## 6.1. The trichotomous theory and dual-process evidence in WM retrieval

The distinction between recollection and familiarity-driven remembering is a huge question in memory research field since years (Atkinson & Juola, 1973; Mandler, 1980; Reyna & Mills, 2007; Tulving, 1985a; Yonelinas, 2002). The trichotomous theory of recall derived from this dual-process retrieval approach, but extends to recall analysis without requiring any metacognitive introspections in participants (Brainerd et al., 2009). This model allowed to test the hypothesis that retrieval in WM is controlled by at least two mechanisms: Recollection and reconstruction. Recollection acts like a direct access to memory traces, such as verbatim traces retrieval in the FTT. Since this process proceeds as if memoranda were simply read out of consciousness, recollection is quite an effortless and fast process. This direct access process is close to the idea of the focus of attention in WM (Cowan, 2005) and to the process by which information are retrieved from primary memory (Unsworth & Engle, 2007b). Reconstruction is by essence a non-recollective process and is cognitively more expensive, longer and requires the grouping of remaining partial information, especially from their meaning content (i.e., gist in FTT). A complementary process of familiarity judgment is applied to reconstructed traces and allows recall of items if they reach a sufficient familiarity signal. This reconstruction process clearly corresponds to the cue-dependent search process that retrieves memory traces from secondary memory.

Previous studies indicated that WM is more related to the efficiency of recollection and not familiarity (Hedden & Park, 2003; Oberauer, 2005; Unsworth & Brewer, 2009), but we aimed at observing dual-process evidence in complex span task and serial recall tasks. The trichotomous theory of recall has been created by Brainerd et al. (2009) to explore this dual-process distinction between recollection- and familiarity-driven
remembering and can be apply to all the standard recall paradigms (cued, free, paired-associates, serial).

The basis of FTT have been studied on a wide variety of LTM and WM tasks highlighting the existence of independent dual-representations (i.e., verbatim and gist representations). Both representations are therefore involved, stored, and retrieved separately in memory tasks (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995, 1998). Retrieving verbatim traces is analogous to a recollection process, while gist traces are involved in reconstruction. This preponderant us of gist representations are at the origin of false memories when reconstruction followed a wrong familiarity signal (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002; Reyna & Brainerd, 1998; Reyna et al., 2016). Our analysis in successive experiment provided a good fit for our data, confirming then the existence of recollective and reconstruction process governing retrieval from WM, with a predominance of recollection. Moreover dual-process view always predicted that divided attention in study or test phases affect recollection but not reconstruction or familiarity processes (see Yonelinas, 2002 for a review) and our results seeing CL effect on recollection were in odd with this prediction.

**6.2. Predominance of recollective processes in WM span tasks**

The application of the trichotomous model to our data suggests that a vast majority of the items recalled in complex span tasks are retrieved through recollection (Figure 16), a finding that echoes previous studies concluding to the reliance of WM performance on the efficiency of recollection, but not familiarity (Hedden & Park, 2003; Loaiza, Rhodes, Camos, et al., 2015; Oberauer, 2005). Thus, even if recall from WM is governed by a duality of retrieval processes (the two-stage model provided a better fit than a single-stage model), direct access is the default mode of retrieval from WM. These results agree with
the design of WM as a buffer maintaining a small amount of information in a state that
allows its direct access (Baddeley, 1986; Miller et al., 1960; Newell, 1990). According to
the trichotomous model and the FTT (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), recollection is supported
by the reinstatement of verbatim memory traces that encode the surface form of the
items. The ephemeral nature of these verbatim representations could explain why WM
traces are prone to temporal decay or interference, or both, as several theories of WM
assume (e.g., Baddeley & Logie, 1999; Barrouillet & Camos, 2015; Cowan, 1995; Oberauer
et al., 2012). It seems that the maintenance of WM traces does not take the form of the
constant reconstruction of representations through the retrieval of knowledge from long-
term memory, as Barrouillet and Camos (2015) have hypothesized. As we discuss latter,
our results do not match what could be expected from models assuming that recall at
short term mainly relies on some redintegration of long-term memory traces accessed
through retrieval cues acting as pointers (e.g., Nairne, 2002).

The predominance of recollective recall in WM (Figure 16) fits the main tenets of
the information processing view of cognition. Indeed, a WM from which information
should be retrieved through a double process of regeneration of candidates followed by a
discriminative search of targets would lack most of the attributes (flexibility, speed,
accuracy) needed to fulfil its role in the cognitive architecture. However, this
predominance of recollection process suggests that WM corresponds to a set of items in
such a state of activation and accessibility that it makes them functionally different from
any other memory traces, rendering pointless the debate as to whether there is a WM
system separated from LTM system or not.
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 2 - First trial</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 3 - First trial</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 4 serial - First trial</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 4 free - First trial</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 2 - Subsequent trials</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 3 - Subsequent trials</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 4 serial - Subsequent trials</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Experiment 4 free - Subsequent trials</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

**Figure 16.** Proportion of retrieval types for all experiments in the low (slow pace) and high (fast pace) load cognitive load (CL) conditions and both associative relatedness conditions (related and unrelated words, excepted in Experiment 1).
### 6.3. Recollective processes and cognitive load

Contrary to our expectations, although they had a strong impact on recall performance, variations in *CL* did not greatly modify the balance between recollective and non-recollective retrievals. As Figure 16 makes clear, high *CL* has its impact in increasing the rate of unlearned as well as reconstructed-not-recalled items, but the proportion of recollected items among those that were recalled remained unchanged. According to the TBRS theory (Barrouillet & Camos, 2012, 2015), higher *CL* involves lower recall performance by increasing the proportion of time during which concurrent processing occupies attention, thus preventing refreshing activities to take place. It could have been supposed that when refreshing is impeded, memory traces tend to fall into secondary memory from which they can be retrieved through non-recollective processes. Nothing of this sort occurred. Our analyses suggest that, if some reconstructive process takes place under high *CL*, it rarely results in output (see the reconstructed-not-recalled category on Figure 16).

