You will do an research article outline of Evidence from false memories for familiar songs

The organisation of musical semantic memory: Evidence from false memories for familiar songs

Susan M. Sherman and Jo Kennerley

School of Psychology, Keele University, UK

(Received 9 September 2012; accepted 27 August 2013)

By adapting a well-known paradigm for studying memory for words—the Deese-Roediger-McDermott or DRM paradigm (Deese, 1959, Roediger & McDermott, 1995)—the two experiments reported here explore memory for song titles and song clips. Participants were presented with five song titles (Experiment 1a) or five 30-second song clips (Experiment 1b) for each of nine popular artists (e.g., Robbie Williams). The most popular song identified for each artist in a pilot task was omitted from the sets of titles/clips. Following a distractor task, participants were asked to write down as many of the songs as they could recall. They were also asked to return a week later and complete a second recall task. Participants falsely recalled a significant number of the related but non-presented songs in both experiments and this increased a week later, while correct recall for presented items decreased. The results are discussed in terms of theory for musical memory as well as in the context of providing a novel method for exploring the organisation of musical memory.

Keywords: False memory; DRM paradigm; Musical memory; Familiar songs; Free recall.

How our memory for familiar songs is organised is an on-going debate in the music psychology and memory literatures. Much of the existing research has focused on the differential encoding of various components of the songs, such as temporal struc- ture (e.g., Schulkind, 1999), the neural organisa- tion of memory for songs, often focusing on impaired populations such as Alzheimer’s patients (e.g., Vanstone & Cuddy, 2010), and the impact of music on autobiographical memory (e.g., Barrett et al., 2010). Relatively little research has consid- ered how storage and retrieval of memories for familiar songs might be influenced by non-musical or extra-musical criteria. One study that has done this is by Halpern (1984) who conducted two experiments to explore the organising principles of memory for familiar songs. In the first

experiment she asked participants to organise 60 songs according to either musical (e.g., tempo) or non-musical criteria. In the second experiment she had participants decide whether song clips and visually presented titles matched or not before completing a free recall task for the clips pre- sented. Mismatches between song clips and titles occurred most for those songs which were most similar on non-musical criteria, while free recall responses also clustered by non-musical similarity such as by artist or by category (Christmas, patriotic, etc.). Halpern argued that this demon- strated a semantic space for familiar music orga- nised along conceptual lines. More recent support for the conceptual organisation of music came from Johnson and Halpern (2012) who explored priming between familiar songs. They found that

Address correspondence to: Susan M. Sherman, School of Psychology, Dorothy Hodgkin Building, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

The first author would like to thank Stephen Wilkinson for useful discussions about music and false memory.

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Memory, 2014 Vol. 22, No. 7, 852–860, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.839709

reaction times were faster to target tunes (Silent Night) related to the prime tune (Deck the Hall) than to unrelated targets (God Bless America).

Studying clusters of related items forms the basis of a popular paradigm for exploring every- day memory for words, the Deese-Roediger- McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Deese, 1959, Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Under the stand- ard DRM paradigm, participants are presented with lists of associated words (e.g., bed, wake, night, dream) all related to a non-presented critical lure (sleep) before carrying out a memory task such as recognition or recall. Participants usually falsely remember the non-presented crit- ical lure at a similar rate as they correctly remem- ber the presented list items. One of the main theoretical accounts for how false memories are created is the activation/monitoring account (e.g., Roediger & McDermott, 1995; Roediger, Watson, McDermott, & Gallo, 2001) which posits that a combination of activation and monitoring pro- cesses at study and test give rise to the effect. According to this account, activation spreads from studied items to related items in a semantic network (Collins & Loftus, 1975). The activation of related but non-presented items at study con- tributes to source monitoring difficulties which lead participants to falsely remember them at test. The more closely related the studied items in the semantic network are to the non-presented lure, the more likely they are to give rise to a false memory for the lure (e.g., Roediger et al., 2001). Accordingly we could adapt this paradigm to explore memory organisation for other stimuli such as music. If false memories occur for non- presented songs related to songs that have been presented, this would be strong evidence support- ing the existence of close connections between their memorial representations.

