used in Experiment 1.

Procedure

Like Experiment 1, participants were tested individually in a quiet room while interacting

with an experimenter. Children were tested at their schools during their after-school

programme, while young adults participated in a psychology lab on the campus of their

university. Participants were informed that they would be given lists of words they were to

remember. They were told that words would appear on the computer screen one at a time.

Each list item remained on the screen while the participant named it into a microphone that

was interfaced with a voice key connected to the presentation computer. The naming

latency for each item was recorded. After the participant pronounced the list item, the

experimenter pressed a computer mouse key to initiate the presentation of the next list item.

After the last list item was presented a screen appeared stating, ‘what were the words on the

list?’ At this point, the participant was to begin recalling aloud the items from the list.

The experimenter recorded the words recalled by the participants in the order that they

were reported. Participants were given as much time as needed to recall the list items.

These steps were repeated for nine lists for each participant.

Results

The mean proportion of true recall by age and list type is presented in Figure 4, the mean

proportion of false recall by age and list type is presented in Figure 5 and the relative rate of

false-to-true recall by age and list type is presented in Figure 6. In the analyses that follow,

all ps< .05 unless noted.

List item naming latencies

Initially, the naming latencies for the list items were trimmed to eliminate any latencies that

were less than 300 millisecond and any that were greater than 2.5 standard deviations above

the mean naming latencies for each of the child and adult participant samples. This resulted

in omitting 4% of the data in the child sample, while no latencies were eliminated based on

these criteria in the adult sample. The resulting mean naming latencies for the list items was

1450.5 millisecond in the child sample and 664.7 millisecond for the adults. Thus, there

was a difference in the average naming latencies for list items between the children and

adults, t(43)¼ 4.32.

True recall

Adults had higher levels of true recall than children (0.53, and 0.31, respectively),

t(44)¼ 7.24. A main effect of list type was also observed. F(2, 124)¼ 29.00, MSE¼ .005.

The semantic lists were recalled at a higher rate than the phonological and hybrid lists,

t(45)¼ 7.72 and 6.10, respectively. There was no significant difference between the hybrid

and phonological lists in the rate of true recall that they produced.


DOI: 10.1002/acp

Figure 4. The proportion of true recall for children and adults for the three list types in the writtenpresentation modality


False recall

Adults also had higher levels of false recall than children (0.33 vs. 0.205), t(44)¼ 2.40.

There was a main effect of list type, F(2, 88)¼ 3.56, MSE¼ .055. Post hoc pair-wise t-tests

indicated that the hybrid lists produced higher levels of false recall than did the semantic

and phonological lists, t(45)¼ 2.27 and 2.51, respectively. The proportion of false recall for

the semantic and phonological lists were not significantly different, t(63)¼ 0.158,

p> 0.87.

Comparing true and false recall

Next, we compared the proportion of overall true and false recall between the groups. The

2 (memory type: True vs. false)� 2 (age group: Child vs. adult) mixed factors ANOVA

revealed a marginal interaction, F(1, 44)¼ 3.96, MSE¼ .013, p¼ 0.053. This interaction

was due to the greater difference in false and true recall rates in adults as compared to

children. Post hoc pair-wise t-tests revealed that children produced a higher proportion of

true recall than false recall, t(18)¼ 3.21, and adults also produced a higher proportion of

true recall than false recall, t(26)¼ 6.20.

Figure 5. The proportion of false recall for children and adults for the three list types in the writtenpresentation modality


DOI: 10.1002/acp

Figure 6. Relative false recall rates for the three list types for children and adults in the writtenpresentation modality


Relative false recall

There was no main effect of age group on relative false recall. There was a main effect of

list type, F(2, 88)¼ 3.60, MSE¼ .612. Post hoc pair-wise t-tests indicated that the ratio of

false to true recall was greater for the hybrid lists than the semantic lists, t(45)¼ 3.11,

p< 0.01 as can be seen in Figure 6. There was no reliable difference between the semantic

and phonological lists or between the hybrid and phonological lists, both jtjs< 1.28.

Discussion

There were four main findings from Experiment 2. First and not surprisingly, children took

longer to read each list item than did the adults. Second, the adults remembered a higher

proportion of list items than did children. Third, adults produced a higher rate of false recall

for the critical lure than did children. Finally, there was no main effect of age on relative

false recall.

In order to examine the differences in true and false recall between verbally and visually

presented lists, we must compare the recall performance of our two groups of participants

(children and adults) across Experiment 1 (verbal presentation) and Experiment 2 (visual

presentation).