These findings, along with the predominance of recollective retrieval already discussed, suggest that WM performance is a matter of maintaining verbatim memory traces by refreshing them in their initial form within something like a focus of attention (Cowan, 2005), a zone of direct access (Oberauer, 2002), a primary memory (Unsworth & Engle, 2007a) or an episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2000; Barrouillet & Camos, 2015). When information is verbal, an articulatory rehearsal process probably contributes to the reinstatement of the phonological features of these verbatim traces (Baddeley, 1986; Camos et al., 2009). Preventing maintenance activities to take place does not seem to result in the displacement of these memory traces into another system from which they could be retrieved through non-recollective processes. Instead, they seem to have
irrevocably left WM, in this sense that they can no longer be directly accessed, at least
under the specific constraints of the recall phase of a complex span task. This does not
mean that nothing remains of these forgotten items and that they cannot be retrieved by
non-recollective processes, for example in recognition tasks or in delayed recall tasks
(Camos & Portrat, 2015), but they no longer belong to WM. In other words, what our
results suggest is that direct accessibility seems to be one of the defining features of WM.

6.4. Associative relatedness favored encoding and CL affected maintenance in WM. What about redintegration?

Predictions concerning refreshing and relatedness effect on reconstruction are
differed a lot between theoretical frameworks. Some would predict that refreshing will
reduce relatedness effect (Rose & Craik, 2012), others that relatedness effect would be
favored by refreshing (Loaiza, Duperreault, et al., 2015). Some would finally attend no
effect of refreshing availability on reconstruction process (Cowan, 1999a), supported by
the fact that divided attention manipulations, limited response time or high cognitive cost
never affected any processes but conscious recollection (Benjamin & Craik, 2001; Jacoby,
1991; Jacoby et al., 1993). Our results favored the third possibility, showing that
refreshing modulations always affected recollection, but never reconstruction process.
We concluded that attentional availability variation only affects encoding capacities, but
never redintegration. When introducing the LTM effect of associative relatedness in our
WM task, we observed that CL still affected recollection and not reconstruction, but CL
effect was less strong when studying related words. In fact, memory traces remained
accessible in the attentional system, but were weakened by a high concurrent attentional
demand. Associative relatedness enhanced recall process so much that even CL effect
found itself diminished in related conditions. In the related words conditions, direct
access to memory traces were almost perfect because these traces were less degraded by
concurrent *CL* and chunked around the same semantic field. Even forcing a re-encoding
of items in Experiment 3 showed no effect of CL on reconstruction, but simply extended
the relatedness effect on the recollection on successive trials, demonstrating the re-
encoding of the items lists at each trial caused by the new mode of presentation.
Predominance of recollection process and the absence of *CL* effect on redintegration and
his diminution when studying related words contradicted redintegration and LTM
retrieval theories, as we should observed far more reconstructions, especially for related
words which implied LTM knowledge according to these theories.

In the PSM framework, memory traces are firstly maintained in primary memory,
which is quite akin to WM. If the maintenance capacities of primary memory are exceeded
by the number of items to maintain or by concurrent processing, memory traces are
shifted to secondary memory (i.e., LTM) and must be retrieved from that system
(Unsworth, 2007). PSM framework assumes then that LTM effects should increase in
presence of high attentional concurrent demand, because in this case, memory traces are
hold in the same cognitive system as memory cues enhancing recall performance though
a searching cue process (Spillers & Unsworth, 2011). In view of this framework, one
should predict no effect of *CL* on reconstruction as it impacts only primary memory, but
an enhancement of reconstruction efficiency for related words, especially in high
concurrent *CL* which initiated the memory traces transfer to secondary memory. A
redintegration perspective would argue for the same effect of relatedness on
reconstruction process (Hulme et al., 1991; Hulme et al., 1995). However, our results only
observed main effects of *CL* and relatedness on only recollection and no effect on
reconstruction. Recall and processes analysis also replicated previous studies indicated
that relatedness is not moderated by attentional factors, but LTM enhancement to WM
performance would rather be attributed to a better redintegration during recall or an
encoding facilitation (Camos et al., 2019; Campoy et al., 2015; Loaiza & Camos, 2018, and
see Chapter 5). As our factors never impacted reconstruction process but both WM and
LTM effects affected a predominant recollection, the hypothesis of an easier encoding
process seemed to us to be privileged. Even if cue searching or redintegration was
explained as a privileged access to LTM, one could not explain our factors effects on
primary memory recollection other than invoking a “super direct access” process. Direct
access process in secondary memory is not supposed to be high, as demonstrated by the
FTT observation on verbatim and gist representations on WM and LTM recall tasks
(Barnhardt et al., 2006; Brainerd et al., 2014; Brainerd & Reyna, 2010; Brainerd et al.,
2009). If complex span task moved memory traces to secondary memory, reconstruction
process should have been more important in our results. Only Experiment 4 observed CL
and relatedness effect on reconstruction process. When destroying all contextual cues and
inducing LTM maintenance strategies to participants, we finally observed such a pattern
of results, with more reconstruction compared to recollection. However, these results
were the less stable as recall patterns could have been misinterpreted by the
trichotomous model.

Trichotomous theory of recall could not have been applied to our differed recall
tasks. Anyway, performance analysis for all studies involving differed long-term recall
after 10 minutes (short delayed) or 7 days (long delayed) showed no significant effect
other that the one of associative relatedness. Related words were always better recalled
at long term than unrelated ones, which fits with the observed relatedness effect in short-
term recall where relatedness greatly favored the encoding of items at the first trial, so
much that we almost observed ceiling effect for related words in successive trials.

Moreover, the predominance of differed recall of mostly related groups of words is in accordance with what we already know about LTM retrieval, where reconstruction process is mostly used. Residual memory traces of a single words could be easily used to reconstruct the whole list. The memory trace for *bird* can more easily lead to the reconstruction of *cage*, *feather*, *egg*, *beak*, and *wing* thank to LTM knowledge and strong network activation between these items, but it is not the case for a group of word such as *soul*, *cocktail*, *puppet*, *outlet*, *puzzle*, and *week* who are only able to benefit from residual traces of their chunking specific to the experiment.

**6.5. The effect of repetition on recollection and its implications for WM theory**

The parameter estimations revealed that *D*₂ was systematically higher than *D*₁ in both the high and the low *CL* conditions, something true for low as well as high performers. Recall that *D*₁ corresponds to the probability for an item to reach recollection and to be directly retrieved at the first trial, whereas *D*₂ corresponds to the probability to reach this state in further trials. In other words, this means that the probability for an item to reach a state allowing its direct retrieval is higher in successive trials than the first one.

