The authors thank all members of the Sleep, Stress, and Memory Lab for their help in data collection, particularly Stephen M. Mattingly for proofreading the final manuscript.

The Institutional Review Board of the University of Notre Dame approved all of the procedures, including use of human subjects, discussed here. The preparation and the administration of the DRM task materials described below were used in a published study28, in which the effects of psychosocial stress following DRM word list encoding were assessed 24 h later.
1. Preparation of DRM Task
<ol>
	<li>Use the word lists from Stadler, Roediger, and McDermott47, presented in the Appendix, to select the appropriate number of word lists for the experiment. From Tables 1 and 2, select the word lists with the highest probability of false recall and recognition. The more word lists used in the experiment, the greater the number of false words participants will have a chance to remember. 
	NOTE: Tables 1 and 2 show the probability of false free recall and recognition memory, respectively, of the top 18 word lists used by Stadler et al.47. The Appendix presents the complete word lists. See also Gallo and Roediger48 for additional normed word lists.</li>
	<li>Prepare the encoding task
	<ol>
		<li>Choose modality of presentation of word lists. See Discussion for issues regarding the selection of presentation modality. 
		NOTE: Presentation modality can be either visual or auditory.</li>
		<li>If auditory presentation is chosen, digitally record all the words in each list. Use professional-grade equipment (e.g., Rode NT1-A microphone), preferably an unfamiliar voice and a soundproof or sound-resistant room.</li>
		<li>Record the word lists in descending strength of association, as they are presented in the Appendix, at a rate of one word every two seconds.</li>
		<li>At the end of each list, include a reasonably long delay (e.g., 12 s) of silence, followed by a 1&#160;s tone, 2 s of silence and then the start of the next list. This helps participants parse the individual lists.</li>
		<li>Use a audio-editing software (e.g., Audacity) to apply these standards.
		<ol>
			<li>Drag and drop the audio file into the audio-editing software.</li>
			<li>Use the mouse cursor to select the portion of audio to which silence will be applied.</li>
			<li>On the top, select Edit&#62;Remove Audio&#62;Silence Audio.</li>
			<li>To apply the 1-s tone at the start of each list, use the copy and paste options in the audio-editing software.</li>
			<li>To save the recording, press STOP, select File&#62;Export, and choose file format and destination of the audio file.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Prepare the testing task
	<ol>
		<li>Choose a retention interval between encoding and testing that is appropriate for the experiment. If addressing the effects of stress on memory performance, choose at least 24 h.</li>
		<li>For the free recall task, have a blank piece of paper or a blank document in a word-processing application (e.g., MS Word) ready.</li>
		<li>For the recognition task, select words to include in recognition task.
		<ol>
			<li>Include study words (i.e.&#160;words presented at encoding) from positions 1, 8, and 10 from each list included in the encoding task2. See Appendix for complete word lists.</li>
			<li>Include all critical lure words (i.e.&#160;false words not presented at encoding that represent the gist of the word list) from each list included in the encoding task. See Appendix for complete word lists and their appropriate critical lure.</li>
			<li>Include the same number of additional, non-presented words (i.e. foil words that are unrelated to any of the studied DRM lists), from other, non-studied DRM word lists, from the same positions (1, 8, and 10) and their corresponding critical lures. 