Cross experiment comparisons

To examine group differences in information processing, we conducted additional

analyses with experiment included as a between-subjects factor. First, to see if there were

group differences in the processing of the three list types across the two experiments, we

conducted a 3 (list type: Semantic, phonological and hybrid)� 2 (age group)� 2

(experiment: Verbal vs. visual) mixed factors ANOVA and found no three-way

interaction for either the true or false memories. However, for false recall, there was an

interaction of list type and experiment, F(2, 212)¼ 4.413, MSE¼ 0.295. Post hoc pair-

wise t-tests indicate that this interaction is due to there being a higher proportion of false

recall in the hybrid list condition in Experiment 1 (verbal presentation) than in

Experiment 2 (visual presentation), t(108)¼ 3.89 while there was no effect of experiment

on the false recall rates in the semantic and phonological lists. While our interpretation is

speculative, this result may be due to a greater emphasis on item specific information for

lists presented visually than lists presented orally (see Smith & Hunt, 1998; Schacter,

Israel, & Racine, 1999).


DOI: 10.1002/acp


Next, we conducted a 2 (memory type: True vs. false)� 2 (age group)� 2 (experiment:

Verbal vs. visual) mixed factors ANOVA, which revealed a three-way interaction,

F(1, 106)¼ 4.140, MSE¼ .02. This is due to the fact that the adults showed similar levels

of true and false recall across experiments while children showed higher level of false recall

in the verbal condition than in the visual condition. This finding coincides with what would

be predicted via an age group difference in the engagement of lexical and sublexical

processing across the two experiments. According to Jackson and Coltheart (2001),

children and adults can be expected to use lexical and sublexical routes for visual word

recognition in different proportions. That is, children will rely on the sublexical route more

than the adults. In addition, the use of this sublexical route and the accessing of GPC rules

is more laborious than using the lexical route as is evidenced by the longer naming

latencies for the children than for the adults. Furthermore, this sublexical processing diverts

attentional resources to accessing GPC rules and away from the associative processing that

typically occurs in the lexical processing system (Coltheart et al., 2001). This reduced

associative processing by the children results in lower levels of critical lure activation than

in the adult participants. Moreover, we suspect that the children were engaged in

substantially more sublexical processing during Experiment 2 (visual presentation) than

during Experiment 1 (verbal presentation), which resulted in the lower levels of false recall

in Experiment 2 as compared to Experiment 1.

The results also are consistent with the idea that phonological false memories are the

product of lexical/associative processes. If sublexical processing were responsible for

phonological false memories, then we would have expected to find an increased rate

of phonological false memories for children during visual presentation as compared to

verbal presentation and a decreased rate in young adults when going from verbal to visual

presentation.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The results of these experiments make clear the need to consider developmental differences

in information processing when interpreting false recall data generated by children and

adults. While presentation modality had no effect on adults’ memory performance, it had a

marked effect on children’s memory performance. Specifically, for children, while the rate

of true recall was not affected by presentation modality, the rate of false recall was much

higher when words were heard than when they were read.

Interestingly, the differential effect of encoding modality is readily accommodated by

the theoretical framework offered by dual route approaches to word recognition (e.g.

Coltheart et al., 2001). According to this approach, 8- to 9-year-old children are more likely

to engage in associative processing when the lists are presented orally than when they

are presented visually. This difference in associative processing is mainly due to their

relative inexperience reading words. Children’s inexperience with reading will likely place

the attentional focus to translating graphemes into phonemes rather than to generating

associations.

We should note that within the field of visual word recognition, there are theoretical

alternatives to the dual-route model that do not incorporate separate sublexical and lexical

routines. We think that the results reported here can also be interpreted within these

models. For example, in parallel-distributed-processing (PDP) models of word recognition

(e.g. Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996; Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989)


DOI: 10.1002/acp


representations for words are distributed across interactive orthographic, phonological and

semantic networks. Each unique word that a person knows is represented by a unique

pattern of activity in these networks. Prior to learning how to read, children will have fairly

well-established connections between phonological and semantic representations, but they

will not have well-established orthographic representations nor will they have strong

connections between orthography and semantics or between orthography and phonology.

Hearing a list of words will activate well-established phonological representations that

contain strong connections to semantics in both children and adults. Therefore, associative

processes that are a product of phonological and/or semantic activation should be similar

for children and adults. However, reading words will activate representations in the

orthographic network more so in adults than in children due to the difference in the

developmental maturity of the orthographic networks in these two populations.