It is a well-established fact that, in free recall tasks, *D*₂ is usually lower than *D*₁ (Brainerd et al., 2009), whereas the opposite pattern is frequent with associative recall (Brainerd et al., 2012). Moreover, it has been shown that associative recall is strongly recollective, whereas free recall is more balanced between recollective and non-recollective retrieval (Brainerd et al., 2009). That *D*₂ is usually lower than *D*₁ in free recall tasks is explained by the fact that direct access is a rote memorization process that involves interference-sensitive verbatim traces. Because recall test generates output interferences, test
repetition degrades verbatim memory traces making direct access more and more
difficult (Brainerd et al., 2009). Why does this phenomenon not occur in WM span tasks
and what are the characteristics of these tasks that make them more akin to associative
than free recall?

Concerning the first part of the question, Brainerd, Wright, et al. (2002) predicted and observed that because shorter lists involve less interference, they result in larger *D* parameters in free recall tasks. The lists studied in complex span tasks might be sufficiently short (six items in our study) to escape strong interference effects, resulting in large *D* values that do not decline with repetition. Moreover, the active maintenance of verbatim traces throughout the task by refreshing and articulatory rehearsal might protect them from interference and facilitate their access to recollection at the second and third trial. Turning to the second part of the question, apart from the length of the lists to be learned, the main difference between free recall and complex span tasks is the emphasis on serial recall for the latter. It has been suggested that recall in these tasks corresponds to a recursive search in WM of the item associated with each serial position (Oberauer et al., 2012). Moreover, although it has been frequently claimed that there is little support for chaining models in short-term memory (Henson et al., 1996; but see Frankish, 2014, for an unexpected revival of the idea), it might also be imagined that serial order is stored by associating each item with its predecessor. Thus, the need for order maintenance in WM span tasks might induce associative processes explaining the increase in *D* values with repetition.

Another explanation might be more coincidental and related with the number of
memory items presented in our study (i.e., six). Whereas it is usually assumed that short-
term memory can hold about seven items (Miller, 1956), WM spans are far lower due to
the devastating effect of concurrent processing (e.g., a mean of 2.87 and 2.24 items recalled in correct position in the first trial of the present study for low and high CL, respectively). Thus, although the probability of direct retrieval and the number of words learnt at first trial are rather low (about 2.5 words), the number of remaining words to be learned in subsequent trials has substantially diminished (to about 3.5), explaining that the probability of learning these remaining words in further trials (i.e., D₂) can be higher than the initial probability (D₁). Whatever the sources of the discrepancies between WM span and free recall tasks, our results suggest that the two types of tasks differ in the retrieval processes they involve.

## 7. Conclusion

This study was a first attempt to apply the trichotomous model to serial recall in WM complex span task. This approach has proved effective in establishing that both recollective and non-recollective processes govern recall from WM, though WM recall appears essentially recollective in nature. Overall, our results showed that maintenance in WM does not imply constant reconstruction of traces through retrieval of LTM traces. Short-term recall is rather recollected than achieved through redintegration of LTM traces or retrieval cues searching.

Of course, this finding, as well as those related with the impact of task difficulty (CL) and LTM effect on recall processes, require replication and extension to other complex span tasks, free recalls tasks, and even other populations. Nonetheless, the present results established that the dual-process methodology provided by the trichotomous model has the potential to advance our understanding of WM structure and functioning.
Cette étude constituait un premier essai d'application du modèle *Trichotomous* sur une procédure de rappel sériel en WM et a démontré d'une utilisation conjointe des processus d'accès direct (recollection) et de reconstruction en WM, bien que le rappel en WM privilégie énormément l'accès direct. Cette étude composée de quatre expériences impliquait à nouveau un facteur modulant le rafraichissement attentionnel au travers du coût cognitif de la tâche secondaire, ainsi qu'un facteur de connaissances de LTM avec le maintien de listes de mots sémantiquement reliés vs., non-reliés. Ces facteurs étaient présentés au sein d'une tâche d'empan complexe et présentés au fil de trois essais successifs d'études et de rappels des mêmes listes de mots. La première expérience ne manipulait que le premier facteur afin de fournir une première base dans l'utilisation du modèle *Trichotomous* en WM. La deuxième étude ajoutait le facteur de similarité sémantique et les procédures des deux études suivantes induisaient de plus en plus les participants vers une utilisation du processus de reconstruction afin d'éprouver nos premiers résultats.

Nos résultats montrent une prédominance écrasante du processus d'accès direct durant le rappel en WM par rapport au processus de reconstruction. Cependant, les deux processus restent importants dans le rappel en WM, argumentant dans le sens des modèles à double-processus gouvernant la récupération des traces en WM. La disponibilité attentionnelle n'affecte pas cette prédominance de l'accès direct. La présence de similarité sémantique n'encourage pas plus à la reconstruction et favorise plutôt l'accès direct aux traces reliées lors du premier essai de rappel. Ceci apporte du soutien à l'hypothèse d'un meilleur encodage des traces grâce aux connaissances de LTM.

D'une manière générale, cette prédominance du processus d'accès direct sur la reconstruction apporte une explication au faible taux de faux souvenirs observés à court-terme. Dans un rappel immédiat, ce sont les représentations verbatim qui sont directement récupérées et rappelées dans leurs formes exactes (verbatim), ce qui fait rempart contre les faux souvenirs induit par la reconstruction de traces gist. Dans l'étude suivante, nous avons donc observé l'encodage et le rappel de ces représentations gist et verbatim en fonction de l'interférence provoquée par nos facteurs de rafraichissement et de similarité sémantique.
# Chapitre 7. What remains you in mind? Semantic and phonological interference effects on false memories at short-term

**Titre en français** : Qu'est-ce qui vous reste en tête ? Effet des interférences sémantiques et phonologiques sur les faux souvenirs à court-terme.