An alternative theoretical explanation for the false memory effect is fuzzy trace theory (FTT) (e.g., Brainerd, Reyna, & Brandse, 1995). Accord- ing to FTT, when participants are exposed to items at study they store two separate memory traces: one a detailed perceptual verbatim memory trace, the other a general meaning gist trace. Verbatim traces are held to be responsible for correct memories and decay relatively quickly, while gist traces are responsible for the false memory effect and decay more slowly.

As mentioned earlier, the relationship between music and autobiographical memories has been explored to some extent in the literature. But how

accurate is our memory for familiar music over time? Certainly there is evidence that false mem- ories for non-presented words created using the DRM paradigm are more persistent over time than correct memories for the studied items. McDermott (1996, Exp. 1) had participants either recall items immediately after the list was pre- sented, after 30 seconds of maths problems, or not at all at time 1. She then had participants recall all the list items after a 48-hour delay. Correct recall fell (in the immediate recall condition) from 58% to 18%. False recall also fell, but not as dramat- ically and not to such a low level as correct recall, from 44% at time 1 to 23% 48 hours later. The finding that false recall is more persistent over time than correct recall has been replicated in other studies and with longer time spans (e.g., Thapar & McDermott, 2001; Seamon et al., 2002; Toglia, Neuschatz, & Goodwin, 1999). While these studies have found that false recall is more persistent than correct recall, it rarely increases. Only two previous studies have demonstrated an increase in false recall over time. In McDermott (1996, Exp. 2) participants were presented with and recalled the same three DRM lists five times. Over the five trials, correct recall rose and false recall fell. When participants returned 2 days later and did a final free recall task, correct recall fell in comparison with the fifth trial, while false recall increased. Sherman (2013) demonstrated an increase in false recall (as well as false recogni- tion) for non-presented brand names related to presented brand names following a week’s delay. Should the same persistence or even increase over time be found for musical false memories, this would have implications for future research into autobiographical memories that focus on specific tunes.

One of the non-musical classifications by which participants grouped items in the Halpern (1984) study was “Beatles’ songs”. The present Experiment 1a therefore aims to explore whether false memories for song titles by specific artists can be created by presenting participants with a cluster of song titles by each of several artists, each time omitting the most popular song title by that artist. Participants are then asked to write down as many of the song titles as they can remember the same day and again a week later to explore how true and any false memories might behave over time.

MUSICAL SEMANTIC MEMORY 853

EXPERIMENT 1A

Method

Participants. A total of 32 native English-speak- ing undergraduates from Keele University with a mean age of 21.22 years (SD 1.84) participated in the experiment. There were 17 females and 15 males.

Stimuli. The stimuli were constructed based on a pilot study in which 30 participants (who did not take part in the main study) were asked to write down the first five songs they could think of by each of 22 different musical artists (e.g., Lady Gaga, Robbie Williams, Queen etc.). The responses were collated and rank ordered, and nine artists were chosen for the main experiment (Lady Gaga, Girls Aloud, Katy Perry, Saturdays, Eminem, Take That, Michael Jackson, Robbie Williams, Coldplay). For each of the nine artists, the most popular song mentioned was used as the critical non-presented lure (e.g., for Robbie Wil- liams, the lure was Angels), while the five next most popular songs presented in descending order of popularity for each artist formed the set of items to be presented at study (e.g., Let Me Entertain You, Rock DJ, Come Undone, Strong, Something Beautiful). A full set of the stimuli used is presented in Appendix 1.

Apparatus. The experiment was conducted using a computer to present the stimuli. Responses in the free recall task were made on printed sheets.

Procedure. Participants were tested individually. They were told that they would be presented with some song titles, followed by some maze puzzles to solve, followed by a memory task. They were also told that they would be asked to return the following week for a second memory task. They then watched a PowerPoint presentation with the five song titles for each artist grouped together and presented sequentially at the rate of one title every 2500 ms.