Furthermore, the input to phonology and semantics from orthography will be weaker

and noisier in children than adults and would be less likely to produce partial activation of

associated representations.

We note that it is difficult to use these data to distinguish between the FTT and the AMF

because we do not know if the association strength between the list items and the critical

lure is the same for children and adults. The results from Experiment 1 do fall in line with

the predictions of the AMF in which children should show higher levels of relative false

recall than do adults because children have under-developed source monitors as

compared to adults. However, information processing differences notwithstanding, it

may be that the list items are more strongly associated to the critical lure in children than

adults. For semantic lists, one may determine the strength of association between list

items and the critical lure by consulting the South Florida Word Association norms

(Nelson et al., 1998), but unfortunately, no comparable set of norms exists for children.

We note that other studies have produced results supporting the FTT, but that these

studies suffer from similar methodological problems. For example, Brainerd and Reyna

(1998) employed lists designed for adults while their status for children is unknown.

Metzger and colleagues (Metzger et al., 2008) and Anastasi and Rhodes (2008) attempted

to equate the strength of association between the list items and the critical lure between

children and adults and did so by having participants generate associates to the critical

lure. Specifically, they gave children each critical lure (e.g. sleep), and the children

generated associates from it. While this procedure can be used to determine the forward

association strength between the critical lure and each list item, it cannot determine the

backward association strength between each list item and the critical lure. Both factors

have been shown to influence false memory production in adults (Brainerd & Wright,

2005, but see Roediger et al., 2001). However, it is not clear if this same pattern would

hold for children. Thus, for a study to definitively distinguish between the FTT and the

AMF in their abilities to account for DRM performance in children, both backward

associative strength and forward associative strength between list items and the critical

lure should be equated.

Nevertheless, considering the pattern of results in the current study for lists presented

orally (i.e. a higher ratio of false-to-true memories in children than adults), the FTT can

only account for the results if it is assumed that the strength of association between the

list items and the critical lure is much higher in children than adults. The FTT clearly

claims that if the strength of association between list items and the critical lure is equated

for children and adults, then false recall will be lower for children than adults. It follows

that even if the associative strength is only slightly-to-moderately higher in children than


DOI: 10.1002/acp


in adults, the advantage in strength for the children would be cancelled out by the

difficulty children have in generating the gist. This scenario would produce no difference

in false recall between children and adults. Thus, for the FTT to account for these data, it

seems that the strength of association between list items and the critical lure would need

to be much higher for children than adults. Due to the lack of normative data for

children, we cannot rule out this possibility, but we think that it is unlikely. In contrast,

AMF can readily account for these data because it proposes that children who, due to

attentional limitations, have an under-developed source monitor and are less able to

monitor the sources of activation than are adults resulting in higher rates of relative false

recall than adults. These attentional limitations in children can be easily explained via

models of the developmental trajectory of executive functioning housed in the prefrontal

cortex which is not functionally mature until well past the age of our child participants

(cf. Diamond, 2002).

Also, we found that list type did not interact with presentation modality in either children

or adults. Specifically, children produced a much higher false recall rate with verbal

presentation than visual presentation while the list type pattern itself did not change across

modalities. Adults’ false recall rate for each list type was similar across presentation

modalities. These outcomes are consistent with the idea that phonological false memories

are created via lexical/associative processes and inconsistent with the idea that

phonological false memories are caused via sublexical processes. More research is

needed to further validate this interpretation.

Finally, we should note that because we found marked differences in recall rates as a

function of mode of list presentation, we might also expect the mode of recall to affect

performance differentially in children vs.adults. For example, written recall (e.g. Metzger

et al., 2008) may be much more attentionally demanding than verbal recall in children

while these attention demands may be less apparent in adults. In addition, one might

expect that written recall may engage sublexical sound-to-spelling processes more so in

children than adults (Jackson & Coltheart, 2001). We predict that if both mode of

presentation (visual, auditory) and mode of recall (written, spoken) were manipulated in

a factorial design with 8- to 9-year-old children participants, false recall would be

highest in the auditory-spoken condition (as we found in Experiment 1) and would be

lowest in the visual-written condition. The auditory-spoken condition would lend itself

more to lexical processing and the resulting associative processing while the visual-

written condition would lend itself more to sublexical processing and less to associative

processing.