Cette étude a été soutenue par le Fond National Suisse de la Recherche accordé à Valérie Camos (grant n° 100019_175960) et a reçu l'approbation du comité d'examen institutionnel de l'éthique de la recherche de l'Université de Fribourg. Les listes de mots et de données sont disponibles sur https://osf.io/943n6/.<fnref n="8" />

<footnote n="8">⁸ Merci Marlène Abadie et Valérie Camos pour leur implication générale tout au long de cette étude.</footnote>
Résumé

Notre étude visait à investiguer l'apparition de faux souvenirs à court terme en fonction de la disponibilité du rafraîchissement attentionnel et de la présence d'effets d'interférence sémantique ou phonologique entre les cibles à mémoriser et les mots qui y étaient associés. La vulnérabilité de la reconnaissance basée sur les représentations gist aux effets d'interférences sémantique comparée à celles basées sur les verbatim était le point clé de cette étude. Dans une tâche d'empan complexe, les participants devaient mémoriser quatre mots cibles et lire à haute voix quatre mots associés à chaque cible. Ces mots associés étaient sémantiquement ou phonologiquement similaires ou dissemblables à la cible. A la fin de chaque essai, les participants devaient classer des items en tant que cible étudiée durant l'essai, en tant que distracteur relié à une cible ou en tant que distracteur non-relié. Pour les deux conditions d'interférence, nous avons rapporté les paramètres correspondant aux représentation gist et verbatim dans la reconnaissance de cibles (Gt et Vt) et de distracteurs reliés (Gr et Vr) en utilisant le paradigme SCR (Stahl & Klauer, 2008). Les résultats ont révélé une majorité de reconnaissances correctes, notamment en condition sémantique par rapport à la phonologique. Les distracteurs phonologiquement reliés étaient souvent confondus avec des distracteurs non-reliés. La similarité sémantique favorisait à la fois Gt et Gr lorsque la similarité phonologique n'affectait que Gt, mais aucun type de similarité n'affectait Vt et Vr. Le rythme rapide a augmenté Gt dans les conditions sémantiques et phonologiques et en conséquence, Vr pour la condition sémantique augmentait dans le rythme lent. Le rythme n'a eu aucun effet sur les paramètres Gr et Vr pour la reconnaissance des distracteurs reliés. Ces résultats suggèrent que le rythme de présentation affecte le maintien des traces alors que la similarité, principalement sémantique, favorise les représentations gist des cibles. Ce dernier point favorise la reconnaissance, mais augmente aussi le risque d'apparition de faux souvenirs.
Our study aimed at investigating the occurrence of false memories at short term according to the availability of attentional refreshing and the presence of semantic vs. phonological interferences between memory words and associated distracting words. The vulnerability of gist-based recognition to semantic interferences, compared to verbatim-based recognition was the key point in this study, because verbatim representations are more resistant to interferences than gist representations. In a complex span task, participants had to memorize at each trial four target words and to read aloud four associated words semantically or phonologically similar vs dissimilar to each target. At the end of each trial, participant had to classified items as target probes studied within the trials, as a distractor related to a target, or as an unrelated distractor. For both interference conditions, we reported verbatim and gist parameters for targets ($G_t$ and $V_t$) and related distractors ($G_r$ et $V_r$) recognition using the SCR paradigm (Stahl & Klauer, 2008). Results revealed a vast majority of correct recognitions, especially in semantic compared to the phonological condition. More precisely, phonologically related distractors which were mostly confused as unrelated ones. Semantic similarity favored both $G_t$ and $G_r$ when phonological similarity only affected $G_t$, but neither kind of similarity affected $V_t$ and $V_r$. Fast pace increased $G_t$ in both semantic and phonological conditions and in response to this effect, $V_r$ for semantic condition increased in slow pace. Pace had no effect on $G_r$ and $V_r$ parameter for related distractors recognition. These findings suggest that pace impacted traces maintenance when similarity, mostly semantic one, enhanced gist representation for targets. This last point favored recognition, but also increased the risk of appearance of false memories
# 1. Introduction

Theoretical models regarding the relationship between working memory (WM) and long-term memory (LTM) are currently still divided between single and dual-view, with intermediate models presenting WM as the currently activated part of LTM (see Logie et al., 2021 for an exhaustive recent review of each model). If each of these theoretical conceptions has already provided several evidence supporting their position through years, the question about the dissociation between the WM and LTM systems cannot currently be considered as revolved. Maintenance in WM is achieved by articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing, which are both independent and domain-specific (for verbal and multimodal representations, respectively) maintenance mechanisms (Camos, 2015, 2017). However, studies regarding the relationships between WM and LTM reported that, although LTM improves performance in WM, its contribution is not mediated by WM maintenance mechanisms (Camos et al., 2019; Campoy et al., 2015; Loaiza & Camos, 2018; see Chapter 5). A possible explanation is that LTM effects on WM are more likely to relate to the encoding of traces in WM, whereas variations in attention affect their maintenance in WM.

The main objective of this study was to examine which kind of representations (i.e., verbatim and gist) attentional refreshing is capable to manipulate. To do so, we manipulated in one hand the nature of the representations encoded during learning by inducing semantic and phonological interferences between memoranda and distractors; and in the other hand the availability of attentional refreshing. The impact of these factors were analyzed in an immediate recognition test on verbatim and gist representations and on the occurrence of false memories, which is a phenomenon arising from LTM and gist representations (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002).
1.1. Long-term false memories

If everybody knows that we could forget a lot of things, most people still believe at least in a reliable memory. We all hope that our memories reflect the reality. However, memory does not function like a recorder, but is rather a constructive mechanism (Hyman & Loftus, 1998) and a lot of examples have shown that a memory trace can be changed, but also generate new ones, causing then false memories (Begley & Brant, 1994). Memorization can be devised in three main steps: Encoding, storage and retrieval. False memory might derive from all these steps. When recalling elements, we can transform them or create new memories, as important as a false childhood trauma (Hyman & Loftus, 1998) or, more harmless, the reminder of getting lost in a mall during childhood (Begley & Brant, 1994). Loftus, Miller, and Burns (1978) have proved that new information can also modify previously stored information (i.e., the misinformation effect), which could compromise a testimony for example. Finally, and it will be the main subject of this study, the encoding of traces could also “malfunction” and encode some non-present elements as any other memories.

This last point has been widely proved using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm (Deese, 1959, Roediger & McDermott, 1995). This paradigm presented lists of associated words that let the people think about a critical non-presented word (e.g., *rest*, *bed*, *nap*, *blanket*, *dream*, *tired* etc. without presenting the critical word *sleep*). It was shown that strongly associated word lists produced more recall or recognition of non-presented items. This paradigm allows to study the occurrence of false memories and how to influence this occurrence. It is therefore an important tool for studying retrieval of non-presented items in both recall and recognition tasks in a controlled and ethic experimental context and therefore helped in developing our knowledge about processes at the origin of false memories.
Fuzzy Trace Theory (FTT; Brainerd & Reyna, 2002; Reyna, 2012a; Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) is a model about memory, reasoning, judgment, and decision making with few easy principles, allowing to explain some psychological phenomena like false memory. The core assumption of FTT is the distinction between two types of information representations: Verbatim and gist representations. The first one is a precise and literal representation of the surface forms of an individual stimulus that supports precise analysis. The second one is more akin to representing the overall meaning of information. Therefore, each piece of information, whatever its modality, has a dual representation. Each representation gets a utility in supporting distinct processes. Verbatim representations are detailed enough to allow analytical processing of information, while gist provides a holistic and intuitive perspective. The formation in memory of these two representations is simultaneous, but also independent (see Chapter 2, part 2).