			NOTE: For example, if 15 DRM word lists are presented during encoding, for the recognition test, present 120 words: 45 study words, 15 critical lure words, 45 nonpresented list items from other non-studied DRM word lists, and 15 critical words from those nonstudied DRM word lists.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li>Use experiment creation software (e.g., E-Prime) to create self-paced presentation of the words and to achieve data collection.
		<ol>
			<li>Use black font with a white background, and reasonable font size, depending on screen size/resolution.</li>
			<li>In a standard old/new recognition test, use separate keys to assign responses; such as the &#39;Z&#39; key for old and the &#39;M&#39; key for new. If possible, add this legend in with the presentation of each word on the screen. Software such as E-Prime will automatically collect reaction times and key responses.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
</ol>
2. Administration of DRM Task
<ol>
	<li>Administration of encoding task
	<ol>
		<li>Ask subject to sit in front of device containing the recording of the word lists. Ensure subject is comfortable.</li>
		<li>Read the following instructions to the subjects: &#34;For this cognitive task you will be listening to lists of words. At the final word of each list, there will be a 12 s&#160;break, followed by a 1 s tone, followed by 2 s&#160;of silence, and then the start of the next list. Please pay close attention to the words because you will be tested on them at the next session.&#34;</li>
		<li>Ask subject to put on headphones. To ensure participants have no distractions, turn off the computer monitor. Press play.</li>
		<li>Inform participant that this session has ended and provide them with instructions for the next (testing) session.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
	<li>Administration of testing task
	<ol>
		<li>Free recall test
		<ol>
			<li>Ask subject to sit down in front of a table or desk (if using pen and paper) or in front of the computer (if using a word processing blank document).</li>
			<li>Read the following instructions to the subject: &#34;This part of the task involves a simple memory test. Please write down all the words you can remember from the lists you heard in the last session. You have 10 min&#160;to recall all the words you can. When there are 2 min&#160;left, I will let you know. Any questions?&#34;</li>
			<li>Answer any questions the subject may have.</li>
			<li>Start the timer and inform subject of the two-minute warning mark.</li>
			<li>Stop subject after time is up.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li>Recognition test in the computer
		<ol>
			<li>Open recognition test with the experiment creation software.</li>
			<li>Ask subject to sit in front of computer.</li>
			<li>Read the following instructions to the subject: &#34;This is a simple recognition task. You will see a word on the screen. Use the keyboard to answer whether each word is old (that is, on one of the lists you heard/saw previously) or new. You will use the &#39;Z&#39; key if you think the word is old and the &#39;M&#39; key if you think the word is new. This is self-paced, but we are also measuring your reaction time, so answer as quickly but accurately as you can. Let me know you are done. Any questions? &#34;.</li>
			<li>Answer any questions the subject may have.</li>
			<li>Start the recognition test and wait for the subject to finish.</li>
		</ol>
		</li>
		<li>Debrief the subject and thank them for their participation in the study.</li>
	</ol>
	</li>
</ol>