After all the stimuli had been presented, participants spent 5 minutes completing a distrac- tor task comprising some simple maze puzzles. The puzzles were standard mazes printed on paper in black and white, with a separate start and finish point for the participants to find their way between. Participants were then asked to write

down as much as they could remember from the presentation. All participants then returned a week later to complete a second free recall task when they were again asked to write down everything they could recall from the previ- ous week.

Results

A total of 720 song titles were recalled across both time points. Participants recalled on average 14 items at time 1 (SD 3.10) and 9 items at time 2 (SD 2.08). There were 50 lures and 45 related intrusions (songs by the featured artist other than the intended lure) recalled in total. There were 22 unrelated intrusions (songs by an artist not featured), 1 duplicate title and 1 song title which was illegible. The recall of the lures and list items are shown in Table 1, expressed as a proportion of total possible recall with the standard devia- tions in brackets. Since any number of related intrusions could be recalled per list, it is not possible to present these data in the same way and so only the average totals recalled are presented.

The proportion of correctly recalled list items and falsely recalled lure items were entered into a repeated-measures 2 (list item vs lure) × 2 (imme- diate recall vs 1-week delay) analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was a main effect of stimulus type, F(1, 31) = 62.92, MSe = 75.55, p < .001, with more list items being recalled overall than lures (21% vs 9%). There was a main effect of time of test, F(1, 31) = 25.84, MSe = 18.40, p < .001, with more items recalled immediately than a week later (17% vs 13%). There was also a significant interaction, F(1, 31) = 119.44, MSe = 31.24, p < .001. Simple main effects analysis revealed that correct recall decreased over time (28% vs 14%) while false recall increased over time (5% vs 12%) (ps < .01). All post hoc tests reported in this paper as significant have had the relevant Bonferroni correction applied to the alpha level.

An item analysis was conducted to explore whether all lists were equally likely to give rise to false memories for the related but non-presented song titles. The numbers of people who recalled lure items and related song titles for each artist are presented in Table 2. All of the lists induced a false memory for at least one participant. Some of the lists at the lower end of the table were more effective at creating false memories for songs by

854 SHERMAN AND KENNERLEY

the artists other than the designated lure; for example Lady Gaga’s list gave rise to seven people falsely remembering seeing the song title Pokerface.

Discussion

Experiment 1a has shown that false memories for non-presented song titles can be created by asking

participants to remember other song titles by the same artist, and that these false memories increase over time. However, this study was still concerned with exploring the effect of the song titles alone, rather than in their musical context. In Experiment 1b, therefore, we replace each of the presented song titles with a clip from that song. Based on previous research, we might predict either lower or higher levels of false memories for the song clips than for the song titles. Previous research

TABLE 2 Item analysis of free recall data

Song titles Song clips

Artist Lure Related song titles Lure Related song titles

Michael Jackson 13 (Thriller)

0 24 0

Katy Perry 7 (Hot n Cold)

3 (California Girls, Last Friday Night)

20 10 (California Girls, Last Friday Night, ET, Still Breathing)

Robbie Williams 6 (Angels)

2 (Millennium)

21 5 (Millennium, You’re the One)

Lady Gaga 3 (Bad Romance)

10 (Pokerface, Judas, Paparazzi)

8 19 (Pokerface, Judas, Paparazzi, Born This Way, Telephone)

Girls Aloud 2 (Sound of the Underground)

4 (Stand by you)

8 9 (Stand by you, The Show)

Take That 2 (Shine)

0 14 1 (Patience)

Saturdays 1 (If this is love)

7 (Ego, Up, Faster)

1 8 (Ego, Up, Notorious)

Eminem 1 (Lose yourself)

6 (Mocking Bird, Encore, White America, Nothing)a

11 5 (Mocking Bird, Encore, White America, Nothing, Just lose it, Smack That)

Coldplay 1 (Viva La Vida)

0 3 3 (XY, Charlie Brown)

Number of participants to falsely recall the lure (in brackets) and one or more related song titles (titles produced are in brackets).

aWhile both Encore and Nothing are the names of songs by other artists as well as Eminem, these participants grouped the songs in categories and these titles appeared in the Eminem category.