Both traces have then an opponent effect on false memories. Indeed, gist traces favor false memories, because the generated meaning seem familiar. In contrast, verbatim traces are very precise, and this precision “neutralizes” the apparition of false memories. However, verbatim traces are generally vivid, with precise context, while gist traces are fuzzier. But if gist traces are highly consolidated (for example, with many words associated) it could give an illusion of vividness. It is therefore easy to manipulate the strength of these representations in memory. Targeted interference can weaken gist and/or verbatim traces. Although studied primarily in the LTM area, false recognition has also been reported at short term (Abadie & Camos, 2019; Atkins & Reuter-Lorenz, 2008; Coane et al., 2007; Flegal et al., 2010; McBride et al., 2019).
## 1.2. The impact of WM maintenance mechanisms on the occurrence of false memories

WM maintenance mechanisms have been described for many years. According to the Time-Based Resource-Sharing (TBRS) model, attentional refreshing and articulatory rehearsal are the two main mechanisms allowing the temporary maintenance of verbal information in WM (Barrouillet, Bernardin, et al., 2004). Resource sharing in WM is performed by a rapid switching process of attention from maintenance to processing while being able to carry out concurrent tasks. As maintenance and processing both rely on attention, their capacities are limited and this could be observed in simple activities (Barrouillet et al., 2009). Attentional refreshing is analogous to a central-domain mechanism based on attention and dedicated to the maintenance of multimodal representations (see Barrouillet & Camos, 2015; Camos, 2015, 2017; Camos & Barrouillet, 2012; Camos et al., 2018, for reviews). A secondary task performed at the same time as the memory task would generate an extra cognitive load and impose an attentional and temporal part (Camos & Barrouillet, 2012). Conversely, articulatory rehearsal does not require as much attentional resources to focus on and to maintain memory traces. This second main mechanism is similar to a phonological loop as described in Baddeley's (1986) model, devoted to the maintenance and processing of verbal representations (Camos & Barrouillet, 2012; Camos et al., 2011). Both mechanisms are working independently and manipulating their availability in WM tasks has known independent effects on recall. As articulatory rehearsal depends on subvocal articulation, covert speech (i.e., concurrent articulation) hinders it well, but attentional refreshing keep on operate perfectly under covert speech On the other hand, the inclusion of a concurrent attentional-demanding task within the main task impedes refreshing, but not rehearsal (Camos & Barrouillet, 2012; Mora & Camos, 2013).
Abadie and Camos (2019) investigated the onset of false memories at short and long term and depending on the availability of the maintenance mechanisms of information in WM. The occurrence or not of false memories depending on the availability of maintenance mechanisms would indicate whether WM might be the source of false memories formation or whether they originate from LTM instead. Their results showed that false memories do not appear in immediate recall when WM maintenance mechanisms were fully available. The formation of false memories is consequently modulated by the availability of WM mechanisms. Verbatim traces were indeed strong enough to counteract false memories formation only when WM maintenance was effective. When not, participant relied more on gist traces, which are the source of false memories (Reyna et al., 2016). However, false memories rates at short-term recognition test stayed the same whether attentional refreshing was optimal or not. Of the two maintenance mechanisms, it is articulatory rehearsal who had a strong impact on preventing false memories at short term by favoring verbatim traces.

**1.3. Interference effects on recollection and familiarity: What is left in your mind?**

According to single-process models of recognition (Dunn, 2004; Malmberg, 2008), memory strength would be the only process leading recognition. The “strongest” items are perceived as having already been studied, while those with weaker strength are judged as new and never been encountered. Dual-processes accounts rather posit that memory recognition is guided by two processes: Recollection and familiarity (Mandler, 1980; Wixted, 2007; Yonelinas, 2002). Recollection is defined as a conscious retrieval process. Familiarity is rather based on a feeling of having already been confronted with the presented information but having in memory only residual traces of it. Recollection is
therefore an elaborate process, based on exact and precise associative details of the
information, while familiarity is more a rapid and intuitive process based on a feeling of
"déjà vu". Over time, single- and dual-processes accounts both mostly agree that
recognition is driven both by recollection and familiarity. If this question is currently
unresolved, several results tend towards the dual-process view hypothesis. Indeed, most
studies demonstrated an independence between the two processes through
developmental effects, time latencies of recall, cognitive load and delay variations
(Benjamin & Craik, 2001; Hirshman et al., 2002; Jacoby, 1991, 1998; Jennings & Jacoby,
1993, 1997; Loaiza, Rhodes, Camos, et al., 2015) Neuroimaging studies showed that
recollection and familiarity can also be functionally and spatially dissociated. The
hippocampus supports recollection with contextual reinstatements, resistant to
interference. Familiarity process is rather supported by extrahippocampal neural
structure (mostly perirhinal cortex), which is vulnerable to interference (Sadeh et al.,
2014, 2016, 2018).

When thinking about forgetting from memory, we most spontaneously think of
decay. Decay in WM and LTM is heavily studied. In WM, memory traces simply decay as
time passed if they are not refreshed or rehearsed (see Barrouillet et al., 2013).
Interference effects represent the other side of the coin, although the relative impact of
the two aspects of forgetting is still a persistent debate. Interference involuntarily occurred
when we hold several representations at the same time in WM, but depending on the
strength of their similarity, these representations might overlap (Nairne, 1990; Oberauer
& Kliegl, 2001; Oberauer et al., 2004; Oberauer et al., 2012). When encoding target and
distractors items, the risk of interference increases and is especially highlighted by the
occurrence of false memories.
The vulnerability of gist-based recognition (familiarity process) compared to verbatim-based recognition (recollection process) against interference effects was our key point in this study. Semantic similarity promotes the creation of gist traces, which then affects responses to related distractors. This semantic interference therefore increases the probability of false memories, but nevertheless promotes the correct recognition of semantically related words that enter the same semantic network. The phonological similarity should rather disturb the formation of verbatim trace, which will have the effect of decreasing the correct recognitions of targets. Verbatim representations are however more resistant against interference effects than gist-based memories (Hockley, 1992; Murdock & Hockley, 1989; see Sadeh et al., 2014 for a review), even if gist are less vulnerable to decay than to interference (Gardiner, 1988; Gardiner & Java, 1991). Barrouillet et al. (2013) showed that when manipulating strength of activation between items, fragile memory traces suffer the most of interference. Our study introduced then interfering material that allowed us to manipulate the representational nature of memory items and observe their effects on recognition performance. In this study, we choose to work with semantical and phonological similarity to create interference respectively on gist and verbatim representations.