In sum, we found marked differences between children and adults in false memory

production as a function of presentation modality. We argue that this developmental

difference in false memory production between verbal and written presentation modalities

is largely due to differences in the word recognition processing of children and adults. As

Jackson and Coltheart (2001) have indicated, children and adults differ in their engagement

of lexical and sublexical processes during written word recognition. Children are less able

than are adults to engage in lexical processing during visual word recognition. Thus, they

are not engaged in the lexical spreading activation that the adults are and, because of this,

are producing lower levels of false recall than are adults. Furthermore, the children of

Experiment 2 were not engaged in lexical processing during visual word recognition to the

same degree as the children in Experiment 1 during auditory word recognition. Again, the

decreased level of lexical processing involved in children’s visual word recognition led to

their decreased levels of false memory as compared to the children in Experiment 1 during


DOI: 10.1002/acp


auditory recall. This developmental effect illustrates the importance of understanding

information processing differences between children and adults when interpreting the

results from free recall experiments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Michael Flasch and Andrea McGrath for their help in conducting these

experiments. In addition, we thank the young participants as well as their principals,

teachers, after-school programme coordinators, and parents for working on these studies

with us. We also thank Jason Watson and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments

made on a previous draft of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2008). Examining differences in the levels of false memories inchildren and adults using child-normed lists. Developmental Psychology, 44, 889–894.

Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood.Child Neuropsychology, 8, 71–82.

Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Duchek, J. M., Adams, D. A., Roediger, H. L., McDermott, K. B., et al.(1999). Veridical and false memories in healthy older adults and in dementia of the Alzheimer’stype. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 16, 361–384.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Brainerd, C. J., Holliday, R. E., & Reyna, V. F. (2004). Behavioral measurement of rememberingphenomenologies: So simple a child can do it. Child Development, 75, 505–522.

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1998). When things that were never experienced are easier to‘‘remember’’ than things that were. Psychological Science, 9, 484–489.

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2007). Explaining developmental reversals in false memory.Psychological Science, 18, 442–448.

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Forrest, T. J. (2002). Are young children susceptible to the false-memory illusion? Child Development, 73, 1363–1377.

Brainerd, C. J., & Wright, R. (2005). Forward association, backward association, and the falsememory illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, memory, and Cognition, 31,554–567.

Carneiro, P., Albuquerque, P., Fernandez, A., & Esteves, F. (2007). Analyzing false memories inchildren with associative lists specific for their age. Child Development, 78, 1171–1185.

Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascadedmodel of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.

Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical decisionperformance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2342 words. QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1072–1082.

Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2008). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words.Behavior Research Methods, 40, 791–794.

Cortese, M. J., Khanna, M. M., White, K. K., Veljkovic, I., & Drumm, G. (2008). The activation andmonitoring of memories produced by words and pseudohomophones. Journal of Memory andLanguage, 58, 393–414.

Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22.


DOI: 10.1002/acp


Dewhurst, S. A., & Robinson, C. A. (2004). False memories in children: Evidence for a shift fromphonological to semantic associations. Psychological Science, 15, 782–786.

Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young adulthood:Cognitive functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. In D. T. Stuss, & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles offrontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gallo, D. A. (2006). Associative illusions of memory. New York: Psychology Press.Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Cognitive approaches to the development of short-term memory. Trends inCognitive Sciences, 3, 410–419.

Ghetti, S., Qin, J. J., & Goodman, G. S. (2002). False memories in children and adults: Age,distinctiveness, and subjective experience. Developmental Psychology, 38, 705–718.

Hale, S. (1990). A global developmental trend in cognitive processing speed. Child Development, 61,653–663.

Holliday, R. E., & Weekes, B. S. (2006). Dissociated developmental trajectories for semantic andphonological false memories. Memory, 14, 624–6363.

Howe, M. L., Gagnon, N., & Thouas, L. (2008). Development of false memories in bilingual childrenand adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 669–681.

Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure. New York: PsychologyPress.

Kamhi, A. G., & Catts, H. W. (1991). Reading disabilities: A developmental language perspective.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kaye, D. B., & Ruskin, E. M. (1990). The development of attentional control mechanisms. In J. T.Enns (Ed.), The development of attention: Research and theory (pp. 227–244). Oxford, England:North-Holland.

Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Presentation modality and mode of recall in verbal false memory. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 913–919.

Metzger, R. L., Warren, A. R., Shelton, J., Price, J. D., Reed, A. W., & Williams, D. (2008).Do children ‘‘DRM’’ like adults? False memory production in children. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 44, 169–181.

Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida wordassociation, rhyme, and word fragmentation norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/

Plaut, D. E., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. E. (1996). Understanding normaland impaired reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review,103, 56–115.