The authors have nothing to disclose.

In this report, the authors described a highly used cognitive task that reliably produces gist-based false memories in human subjects. It is important to note that, in the current report, the DRM task was presented in one of its simplest forms, very similar to the original protocol used by Deese1 and Roediger and McDermott2. The similarity with the original protocol used in the experiments described here has one particular exception: a long delay (24, 48 h) between encoding...

An erratum was issued for: <a href="http://www.jove.com/video/54793">The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory</a>.&#160; Additional references have been added to the References section.

An erratum was issued for: <a href="http://www.jove.com/video/54793">The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory</a>. Additional references have been added to the References section.

Erratum: The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

The Deese,&#160;Roediger and McDermott (DRM) task was initially created by Deese1, and later revitalized by Roediger and McDermott2 as a convenient means of studying false memory in the laboratory. Although some3,4 argue it should be called the DRMRS task, for the contributions of Read5 and Solso6, the most common name in the literature is the DRM task, and we call it by that name here. After a seminal paper published by Roediger and McDermott2, interest of false memory research skyrocketed (see7), resulting in over 2,800 citations of that article to date. According to Roediger and McDermott, they revived the experimental design created by Deese because there was no reliable laboratory paradigm to induce false recall, while evidence of false recognition (e.g.,8,9) did &#34;little to discourage the belief that more natural, coherent materials are needed to demonstrate powerful false memory effects&#34;2.
One such example of a &#34;more natural&#34; paradigm is the misinformation paradigm10,11. In this task, subjects are presented with a story through pictures, slides, or video. Later, misleading information is provided, and the question is whether subjects will incorporate this misleading information into their recollection of the story. The DRM task is simpler than the misinformation paradigm in several respects. DRM encoding requires only the quick presentation and learning of lists of words, either visually or aurally. Retrieval testing for the DRM task is equally convenient regardless of the particular method used. In a recognition test participants are presented with a subset of the encoded words, the critical lure words (e.g., &#39;doctor&#39;), and unrelated lure words and have to make simple judgments of whether they remember each word or not, whereas in a recall test, participants have to write down all the words they are able to remember. In contrast, free recall testing for the misinformation paradigm is impractical, as it requires time-consuming content analysis. Additionally, the DRM task does not require any manipulation between encoding and testing, as DRM &#39;false memories&#39; are spontaneously self-generated. The misinformation errors, on the other hand, are induced via external suggestions. Although both the DRM and misinformation paradigms are argued to assess false memory, newer studies have found small (r = 0.12)12 or no relationship13,14 between the misinformation and the DRM effects, suggesting that different mechanisms may be at play for each type of false memory. Moreover, the DRM illusions are argued to be a byproduct of the constructive nature of memory15, which can be considered an evolutionarily adaptive process16.
The DRM false memory effect is highly robust across studies (for quantitative reviews see 17,18), and there is considerable evidence that the DRM task is quite reliable19 (but see20). The DRM false memory effect has been found using various delay intervals, including those as short as an immediate test, and those delaying memory testing until 60 days later21,22,23 (but see 24). Warning subjects of the DRM illusion reduces, but does not erase, the effect 14,25. The DRM effect has also been found with different encoding strategies, such as changes in word presentation duration26, and can be increased by several post-encoding manipulations, such as sleep27 or stress28.
Moreover, the DRM task has been utilized by many laboratories to study false memory formation in a variety of subject populations, such as children29,30,31,32 and older adults33, and in a variety of research fields, including individual cognitive (e.g., working memory20,34) and personality differences35, neuroimaging36,37, and neuropsychology38. In spite of its popularity, however, many have argued against the generalizability of the DRM task, and whether the creation of DRM false memories is comparable to the naturalistic creation of false autobiographical memories outside of the laboratory, such as memories of child abuse recovered in psychotherapy39,40,41. Nonetheless, several studies have found that subjects that are more susceptible to DRM false memories are also more prone to autobiographical memory distortions42, fantastic autobiographical memories (alien abductions43; past lives44), and recovered autobiographical memories45.
In short, the DRM task has been a useful tool to investigate the neurocognitive underpinnings of the (re)constructive nature of memory15,16, regardless of the ongoing debate about how appropriate and relevant it is in the study of autobiographical false memories7. In the current report, the DRM task procedures are explained in their simplest form, with a focus on targeting memory consolidation processes (i.e.&#160;experimental manipulations, such as sleep and stress, occur after encoding has finished and are thus used as tools to evaluate consolidation), as this has been the focus in our laboratory. The authors refer the reader to Gallo (2013)46 for an excellent review of the DRM task, along with the different variations on encoding and testing procedures.

<table><tbody><tr><td>Computer</td><td></td><td></td><td>No particular brand/type required.</td></tr><tr><td>Headphones</td><td></td><td></td><td>No particular brand/type required.</td></tr><tr><td>RODE NT1-A 1&quot; cardioid condenser microphone</td><td>Rode</td><td>http://www.rode.com/microphones/nt1-a</td><td>recording equipment used to record the wordlists</td></tr><tr><td>Audacity</td><td>Audacity</td><td>http://www.audacityteam.org/</td><td>for editing the recording of the wordlists</td></tr><tr><td>E-Prime&amp;nbsp;</td><td>Psychology Software Tools, Inc.</td><td>https://www.pstnet.com/eprime.cfm</td><td>for stimuli presentation and/or testing</td></tr><tr><td>MS PowerPoint (optional)</td><td>Microsoft</td><td></td><td>for stimuli presentation and/or testing</td></tr><tr><td>MS Word (optional)</td><td>Microsoft</td><td></td><td>for free recall testing. Any word processor application will work.</td></tr></tbody></table>

the deese-roediger-mcdermott (drm) task: a simple cognitive paradigm to investigate false memories in the laboratory