TABLE 1 Percentage (SD) recall of song titles and clips in Experiments 1a and 1b

Song titles (1a) List items Lures Related intrusions (average recalled per person)

Immediate recall 28% (7.06) 5% (6.20) 0.5 1-week delay 14% (4.27) 12% (9.51) 1 Overall 21% (9.38) 9% (8.74) 1

Song clips (1b)

Immediate recall 34% (12.67) 21% (16.56) 2 1-week delay 14% (5.57) 33% (15.23) 2 Overall 24% (14.09) 27% (16.73) 2

MUSICAL SEMANTIC MEMORY 855

investigating effects of modality in the DRM para- digm (e.g., Smith & Hunt, 1998) have found higher levels of false memory following auditory presentation of word lists relative to visual pre- sentation, so we might expect higher levels of false memory in Experiment 1b. The song clips we chose each lasted 30 seconds. The motivation for this was that we wanted participants to have time to recognise each song and not be forced to rely primarily or solely on musical criteria. As a result of lasting 30 seconds, the clips contained multiple mentions of the song title, in comparison with the song titles which were each presented once for 1000 ms in Experiment 1a. McDermott (1996, Exp. 2) found that multiple presentations of list items decreased false memory, therefore the multiple presentations of song titles within the clips should perhaps reduce false memories rather than increas- ing them. Additionally, since distinctiveness has been argued to play a role in the reduction of false memories when comparing pictorial stimuli with auditory or visually presented word stimuli (e.g., Israel & Schacter, 1997), we might expect a reduc- tion in false memory relative to the findings in Experiment 1a. The additional information pro- vided by lyrics and music should arguably make song clips more distinctive than song titles pre- sented in isolation and thus less susceptible to being falsely remembered.

EXPERIMENT 1B

Method

Participants. A total of 35 native English- speaking undergraduates from Keele University with a mean age of 20.74 years (SD 1.92) partici- pated in the experiment. There were 19 females and 16 males.

Stimuli, apparatus, and procedure. The same artists and song titles were used as for Experiment 1a: 30-second clips from each of the five songs to be presented for each artist were recorded to form “lists” or sets of related songs, so that songs were grouped by artists and again the clips were presented in descending order of popularity. Each clip contained the title of the song (usually the chorus of the song) and there was a 2000-ms inter-stimulus interval between song clips. The apparatus and procedure used were the same as for Experiment 1a, except that instead of watching

a PowerPoint presentation of song titles, partici- pants listened to the song clips via headphones.

Results

A total of 1049 song titles were recalled across both time points. Participants recalled on average 19 items at time 1 (SD 6.22) and 11 items at time 2 (SD 3.11). There were 169 lures and 111 related intrusions recalled in total. There were 12 unre- lated intrusions and 4 illegible or non-existent song titles. The recall of the lures and list items is shown in Table 1. The proportion of correctly recalled list items and falsely recalled lure items were entered into a repeated-measures 2 (list item vs lure) × 2 (immediate recall vs 1-week delay) analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was no main effect of stimulus type. There was a main effect of time of test, F(1, 34) = 11.64, MSe = 54.43, p < .01, with more items recalled immediately than a week later (27% vs 23%). There was also a significant interaction, F(1, 34) = 117.82, MSe = 76.05, p < .001. Simple main effects analysis revealed that correct recall decreased over time (34% vs 14%) while false recall increased over time (21% vs 33%) (ps < .01).