### 1.3.1. *Semantical interference: Weakening gist representations*

Knowledge is formed in associative networks. The proximity of items in these networks establishes its force of activation and greatly influences the probability of false recognitions (Collins & Loftus, 1975). The presentation of associated semantic or categorical items induces an automatic diffusion of the entire semantic network. This activates other items present in the network, even those that have not been presented in
the to-be-remembered lists. LTM effects such as lexicality, familiarity, frequency, and
relatedness increase WM performance (Abadie & Camos, 2018, 2019; Hulme et al., 1991;
Hulme et al., 2003; Poirier et al., 2011; Rosselet-Jordan et al., 2022; Saint-Aubin et al.,
2005; Saint-Aubin & Poirier, 1999a). Oberauer (2009b) demonstrated that immediate
recall performance was better when the target to be remembered belonged to the same
semantic category as associated words processed during a secondary task. (e.g., *cotton* as
target probe with *silk*, *wool*, *velvet*, *linen* as associated words). This effect was not
influenced by variations in attentional refreshing. In general, the stimulus similarity
processed and stored in a complex task had a positive effect on immediate recall. One
hypothesis is that the associative network is reactivated with each presentation of a new
item related to the probe item. The redintegration process might restores the traces in
memory (Camos et al., 2019; Hulme et al., 1999; Hulme et al., 1997; Schweickert, 1993).

1.3.2. *Phonological interference: Weakening verbatim representations*

Words which shared the same central phoneme (e.g., *cat*, *bat*, *map*, *nap*) are less recalled than phonologically dissimilar words (e.g., *cat*, *bed*, *sick*, *luck*). This effect known as the phonological similarity effect (PSE) had been frequently reported in previous studies (Baddeley, 1966, 2007; Camos et al., 2013; Larsen et al., 2000). PSE emerges from interference at the time of encoding and recall. Indeed, similar items would be less firmly encoded and phonological discriminations problems might happen during retrieval (Camos et al., 2011). Moreover, WM traces tend to degrade when they share too many features. Indeed, phonological similarity makes the distinction between items more difficult. As a result, recall performance for phonologically similar wordlists is poorer (Baddeley, 1986; Camos et al., 2011; Oftinger & Camos, 2016, 2018). This phonological similarity effect does not evolve according to the attentional demand of a competing task,
but disappears under articulatory suppression (Camos et al., 2013). Oberauer (2009b) investigated this interference effect between memory items and phonologically similar associated word in a short-term recall task. In presence of phonological similarity between items, recall performance decreased. He concluded that similar phonological representations mostly create confusion between memory traces during encoding. Overall, several studies reported retroactive interference<sup>9</sup> effects through feature overwriting of memory representations (Bartsh & Shepherdson, 2021; Lange & Oberauer, 2005; Oberauer, 2005, 2009b; Oberauer et al., 2004).

**1.4. The present study**

According to the Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) recognition is related to the retrieval of characteristics associated with memories, driven by recollection and familiarity processes. Familiarity might give the participant a feeling of accuracy in memory traces or a feeling of familiarity that comes from a sense of “déjà vu” and might lead to false acknowledgment in recognition tasks (Stadler et al., 1999). This gist-based feeling of familiarity is more impacted by the introduction of interfering distractors than the recollection process (see Sadeh et al., 2014 for a review).

We used a similar methodology as Oberauer (2009b) who also manipulated semantic and phonological similarity in a complex span task paradigm, as well as variations of presentation pace. His results showed that both semantic and phonological similarity had small effects, but beneficial to recall when detected. Our study converted

<footnote n="9"><sup>9</sup> Retroactive interference occurs when a new memory alters an older memory. It is particularly studied in the learning of pairs of items which are modified in a test phase, the new pairs then no longer corresponding with those which had been studied.</footnote>
several procedural points from Oberauer (2009b), with the notable difference that our
participants did a recognition task at the end of each trial instead of a recall task. Our
results could therefore be analyzed using a recognition paradigm, which could lead us to
different interpretations because it allowed us to apply a Conjoint Recognition paradigm
and get parameter estimates for gist and verbatim representations. The original Conjoint
Recognition paradigm by Brainerd et al. (1999) is a multinomial processing tree (MPT)
model (see Erdfelder et al., 2015; Riefer & Batchelder, 1988). Each branch corresponds to
parameters in the used model and is associated with a categorical probability calculation.
Thus, these paradigms make it possible to test hypotheses on the chosen parameters and
to obtain statistical results. The Conjoint Recognition (CR) paradigm allows to measure
the contribution of each specific process to false and true recognition. We used a revision
of this paradigm which has been made by Stahl and Klauer (2008) and offers a
simplification by diminishing the need of several experimental conditions compared to
the original model. SCR, for Simplified Conjoint Recognition). In the SCR paradigm, lists of
words are studied and submitted to a recognition test of target probes, related and
unrelated distractors. In this recognition phase, participants must indicate for each item
if it was a *target probe* (i.e., an old item from the study list), a *related distractor* (i.e., a new
word which share similarities with the study list), or an *unrelated distractor* (i.e., a new
word which share no similarity with the study list). The model estimates parameters from
these three different recognition judgments and this provides measures of the rate of
answer to target probes and to related distractor based on verbatim and gist
representations, also indicating the origins of correct recognitions and false memories.
Therefore, it is possible to conduct experiments by varying their modalities and to
compare the fluctuation rates of verbatim and gist traces (see Chapter 2, part 2.2 for more
information about CR and SCR application).
At each trial presented in our experiment, participants had to memorize four target words and to read aloud four other associated words following each target word in a complex span task paradigm. These associated words were either similar or dissimilar to the target, semantically or phonologically. The presentation pace of these associated words could be slow or fast, allowing the presence of two distinct levels of availability of the attentional refreshing mechanism to the participants. At the end of each trial, participants had to indicate in a recognition task whether an item had been presented or not as a target probe in the trial or whether it was related with one or not (semantically vs. phonologically depending on the condition). They then had to choose between three options: *target probe*, *related distractor*, and *unrelated distractor*, knowing that the item submitted to recognition necessarily responds to one of these answers. These instructions during the recognition task followed the conditions of application of the SCR model (Stahl and Klauer (2008), allowing us to collect and analyze the appearance of false memories at short-term according to the presence of semantic vs. phonological similarity between target probe and associated words. Participants had then to share their attentional resources in WM between target probe maintenance and processing of associated words potentially linked to the target. Depending on the presentation rate of the secondary task (i.e., reading aloud the associated words), participants had more or less time for attentional sharing of resources.