The Deese,&#160;Roediger and McDermott&#160;(DRM) task is a false memory paradigm in which subjects are presented with lists of semantically related words (e.g., nurse, hospital, etc.) at encoding. After a delay, subjects are asked to recall or recognize these words. In the recognition memory version of the task, subjects are asked whether they remember previously presented words, as well as related (but never presented) critical lure words (&#39;doctor&#39;). Typically, the critical word is recognized with high probability and confidence. This false memory effect has been robustly demonstrated across short (e.g., immediate, 20 min) and long (e.g., 1, 7, 60 d) delays between encoding and memory testing. A strength of using this task to study false memory is its simplicity and short duration. If encoding and retrieval components of the task occur in the same session, the entire task can take as little as 2 - 30 min. However, although the DRM task is widely considered a &#39;false memory&#39; paradigm, some researchers consider DRM illusions to be based on the activation of semantic memory networks in the brain, and argue that such semantic gist-based false memory errors may actually be useful in some scenarios (e.g., remembering the forest for the trees; remembering that a word list was about &#34;doctors&#34;, even though the actual word &#34;doctor&#34; was never presented for study). Remembering the gist of experience (instead of or along with individual details) is arguably an adaptive process and this task has provided a great deal of knowledge about the constructive, adaptive nature of memory. Therefore, researchers should use caution when discussing the overall reach and implications of their experiments when using this task to study &#39;false memory&#39;, as DRM memory errors may not adequately reflect false memories in the real world, such as false memory in eyewitness testimony, or false memories of sexual abuse.

Using the procedure presented here, the authors have been able to reliably produce the DRM effect in two independent experiments; that is, subjects recall and recognize, with high probability, non-presented critical words that can be considered false memories for the &#39;gist&#39; of the word lists.
Results for experiment 1 (see Figures 1 and 2) have been published elsewhere28...

Watch this Scientific Journal Video about The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory at JoVE.com

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Here we present the Deese,&#160;Roediger and McDermott&#160;(DRM) task, a tool to study false memories in the laboratory. Subjects study lists of semantically related words (e.g.,&#160;nurse, sick, etc.), and later falsely remember an unstudied word (doctor) that represents the gist, or theme, of the word list.

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

The Deese,&#160;Roediger and McDermott&#160;(DRM) task is a false memory paradigm in which subjects are presented with lists of semantically related words ...

the-deese-roediger-mcdermott-drm-task-simple-cognitive-paradigm-to

Research

Education

JoVE Core

JoVE Journal

Introduction to Psychology

Behavior

Unit 1

Memory

SCIENTISTS IN ACTION

37.7K Views.  University of Notre Dame. Here we present the Deese, Roediger and McDermott (DRM) task, a tool to study false memories in the laboratory. Subjects study lists of semantically related words (e.g., nurse, sick, etc.), and later falsely remember an unstudied word (doctor) that represents the gist, or theme, of the word list.

Video: The Deese-Roediger-McDermott DRM Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Brain Imaging Investigation of the Neural Correlates of Emotional Autobiographical Recollection

Recollection of emotional autobiographical memories (AMs) is important to healthy cognitive and affective functioning 1 - remembering positive AMs is associated with increased personal well-being and self-esteem 2, whereas remembering and ruminating on negative AMs may lead to affective disorders 3. Although significant progress has been made in understanding the brain mechanisms underlying AM retrieval in general (reviewed in 4, 5), less is known about the effect of emotion on the subjective re-experience of AMs and the associated neural correlates. This is in part due to the fact that, unlike the investigations of the emotion effect on memory for laboratory-based microevents (reviewed in 6, 7-9), often times AM studies do not have a clear focus on the emotional aspects of remembering personal events (but see 10). Here, we present a protocol that allows investigation of the neural correlates of recollecting emotional AMs using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Cues for these memories are collected prior to scanning by means of an autobiographical memory questionnaire (AMQ), therefore allowing for proper selection of emotional AMs based on their phenomenological properties (i.e., intensity, vividness, personal significance). This protocol can be used in healthy and clinical populations alike.