In order to investigate whether there is a reduction in false memories following auditory presentation relative to visual presentation, the proportions of correctly recalled list items and falsely recalled lure items from Experiments 1a and 1b were entered into a mixed 2 (visual vs auditory) × 2 (list item vs lure) × 2 (immediate recall vs 1-week delay) analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was a main effect of presenta- tion modality, F(1, 65) = 44.87, MSe = 167.13, p < .001, with more items recalled in the song clips condition than the song titles condition (25% vs 15%). There was a main effect of stimulus type, F(1, 65) = 7.16, MSe = 200.55, p < .01, with more list items being recalled overall than lures (22% vs 18%). There was a main effect of time of test, F(1, 65) = 29.51, MSe = 37.25, p < .001, with more items recalled immediately than a week later (22% vs 18%). There was a significant interaction between stimulus type and presentation modality, F(1, 65) = 19.03, MSe = 200.55, p < .001. Simple main effects analysis revealed that there were fewer lures than list items recalled following presentation of the song titles (21% vs 9%) (p < .01) but there was no difference between the percentage of list items and lures recalled following presentation of the song

856 SHERMAN AND KENNERLEY

clips (24% vs 27%). There was a significant interaction between stimulus type and time, F(1, 65) = 219.56, MSe = 54.68, p < .001. Simple main effects analysis revealed that correct recall decreased over time (31% vs 14%) while false recall increased over time (13% vs 23%) (ps < .01). Lastly, there was a significant three-way interaction between presentation modality, stimu- lus type and time, F(1, 65) = 8.27, MSe = 54.68, p < .01. Post hoc t-tests revealed that there was no difference between the number of list items correctly recalled at either time 1 or time 2. More lures were falsely recalled at both time 1 and time 2 following song clips (21% and 33%) than following song titles (5% and 12%) (ps < .01).

Discussion

The results demonstrate that false memories for non-presented song titles and song clips can be created by presenting song titles or song clips by the same artist. Seeing the song titles or hearing music clips by a specific artist activates other songs by that artist which participants then experience as a false memory. Using the activation/monitoring approach, as each clip is played, activation spreads through the semantic network to other related songs. This activation, combined with source monitoring confusions at test, leads to false mem- ories for non-presented songs by the same artist. The fact that the false memories that occur (both lures and related items) are related to the pre- sented songs by virtue of being by the same artist provides further evidence that non-musical factors might play a significant role in the organisation of memory for songs. Participants are falsely remem- bering songs which appear to be related by non- musical criteria, in this case “song by X artist”— the intrusions which we have termed “unrelated” represent only 2% of the memories across both experiments. One might argue that songs by a particular artist all contain similar musical criteria such as tempo, timbre of voice, musical style, and so on, and it may well be the case that musical criteria facilitated access to non-musical informa- tion; for example, timbre of voice provides access to Robbie Williams. However, if musical memor- ies were predominantly organised by musical criteria, we might have expected to see higher levels of intrusions by artists other than those featured, such as other girl bands (than the Satur- days) or other boy bands (than Take That). In particular one might expect there to be more of

these following presentation of song clips than following presentation of song titles, whereas in fact the reverse is true (12 vs 22 respectively).1 In addition there are examples within the stimuli where the musical criteria for a given artist are not consistent, for example Let Me Entertain You by Robbie Williams has a considerably faster tempo than the ballad Angels which was the lure song. Yet of the 34 instances across both experi- ments of Robbie Williams’ songs being recalled that were not in the list/playlist, only 7 of these were for songs other than Angels. If musical criteria were playing a large role, again, we might have expected to see false memories that were less musically distinct appearing within the songs recalled for each artist.