Read, J. D. (1996). From a passing thought to a false memory in 2 minutes: Confusing real andillusory events. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 105–111.

Reimer, J. F. (2006). Developmental changes in the allocation of semantic feedback during visualword recognition. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 194–212.

Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning andIndividual Differences, 7, 1–75.

Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 814–816.

Roediger, H. L., III, Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2001). Factors that determinefalse recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 385–407.

Schacter, D. L., Israel, L., & Racine, C. (1999). Suppressing false recognition in younger and olderadults: The distinctiveness heuristic. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 1–24.

Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of wordrecognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.

Smith, R. E., & Hunt, R. R. (1998). Presentation modality affects false memory. PsychonomicBulletin &Review, 5, 710–715.

Sommers, M. S., & Lewis, B. P. (1999). Who really lives next door: Creating false memories withphonological neighbors. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 83–108.

Watson, J. M., Balota, D. A., & Roediger, H. L. III, (2003). Creating false memories with hybrid listsof semantic and phonological associates: Over-additive false memories produced by convergingassociative networks. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 95–118.

Watson, J. M., Balota, D. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. D. (2001). Semantic, phonological, and hybridveridical and false memories in healthy older adults and in individuals with dementia of theAlzheimer type. Neuropsychology, 15, 254–267.


DOI: 10.1002/acp


APPENDIX

Semantic lists

Dog: Puppy, hound, mutt, lassie, wolf, beware, bark, paw, animal, poodle, flea, growl.

Cold: Chill, frost, warm, ice, hot, shiver, winter, sneeze, freezer, snow, cool, frozen.

Back: Behind, side, front, return, rear, pack, yard, ache, rub, spine, forward, pat.

Sleep: Bed, rest, awake, tired, dream, wake, snooze, blanket, nap, snore, pillow, yawn.

Rain: Umbrella, storm, wet, cloud, sprinkle, puddle, thunder, wind, water, mist, weather,

pour.

Chair: Table, legs, sit, seat, couch, wood, bench, sofa, desk, stool, lawn, furniture.

Hit: Slap, punch, spank, beat, miss, kick, bump, smash, slug, fist, knock, whip.

Cat: Meow, fluffy, kitten, claw, stray, cougar, mouse, tiger, whiskers, garfield, pet, lion.

Sweet: Sour, candy, sugar, bitter, good, taste, tooth, nice, honey, soda, chocolate, heart.

Phonological lists

Dog: Log, dot, fog, dug, frog, dawn, hog, dig, dock, doll, jog, dodge.

Cold: Code, fold, cone, gold, cord, told, corn, sold, called, colt, killed, mold.

Back: Bag, quack, rack, book, jack, bake, buck, bath, sack, black, lack, bank.

Sleep: Beep, slip, slop, creep, leap, weep, sleet, peep, slurp, sleeve, cheap, keep.

Rain: Rail, gain, stain, race, main, ran, cane, ray, pain, rake, train, raise.

Chair: Care, chain, fair, change, pair, chore, stare, chase, rare, cheer, square, bear.

Hit: Heat, fit, his, height, bit, hip, hat, pit, hill, hate, lit, him.

Cat: Cab, fat, that, caught, sat, cut, rat, kit, cap, mat, bat, chat.

Sweet: Wheat, sweep, sweat, cheat, swat, feet, sheet, swim, street, neat, swing, meet.

Hybrid lists

Dog: Puppy, dot, mutt, dug, wolf, dawn, bark, dig, animal, doll, flea, dodge.

Cold: Chill, fold, warm, gold, hot, told, winter, sold, freezer, colt, cool, mold.

Back: Behind, pack, front, book, rear, bake, yard, bath, rub, black, forward, bank.

Sleep: Bed, slip, awake, creep, dream, weep, snooze, peep, nap, sleeve, pillow, keep.

Rain: Umbrella, gain, wet, race, sprinkle, ran, thunder, ray, water, rake, weather, raise.

Chair: Table, chain, sit, change, couch, chore, bench, chase, desk, cheer, lawn, bear.

Hit: Slap, fit, spank, height, miss, hip, bump, pit, slug, hate, knock, him.

Cat: Meow, fat, kitten, caught, stray, cut, mouse, kit, whiskers, mat, pet, chat.

Sweet: Sour, sweep, sugar, cheat, good, feet, tooth, swim, honey, neat, chocolate, meet.


DOI: 10.1002/acp

Children and adults are differentially affected by presentation modality in the DRM paradigm

Documents

Transcript of Children and adults are differentially affected by presentation modality in the DRM paradigm