We present a protocol that allows investigation of the neural correlates of recollecting emotional autobiographical memories, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. This protocol can be used with both healthy and clinical participants.

Recollection of emotional autobiographical memories (AMs) is important to healthy cognitive and affective functioning 1 - remembering positive AMs is ...

Neuroscience

Brain Imaging Investigation of the Impairing Effect of Emotion on Cognition

Emotions can impact cognition by exerting both enhancing (e.g., better memory for emotional events) and impairing (e.g., increased emotional distractibility) effects (reviewed in 1). Complementing our recent protocol 2 describing a method that allows investigation of the neural correlates of the memory-enhancing effect of emotion (see also 1, 3-5), here we present a protocol that allows investigation of the neural correlates of the detrimental impact of emotion on cognition. The main feature of this method is that it allows identification of reciprocal modulations between activity in a ventral neural system, involved in 'hot' emotion processing (HotEmo system), and a dorsal system, involved in higher-level 'cold' cognitive/executive processing (ColdEx system), which are linked to cognitive performance and to individual variations in behavior (reviewed in 1). Since its initial introduction 6, this design has proven particularly versatile and influential in the elucidation of various aspects concerning the neural correlates of the detrimental impact of emotional distraction on cognition, with a focus on working memory (WM), and of coping with such distraction 7,11, in both healthy 8-11 and clinical participants 12-14.

We present a protocol that allows investigation of the neural mechanisms mediating the detrimental impact of emotion on cognition, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. This protocol can be used with both healthy and clinical participants.

Emotions can impact cognition by exerting both enhancing (e.g., better memory for emotional events) and impairing (e.g., increased emotional ...

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting false testimonies and interviewing children have restricted the generalizability of the findings. The primary aim of the current study is to provide an easy-to-administer and ecologically valid method for measuring the veracity and quality of school-aged children's (ages 6-11) testimonies when they are asked to provide different types of true and false reports. Moreover, the methodology enables researchers to examine the social and developmental factors that could influence the credibility of a child's testimony. In the current study, children will witness a theft, and are then asked to either falsely deny the transgression, falsely accuse a researcher of the theft, or tell the truth. Afterwards, children are to be interviewed by a second researcher using a thorough and ecologically valid interview protocol that requires children to provide closed-ended and free-recall responses about the events with the instigator (E1). Coders then evaluate the length and number of theft-related details the children give throughout the interview, as well as their ability to maintain their true and false reports. The representative results indicate that the truth and lie-telling conditions elicit the intended behaviors from the children. The open-ended interview questions encouraged children to provide free-recall information about their experiences with E1. Moreover, findings from the closed-ended questions suggest that children are significantly better at maintaining their lies with age, and when producing a false denial compared to a false accusation. Results from the current study can be used to develop a greater understanding of the characteristics of children's true and false testimonies about crime, which can potentially benefit law enforcement, legal staff and professionals who interview children.

The current methodology is designed to provide an ecologically relevant approach for measuring the veracity, length and quality of children's true and false testimonies. Implications of the current methodology for future research and professionals who interview children will also be discussed.

A considerable amount of research has evaluated children's lie-telling behaviors and skills1-2; however, limitations with the tasks used for eliciting ...