Firstly, as participants did immediate recognition of only four words, we expected good memory performance. The occurrence of false recognitions was certainly expected to be negligible in comparison to the same task with delayed recognition, but our interest resided in WM modulation. Abadie and Camos (2019) demonstrated that the obstruction of WM maintenance mechanisms is at the origin of the apparition of false memories in
immediate test. Therefore, in our experiment, one should expect to observe more false
recognition when the task is presented in fast pace compared to slow pace.

The SCR paradigm allowed us to visualize the impact of our factors on parameter
estimates for gist and verbatim representations. Gist and verbatim representations
should be weakened by the presence of semantic and phonological interference,
respectively. In the semantic condition, associated words were semantically similar to
targets to be remembered, which might reinforce gist representations as in the DRM task.
In the second condition, associated words were phonologically similar to the target, which
should affect verbatim representations. Both semantic and phonological dissimilarity
between items and associated words in both semantic and phonological cases should not
affect neither verbatim nor gist representation. Therefore, in these dissimilar conditions,
not another effect but pace should be observed, with better verbatim-based recognition
in slow pace. It is also known that concurrent attentional demand in WM has a greatest
deleterious effect on verbatim representations than on gist representations (Abadie et al.,
2013, 2017; Loaiza, 2020). Thus, a greater concurrent cognitive cost (i.e., fast pace) should
more strongly affect verbatim representations, which are more sensitive to high cognitive
load, as shown by Abadie and Camos (2019). This should also be reflected in our more
attentional demanding condition (i.e., fast-paced presentation).

As false memories are strongly reduced without articulatory suppression (Abadie &
Camos, 2019; Atkins & Reuter-Lorenz, 2008), our participants did all the tasks aloud to
induce an articulatory suppression. For both interference conditions, we reported true
and false recognition scores and the nature of representations that underlined these true
recognitions using the SCR paradigm. All predicted effects are summarized in Table 11.
<table><thead><tr><th>DVs</th><th>Semantic interference</th><th>Results</th><th>Phonological interference</th><th>Results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Correct recognition (CR)</td><td>More CR compared to phonologic tasks (LTM effect)</td><td>✓</td><td>Less CR compared to semantic tasks (no LTM effect)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>False recognition (FR)</td><td>✓ FR of related distractor as target<br>✓ FR in fast pace</td><td>✗</td><td>✓ FR of related distractor as unrelated<br>✓ FR in fast pace</td><td>✓ ✗</td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim</td><td>No similarity effect on verbatim<br>Fast pace ↗ verbatim</td><td>✓</td><td>No similarity effect on verbatim<br>(if so, ↗ verbatim)<br>Fast pace ↗ verbatim</td><td>✓ ✗</td></tr><tr><td>Gist</td><td>Similarity ↗ gist<br>No impact of pace on gist (if so, ↗)</td><td>✓ (✓)</td><td>No similarity effect on gist<br>No impact of pace on gist (if so, ↗)</td><td>✗ (✓)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 11. Summary of predictions and main results. ↗ indicates an increase and ↗ a decrease. ✓ indicates that the effect was shown in our experiment, (✓) for a partial observation and ✗ that it was not. DVs is for dependent variables, CR for correct recognitions and FR for false recognitions.

## 2. Method

### 2.1. Participant

Ninety-six native French-speaker students at the University of Fribourg (79 females; mean age *M* = 21.3 years; *SD* = 3.62) did the experiment for course credits or a cinema entrance voucher. None of them took part in the pre-test of the material. The experiment was divided in four conditions: Semantically similar, semantically dissimilar, phonologically similar and phonologically dissimilar. All participants studied both one semantic and one phonologic condition, but since similarity was a between-subjects factor. Half of them (N = 48) participated in the similar condition of the semantic or phonologic procedure, and the other half (N = 48) in the dissimilar condition for the other procedure. Those who studied firstly a similar condition studied a dissimilar condition in the second part of the experiment, and conversely.
## 2.2. Material

Unfortunately, there are few experimental materials available in French, and none to our knowledge fully met our needs. We therefore created specific material for this study. Each set of words had to offer one target, four associated words and a related distractor.

For the semantic interference condition, these six words had to be semantically similar (e.g., *storm*, *fog*, *drop*, *cloud*, *downpour*, *rain*, in French in the study). Using Bonin et al. (2013) and De La Haye (2003) French verbal association norms, 40 series of 6 mono or bi-syllabic and semantically related words were created. To obtain the semantically dissimilar material, we kept the same target words and related distractors as in the similar material but mixed the associated words so that there was no longer any semantic similarity within series (apart from target and related words which are always similar).
Thirty-three French-speaker students (21 females; mean age = 21.4 years; *SD* = 1.56) assessed the associative strength of these words' series (on a Likert scale from 1-not related to 7-very related, *M* = 6.67, *SD* = 0.64 for semantically similar series and *M* = 1.68, *SD* = 1.02 for semantically dissimilar series). The phonological interference material was created using the same logic as the semantic interference material, except that the words in phonological interference condition were all mono syllabic. Phonological similarity was focused on the central phoneme of each word. As participant did both conditions, no word displayed in an interference condition was used again the other one.