As discussed in the introduction, Halpern (1984) and Johnson and Halpern (2012) argue for the conceptual organisation of songs in se- mantic memory. In contrast, Schulkind (2004) asked participants to identify impoverished ver- sions of melodies in order to explore the relative importance of initial elements of a melody. Of the errors of identification made across two experi- ments, 8.9% were confusion errors with some of these being genre confusions (e.g., Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer named instead of Frosty the Snowman). There were also a significant number of phrasing/metre errors which Schulkind argued contradicted Halpern’s (1984) claim that musical knowledge is organised predominantly along se- mantic lines. While the current experiments do not attempt to provide evidence to evaluate the relative roles of musical and non-musical criteria in the organisation of musical knowledge, they do suggest that non-musical criteria such as artist might play a significant role, with activation spreading from the presented songs to songs by the same performer. Furthermore the methodo- logy used could easily be adapted in order to conduct a direct comparison between the two, for example comparing memory for the same playlist with and without lyrics or presenting the same selection of songs blocked by musical criteria such as tempo in one condition and blocked by non- musical criteria such as “related to Christmas” and see whether these give rise to equal numbers of false memories.

1An alternative explanation is that a musical criterion such as timbre underpins participants’ memories and false memories and that this is what prevents intrusions from similar sounding musical acts.

MUSICAL SEMANTIC MEMORY 857

Returning to the data, there were more false memories for the auditorily presented song clips in Experiment 1b than for the visually presented song titles in Experiment 1a. While this was not an experimental manipulation of modality, as out- lined in the discussion section above, this is consistent with previous research on modality of presentation (e.g., Smith & Hunt, 1998). However, the findings do contradict the research on multiple presentations of stimuli and increased distinctive- ness. An additional factor that might have influ- enced the findings is the presentation rate. McDermott and Watson (2001) demonstrated that false recall declined as the presentation rate rose above 250 ms to 5000 ms. They suggested that, whereas very brief presentation leads to increased levels of false memory due to minimal processing of the list items, increased presentation time leads to sufficient time to process the list words and introduce a monitoring component. However, the presentation rate of 30 seconds has not been used before and so it is possible that this underpins the higher levels of false memory for the auditory stimuli and future research could usefully examine the impact of longer presentation times. However, whatever the mechanism for the higher levels of false memories for song clips relative to song titles, the basic fact that they can be created using this paradigm remains. Furthermore, the increase in false memories for song clips relative to song titles suggests that it is not purely a linguistic phenom- enon but extends to music as well.

In addition to creating false memories for non- presented songs, following a week’s delay correct memory for presented items decreased while false memory for related but non-presented items increased for both song titles and song clips. As outlined in the introduction, the majority of the DRM literature reports greater persistence over time for false memories relative to correct mem- ories, but only two studies have demonstrated an increase in false recall over time. One of these was under very specific circumstances, whereby McDermott (1996) had asked participants to recall lists on five occasions before returning 2 days later and recalling them again. In this case false recall increased from the fifth trial on day 1 to the trial on day 2, although false recall on day 2 was still lower than false recall on the first trial of day 1. The second study did not find the increase in false recall over time for DRM lists, but rather for lists of brand names (Sherman 2013). There was also an increase in false recognition over time reported for the brand names. There are two further reports

of increases in false recognition over time. Howe, Candel, Otgaar, Malone, and Wimmer (2010, Exp. 3) explored effects of delay on adults’ false memories for negative-emotional and neutral DRM lists. They found that, for neutral lists, correct recognition fell over time, while false recognition did not change significantly. However, for negative-emotional words, while correct recog- nition again fell over time, false recognition actu- ally increased over time. Additionally, Seamon et al. (2000) showed picture lists of categorised items to participants, and tested their recognition either immediately or 3 days later. They found that correct recognition for presented items decreased, while false recognition for non- presented related items increased.

Although these four reports of false memories increasing over time run counter to the majority of findings using the DRM paradigm, they do pro- vide evidence that for some stimuli false memories can increase over time. Why might false memories for song titles and clips increase over time when the standard word stimuli used in the DRM paradigm generally do not? One possibility is that in the intervening time between study and test participants are re-exposed to the songs from the experiment in their everyday environment and that this acts as an additional study phase causing source monitoring problems when they return to recall the items. This is perhaps especially likely given that the artists are contemporary or con- temporarily popular. Another possibility is that, since false memories for song clips and titles are lower than the original DRM list false memories, there is simply room for them to increase over time—perhaps the reason that increases over time are not observed in the original DRM lists is that there are ceiling levels of false memories at immediate test, and studies are underway to explore this possibility.