A Real-world What-Where-When Memory Test

Episodic memory is a complex memory system which allows recall and mental re-experience of previous episodes from one&#39;s own life. Real-life episodic memories are about events in their spatiotemporal context and are typically visuospatial, rather than verbal. Yet often, tests of episodic memory use verbal material to be recalled (word lists, stories). The Real-World What-Where-When memory test requires participants to hide a total of 16 different objects in 16 different locations over two temporal occasions, 2 h apart. Another two hours later, they are then asked to recall which objects (What) they had hidden in which locations (Where) and on which of the two occasions (When). In addition to counting the number of correctly recalled complete what-where-when combinations, this task can also be used to test real-world spatial memory and object memory. This task is sensitive to normal cognitive aging, and correlates well with performance on other episodic memory tasks, while at the same time providing more ecological validity and being cheap and easy to run.

A Real-world What-Where-When Memory Test

The Real-World What-Where-When memory test is a novel episodic memory test, in which participants need to recall which objects have been hidden in which locations on which of two distinct occasions. It is easy to run and is sensitive to normal cognitive aging.

Episodic memory is a complex memory system which allows recall and mental re-experience of previous episodes from one&#39;s own life. Real-life episodic ...

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats

Metamemory involves the cognitive ability to assess the strength of one&#39;s memories. To explore the possibility of metamemory in non-human animals, numerous behavioral tasks have been created, many of which utilize an option to decline memory tests. To assess metamemory in rats, we utilized this decline-test option paradigm by adapting previous visual delayed-match-to-sample tests (DMTS)1,2 developed for primate species to an odor-based test suitable for rodents. First,&#160;rats are given a sample to remember by digging in a cup of scented sand. After a delay, the rat is presented with four distinctly scented cups, one of which contains the identical scent experienced during the sample; if this matching cup is selected, then the rat obtains a preferred, larger reward. Selection of any of the other three non-matching sand-filled scented cups results in no reward. Retention intervals are individually titrated such that subjects perform between 40 and 70% correct, therefore ensuring rats sometimes remember and sometimes forget the sample. Here, the operational definition of metamemory is the ability to distinguish between the presence and absence of memory through behavioral responding. Towards this end, on two-thirds of trials, a decline option is presented in addition to the four choice cups (choice trials). If the decline-test option- an unscented colored sand cup, is selected, the subject receives a smaller less-preferred reward and avoids the memory test. On the remaining third of trials, the decline-test option is not available (forced trials), causing subjects to guess the correct cup when the sample is forgotten. On choice tests, subjects that know when they remember should select the decline option when memory is weak rather than take the test and choose incorrectly. Therefore, significantly higher performance on chosen tests as compared to forced memory tests is indicative of the adaptive use of the decline-test response and metacognitive responding.

This protocol describes a method for investigating the possibility of metamemory, or memory awareness, in rodents. The odor-based delayed-matching-to-sample paradigm is a novel, ecologically-relevant behavioral test useful for determining the extent to which rodents can adaptively respond based on cognitively monitoring the strength of their memory states.

Metamemory involves the cognitive ability to assess the strength of one&#39;s memories. To explore the possibility of metamemory in non-human animals, ...

Using a Classroom-Based Deese Roediger McDermott Paradigm to Assess the Effects of Imagery on False Memories

Associated word list procedures can elicit false memories in predictable ways by inducing associative processing, thus making it harder to monitor the accuracy of memories. The purpose of the method presented here was to induce false memories using lists of either semantically or phonologically related words and to assess the effects of imagery instructions on the recall and recognition of those false memories. To do this, we used a modified version of the Deese Roediger McDermott (DRM) paradigm. We adapted word lists from previous DRM studies to suit imagery procedures and created an automated presentation to present the word lists in classroom settings. We then recruited undergraduate classes and instructed some of the classes to create mental images of the list words as they were being presented, while instructing the other classes to simply remember the words. The automated presentation presented word lists to participants, one word at a time, alternating between phonologically and semantically related lists. Participants used paper-pencil recall packets to immediately recall list items, complete a distractor activity, and take a subsequent final recognition test. Often, participants immediately recalled and later recognized words that were related to the list items but were not actually presented; these are known as critical lures and indicate a false memory. The protocol detailed here describes a four-step procedure - list presentation, immediate recall, distractor phase, and final recognition - that can assess the effects of list type and imagery instruction within the DRM paradigm on memory. The automated nature of the list presentation provides the ability to systematically vary variables of interest, and the paper and pencil method of data collection affords an easily accessible method for collecting data in classroom settings. The protocol also offers options to modify the procedure to a more traditional DRM paradigm without imagery and/or list type manipulations. The use of this protocol can provide results relevant to both classroom learning and cognitive science principles.

