Elsevier

Brain and Language

Volume 99, Issues 1–2, October–November 2006, Pages 180-182
Brain and Language

Bilingual false recollection: An EEG study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.06.099Get rights and content

Introduction

False recollection in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm describes the phenomenon of remembering critical words, e.g., SLEEP that are thematically related to a list of study words, e.g., BED, REST, AWAKE. Different theoretical accounts of false recollection generate alternative predictions about the false memory effect. Activation monitoring theory (AMT) (Roediger & McDermott, 1999) assumes that false recollection of critical words results from failure to monitor the source of activation, which is the same process that is used to correctly identify studied words and thus support veridical recollection. Fuzzy Trace Theory (FTT) (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002) assumes that false memories arise because participants automatically infer the theme or meaning of studied words but confuse words presented at test with nonpresented items that are representative of that theme and veridical recollection depends on verbatim memory. The difference between these accounts is FTT allows for dissociable memory traces and AMT does not.

ERP studies investigating false recollection report little difference in indices for true and false recollection (Duzel, Yonelinas, Mangun, Heinze, & Tulving, 1997) although Miller, Baratta, Wynveen, and Rosenfeld (2001) reported a shorter P300 latency for false recollection and Fabiani, Stadler, and Wessels (2000) reported less left lateralisation for critical words. Other studies, however, report late negativity in false recollection that is localised to the frontal lobes (Curran et al., 2001, Johnson et al., 1996, Johnson et al., 1997). No study has examined false recollection in bilingual speakers using EEG. We know bilingual speakers are slower to access the semantic representations of words presented in their second language (L2) although this effect diminishes with proficiency in L2 (Kroll & Stewart, 1994). It is also known that Spanish–English bilingual speakers perform recognition tasks in L2 that rely on verbatim memory as well as and in some cases better than they perform the same tasks in L1 (Durgunoglu & Roediger, 1987). One prediction derived from FTT is that bilingual speakers will show reduced gist based memory for words presented in L2. By contrast, according to AMT there is no reason to assume that EEG signals for false and veridical memory will differ in bilingual speakers. Behavioural data suggests the false memory effect for Spanish–English bilingual speakers is smaller in L2 than L1 and veridical recollection is comparable (Anastasi, Rhodes, Marquez, & Vellino, 2005). We predicted that false recollection and veridical recollection in bilingual speakers would reveal a different pattern of EEG signals. Specifically, we expected different patterns in late negativity signals on critical and studied word trials as found by Curran et al. (2001).

Section snippets

Subjects and methods

Fifteen native Spanish speakers were tested all undergraduates in Sussex studying in English. A within participants design was used with Recognition Type (Target words, Critical Distracters, Unrelated Distracters) as the independent variable. Distracters refer to words not studied but presented at test with critical distracters strong associates of study words and unrelated distracters not associated to study words. In the study phase, stimuli were presented in nine blocks with presentation

Results and conclusions

Voltage change during false recollection (i.e., yes responses to critical distracters) and during veridical recollection (i.e., yes responses to studied words) was calculated. Results from selected electrodes are summarised in Fig. 1. ANOVA on the behavioural data found a significant effect of recognition type F (3, 14) = 110.98, p < .01, false recollection of critical distracters was less likely than recollection of target words and more likely than recollection of unrelated distracters (p’s < .01).

Acknowledgment

Supported by a Marie Curie Research Fellowship from the Research Directorates General of the European Commission.

References (11)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.
View full text