Both fuzzy trace and activation/monitoring accounts are able to accommodate the observed decrease in correct memory and increase in false memory across time. According to fuzzy trace theory, correct memory is underpinned by faster decaying verbatim memory traces and thus decreases over time, while false memory results from gist memory traces which are increasingly relied on as verbatim details are lost. The recon- structive nature of free recall further facilitates gist processing (Howe et al., 2010). According to the activation/monitoring account, the activation of related but non-presented items at study contri- butes to source monitoring difficulties which lead

858 SHERMAN AND KENNERLEY

participants to falsely remember them. According to this approach, activation might be expected to decrease over time, albeit possibly at different rates for presented and non-presented items, thus accounting for observations of differential decreases over time (e.g., McDermott, 1996; Sea- mon et al., 2002). Source monitoring arguably becomes harder over time as activation decays, and either the greater activation that might accrue to the critical lure following multiple activations at study or additional activation at test as well as study could explain the persistence of and even increase in false memories over time (see Gallo, 2006, for discussion).

The fact that we have demonstrated increased false memories for songs over time may have implications for studies which explore autobio- graphical memories triggered by music (e.g., Janata, Tomic, & Rakowski, 2007). Autobiograph- ical memories represent episodic memories, while semantic memory underpins the false memory effect. However, as demonstrated by studies which show an increase in false memories over time, our episodic memories can be influenced negatively by the structure of our semantic memory. While songs clearly have the ability to trigger powerful autobio- graphical memories and nostalgia (e.g., Barrett et al., 2010), the current research calls into question whether the songs that act as the trigger are actually the same songs that accompanied the original event.

As a method for studying memory for words, the DRM paradigm has been used with impaired populations such as participants with dementia, as well as with normal populations, with children as well as adults, and as a technique to access brain processes via EEGs, MRIs etc. These are popula- tions and techniques that are also of interest in understanding memory for music; for example, the recent special issue in the journal Music Percep- tion was dedicated to dementia and music, and one of the themes in the articles concerned the organisation of musical memory and whether it is spared in dementia, (e.g., Cuddy, Duffin, Gill, Brown, Sikka & Vanstone, 2012). The adapted DRM paradigm presented in this paper provides an additional method with which to probe the encoding, storage and developmental trajectory for musical memories.

Conclusion

The present study has demonstrated that false memories for non-presented song titles and clips

can be created in the laboratory and that, further- more, they increase following a week’s delay. This contributes to the possibility of a role for non- musical criteria in the organisation of musical memory as well as providing a novel method for further explorations thereof.

References

Barrett, F. S., Grimm, K. J., Robins, R. W., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., & Janata, P. (2010). Music-evoked nostalgia: Affect, memory and personality. Emotion, 10, 390–403. doi:10.1037/a0019006

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Brandse, E. (1995). Are children’s false memories more persistent than their true memories? Psychological Science, 6, 359–364. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00526.x

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading- activation theory of semantic memory. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407

Cuddy, L. L., Duffin, J. M., Gill, S. S., Brown, C. L., Sikka, R., & Vanstone, A. D. (2012). Memory for melodies and lyrics in Alzheimer’s disease. Music Perception, 29, 479–491. doi:10.1525/mp.2012.2 9.5.479

Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22. doi:10.1037/h0046671

Gallo, D. A. (2006). Associative illusions of memory. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Halpern, A. R. (1984). Organisation in memory for familiar songs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 496–512. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.10.3.496

Howe, M. L., Candel, I., Otgaar, H., Malone, C., & Wimmer, M. C. (2010). Valence and the develop- ment of immediate and long-term false memory illusions. Memory, 18, 58–75. doi:10.1080/096582109 03476514

Israel, L., & Schacter, D. L. (1997). Pictorial encoding reduces false recognition of semantic associates. Psy- chonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 577–581. doi:10.3758/ BF03214352

Janata, P., Tomic, S. T., & Rakowski, S. K. (2007). Characterisation of music-evoked autobiographical memories. Memory, 15, 845–860. doi:10.1080/096582 10701734593

Johnson, S. K., & Halpern, A. R. (2012). Semantic priming of familiar songs. Memory & Cognition, 40, 579–593.