The method presented here induced false memories using lists of related words and also assessed the effects of imagery instructions on the recall and recognition of those false memories. This protocol details a modified version of the Deese Roediger McDermott (DRM) paradigm.

Associated word list procedures can elicit false memories in predictable ways by inducing associative processing, thus making it harder to monitor the ...

A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers

Maladaptive reward memories (MRMs) can become unstable following retrieval under certain conditions, allowing their modification by subsequent new learning. However, robust (well-rehearsed) and chronologically old MRMs, such as those underlying substance use disorders, do not destabilize easily when retrieved. A key determinate of memory destabilization during retrieval is prediction error (PE). We describe a retrieval procedure for alcohol MRMs in hazardous drinkers that specifically aims to maximize the generation of PE and therefore the likelihood of MRM destabilization. The procedure requires explicitly generating the expectancy of alcohol consumption and then violating this expectancy (withholding alcohol) following the presentation of a brief set of prototypical alcohol cue images (retrieval + PE). Control procedures involve presenting the same cue images, but allow alcohol to be consumed, generating minimal PE (retrieval-no PE) or generate PE without retrieval of alcohol MRMs, by presenting orange juice cues (no retrieval + PE). Subsequently, we describe a multisensory disgust-based counterconditioning procedure to probe MRM destabilization by re-writing alcohol cue-reward associations prior to reconsolidation. This procedure pairs alcohol cues with images invoking pathogen disgust and an extremely bitter-tasting solution (denatonium benzoate), generating gustatory disgust. Following retrieval + PE, but not no retrieval + PE or retrieval-no PE, counterconditioning produces evidence of MRM rewriting as indexed by lasting reductions in alcohol cue valuation, attentional capture, and alcohol craving.

This manuscript describes a memory retrieval procedure for destabilizing robust reward memories and rewriting them with counterconditioning prior to their reconsolidation.

Maladaptive reward memories (MRMs) can become unstable following retrieval under certain conditions, allowing their modification by subsequent new ...

Anterograde Amnesia

Source: Laboratories of Jonas T. Kaplan and Sarah I. Gimbel&#8212;University of Southern California
Anterograde amnesia is the loss of the ability to form new memories. This can be distinguished from retrograde amnesia, which is the loss of old memories. Anterograde amnesia can result from damage to structures in the brain that are involved in the formation of new memories. Patients who have damage to the structures of the medial temporal lobe, including the hippocampus, amygdala, and the surrounding cortices, often have severe deficits in the formation of certain kinds of memories. These cases can be informative as to how memory is organized in the brain, and how different systems support different kinds of memories. 
In this video, we will test a patient with medial temporal lobe damage on a series of memory tasks designed to distinguish between different forms of memory. First, we will test short-term or working memory, which is the process we use to keep information in mind temporarily. Next, we will test two different forms of long-term memory: explicit and implicit memory. Explicit memories are conscious and easy to verbalize. For example, memories of facts or episodes from our lives are explicit memories. We can easily tell someone what we ate for breakfast, or what city is the capital of France. Implicit memory involves knowledge we gain from experience but that is not easily expressible. For example, knowing how to do things, or becoming habituated to a stimulus are forms of implicit memory. 
These procedures are based in part on studies of the famous patient Henry Molaison, also known by his initials H.M., who had severe anterograde amnesia as a result of a surgery for intractable epilepsy in which parts of both temporal lobes were resected.1 We will perform a test of digit span, which measures short-term memory, a test of paired-associate learning, which measures explicit or declarative memory, and mirror-drawing, a test of implicit skill learning.2

Testing Short- and Long-term Memories in Patients with Brain Injuries

Source: Laboratories of Jonas T. Kaplan and Sarah I. Gimbel&#8212;University of Southern California
Anterograde amnesia is the loss of the ability to form ...

JoVE Science Education

Psychology

Neuropsychology

Learning and Memory: The Remember-Know Task

Source: Laboratories of Jonas T. Kaplan and Sarah I. Gimbel&#8212;University of Southern California
Our experience of memory is varied and complex. Sometimes we remember events in vivid detail, while other times we may only have a vague sense of familiarity. Memory researchers have made a distinction between memories that are recollected versus those that are familiar. A recollected item is one that is not only remembered, but carries with it details of the time at which it was learned or encoded. Like a recollected item, a familiar item is also remembered, but is void of any details about the circumstances surrounding its encoding. Many studies of recollection and familiarity have focused on the medial temporal lobe (MTL), specifically the hippocampus, since its involvement in memory encoding, consolidation, and retrieval is well-known and well-studied.1-3
This video shows how to administer the Remember-Know task4 to compare brain activation in these two types of memory retrieval. In this context, remember is another term for recollection, while know refers to memories that are familiar but not explicitly recollected. In this version of the Remember-Know task, participants are exposed to a series of color images, and asked to remember what they see. Inside an fMRI scanner, they will be exposed to both images that were studied and to novel images, and they will make a "remember," "know," or "new" judgment about each image, indicating what kind of memory they have for that item. Following the scan, whole brain and hippocampal activity will be examined to determine differential activity related to recollection and familiarity. This study is based on a study performed by Gimbel and Brewer.5

The Remember-Know Task: Memory Recall and Brain Activation

Source: Laboratories of Jonas T. Kaplan and Sarah I. Gimbel&#8212;University of Southern California
Our experience of memory is varied and complex. ...

Memory Development: Demonstrating How Repeated Questioning Leads to False Memories

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
A person is defined as a unique individual based on the people and events they encounter in their lives. Thus, creating, storing, and recalling memories are essential elements of the human experience. However, memory, as adults experience it, takes time to develop. Although young children can learn facts and remember details of their lives from moment-to-moment and day-to-day, they do not create autobiographical memories or detailed memories of events that happen in their lives until age 3 or older.
Even after age 3, children&#8217;s memories differ from those of adults in important ways. Children are less effective at evaluating their own memories than adults, which makes it difficult for them to determine, for example, whether or not their memories are accurate. False memories are a problem for both children and adults, as it is quite easy to create a false memory with a poorly-worded question or a story repeated over and over. However, young children are more susceptible to creating false memories than either older children or adults.
This video demonstrates children&#8217;s vulnerability to false memories using a method developed by Steven Ceci and his collaborators.1-2

Demonstrating How Repeated Questioning Leads to False Memories

Source: Laboratories of Judith Danovitch and Nicholaus Noles&#8212;University of Louisville
A person is defined as a unique individual based on the people ...

The Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) Task: A Simple Cognitive Paradigm to Investigate False Memories in the Laboratory

Podsumowanie

Przeglądaj więcej filmów

Rozdziały w tym wideo

Brain Imaging Investigation of the Neural Correlates of Emotional Autobiographical Recollection

Brain Imaging Investigation of the Impairing Effect of Emotion on Cognition

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime

A Real-world What-Where-When Memory Test

Testing for Metacognitive Responding Using an Odor-based Delayed Match-to-Sample Test in Rats

Using a Classroom-Based Deese Roediger McDermott Paradigm to Assess the Effects of Imagery on False Memories

A Prediction Error-driven Retrieval Procedure for Destabilizing and Rewriting Maladaptive Reward Memories in Hazardous Drinkers

Anterograde Amnesia

Learning and Memory: The Remember-Know Task

Memory Development: Demonstrating How Repeated Questioning Leads to False Memories