McDermott, K. B. (1996). The persistence of false memories in list recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 212–230. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0012

McDermott, K. B., & Watson, J. M. (2001). The rise and fall of false recall: The impact of presentation duration. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 160–176. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2771

Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

MUSICAL SEMANTIC MEMORY 859

Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803–814. doi:10.1037/ 0278-7393.21.4.803

Roediger, H. L., Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Gallo, D. A. (2001). Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 385–407. doi:10.3758/BF031 96177

Schulkind, M. D. (1999). Long term memory for tem- poral structure: Evidence from the identification of well-known and novel songs. Memory & Cognition, 27, 896–906. doi:10.3758/BF03198542

Schulkind, M. D. (2004). Serial processing in melody identification and the organisation of musical se- mantic memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 1351–1362. doi:10.3758/BF03195003

Seamon, J. G., Luo, C. R., Kopecky, J. J., Price, C. A., Rothschild, L., Fung, N. S., & Schwartz, M. A. (2002). Are false memories more difficult to forget than accurate memories? The effect of retention interval on recall and recognition. Memory & Cog- nition, 30, 1054–1064. doi:10.3758/BF03194323

Sherman, S. M. (2013). False recall and recognition of brand names increases over time. Memory, 21, 219– 229. doi:10.1080/09658211.2012.720992

Smith, R. E., & Hunt, R. R. (1998). Presentation modality affects false memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 710–715. doi:10.3758/BF03208850

Thapar, A., & McDermott, K. B. (2001). False recall and false recognition induced by presentation of associated words: Effects of retention interval and level of processing. Memory & Cognition, 29, 424– 432. doi:10.3758/BF03196393

Toglia, M. P., Neuschatz, J. S., & Goodwin, K. A. (1999). Recall accuracy and illusory memories: When more is less. Memory, 7, 233–256. doi:10.1080/ 741944069

Vanstone, A. D., Cuddy, L. L. (2010). Musical memory in Alzheimer disease. Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition, 17, 108–128. doi:10.1080/13825580903 042676

APPENDIX 1

List of artists, the songs presented, and the non-presented lures

Artist 1: Lady Gaga List: Marry the Night, Edge of Glory, Just

Dance, Alejandro, Boys, Boys, Boys Lure: Bad Romance

Artist 2: Girls Aloud List: The Promise, Something Kinda Ooooh,

Jump, Love Machine, See the Day Lure: Sound of the Underground

Artist 3: Katy Perry List: I Kissed a Girl, Firework, Teenage Dream,

The One that Got Away, Thinking of You Lure: Hot n Cold

Artist 4: Saturdays List: Issues, Missing you, All Fired Up, Forever

is Over, Work Lure: If this is love

Artist 5: Eminem List: Stan, Real Slim Shady, Cleaning out my

Closet, Like Toy Soldiers, Ass Like That Lure: Lose Yourself

Artist 6: Take That List: Never Forget, Could it be Magic, It Only

Takes a Minute, Rule the World, The Flood Lure: Shine

Artist 7: Michael Jackson List: Beat it, Man in the Mirror, Black or White,

Dirty Diana, Earth Song Lure: Thriller

Artist 8: Robbie Williams List: Let Me Entertain You, Rock DJ, Come

Undone, Strong, Something Beautiful Lures: Angels

Artist 9: Coldplay List: Paradise, Fix You, Every Tear Drop is a

Waterfall, Talk, Yellow Lure: Viva la Vida

860 SHERMAN AND KENNERLEY

Copyright of Memory is the property of Psychology Press (UK) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.