In each similar and dissimilar semantic and phonological series, we added a seventh words as an unrelated distractor. This word never had semantic nor phonological similarity with the other words in series. In summary, the semantically similar series (in
French in the study) *storm* (target), *fog*, *drop*, *cloud*, *downpour* (associated words), *rain* (related distractor) and *whistle* (unrelated distractor) became the dissimilar series *storm* (target), *lake*, *knitting*, *alliance*, *parking* (associated words) and still *rain* (related distractor) and *whistle* (unrelated distractor).

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Figure 17. Example of semantically similar (a) and dissimilar (b) trials and phonologically similar (c) and dissimilar (d) trials, in which participants had to read aloud each presented words in a slow or a fast pace and remember the red-inked ones. They then selected in a recognition task if probes were a target, related distractor, or unrelated distractor. Each trial started with the indication of the associated words pace (slow vs. fast). At each trial, 6 words (1 to 3 of each probes category) were presented in recognition phase. ISI of 100ms between each probe are not visually represented in figure.</figcaption></figure>

A total of 280 words per condition was homogeneous in terms of frequencies in language apparition (based on the French linguistic database from New et al. (2001) and grammatical gender, with *M* = 40.3, *SD* = 10.6 and 58% of male nouns in French for semantic condition; and *M* = 27.9, *SD* = 4.53 and 38% of male nouns in French for phonologic condition. Translated examples of trials are provided in Figure 17 and all word
lists are displayed in Appendix H. To ensure that our effects did not come from specific
words, half of the participants studied in a counterbalanced way a second wordlist in
which the target probes were presented as related distractor and conversely. Within the
two similarity conditions (similar and dissimilar), the 40 words series were arranged to
form a total of ten trials.

2.3. *Procedure*

The experiment was presenting using E-Prime 2.0 software (Psychology Software
Tools Inc. [E-Prime 2.0], 2012). At the beginning of the experiment, all participants
completed a training to get used to the task modalities and requirements. Half of
participants studied a similar semantic condition and a dissimilar phonological condition;
and the other half studied a dissimilar semantic condition and a similar phonological
condition (in a counterbalanced way of order of presentation of the two condition).
Semantic and phonological conditions were displayed in the exact same complex span
task paradigm of 10 trials. In the recognition phase, it was the phonological similarity at
the central phoneme level of the words that mattered for the phonological condition, and
the associative links between words in the semantic condition (Figure 17).

At the beginning of each trial, an 1500ms screen “Rapide” or “Lent” (slow and fast in
French) informed participants of the presentation rate of the associated words displayed
after each target probe. In the slow-paced condition, the presentation rate was of 1500ms
vs. 750ms in fast pace. Half of the trials were displayed in slow pace and the other half in
fast pace, in a random order. Participant had to read aloud all the associated words until
the end of the trial. No matter how fast or slow the associated words were presented, each
target probes were systematically presented for 1500ms. To differentiate target probes
from associated words, target probes were displayed in red ink to easily signal that it was
a word to memorize. Associated words were black-inked. Between each word, we added
a 100ms blank interval (ISI). At each trial, participant had studied 4 target probes and
read aloud 16 associated words, semantically or phonologically similar or dissimilar to a
target depending on the condition.

Then, followed the recognition test phase. Six words were presented one after the other. For each word, participant had to indicate using predefined keys on the keyboard if it was a *target probe*, a *related distractor*, or an *unrelated distractor*. A visual reminder of the three recognition options remained indicated on the screen during all the recognition task and participant had unlimited time to answer. The program presented one to three words of each category (*target probe*, *related distractor*, or *unrelated distractor*), to systematically reach six words in total. If a target probe was displayed during the recognition task, then the related distractor from the same series was not displayed (and conversely), so as not to give any retrieval clue. At the end of this recognition task, participants were encouraged to run the next trial when they felt ready for it.

In each condition, the whole task was performed under articulatory suppression, as participant had to read aloud all words until the end of each trial. This was mandatory for two reasons: Firstly, without articulatory suppression, the occurrence of false memories, which are our main interest in this study, are strongly reduced (see Abadie & Camos, 2019; Atkins & Reuter-Lorenz, 2011). Moreover, a short-term recognition task of only four words without articulatory suppression would most likely result in a significant ceiling effect without articulatory suppression as it is quite easy for adult participants.
## 3. Results

To simplify data analysis, we present firstly memory accuracy and gist-verbatim analysis for semantic conditions, and then for phonological conditions.

### 3.1. Memory accuracy

Bayesian analysis on memory accuracy were conducted on each type of response in both semantic and phonological interference condition with pace (slow vs., fast) and similarity (similar vs. dissimilar) as between-subjects factors. No data nor participant were excluded. Moreover, we observed neither the effect of the order of presentation of similarity conditions (i.e., similar vs., dissimilar, $BF_{s10} \le.130$) nor of the order of presentation of interference conditions (i.e., semantic vs., phonological, $BF_{s10} \le.1061$). The order of presentation of the tasks therefore has no impact on our results. All memory accuracy analyses were performed with JASP version 0.11.1 (Love et al., 2019).

Memory accuracy was analyzed as percentage of correct recognitions for each probe item (target, related or unrelated probes, expressed as *t*, *r* and *u*, respectively). We performed three Bayesian analyses with pace (slow vs. fast) and type of responses (target, related or unrelated distractors, expressed as *T*, *R* and *U*, respectively) as within-subjects factors and similarity as between-subjects factor. In both semantic and phonological conditions, a first Bayesian analysis was ran on recognition accuracy when judging target probes (*t*, recognized correctly as a target *T*, and then expressed as *t,T*) or wrongly categorized the target item *t* as related (*t,R*) or unrelated (*t,U*) distractors. A second analysis was made following the same logic when judging a related distractor *r* (*r,T* / *r,R* / *r,U*) and a third one on unrelated distractors *u* (*u,T* / *u,R* / *u,U*).
As similarity, like pace, was always presented in task according to a controlled rate of half similar and half dissimilar associated words and participant were forced to choose between the three types of response. These effects could therefore not be analyzed by themselves, but only regarding type of response. This was also reflected in BFs inclusion (≤.11 for similarity and ≤.09 for pace). Main effect of similarity showing up in some preferred models was certainly emphasized by its interaction with type of responses. Overall, similarity mostly leaded to easily categorize all items as related distractors (difference of recognition rate mean for categorization as related distractor, $M_R$ = +7.54%), less as unrelated ones (difference of recognition rate mean, $M_U$ = -7.15%). Similarity had no influence on the categorization of items as target (difference of recognition rate mean, $M_T$ = -.38%). Post-hoc comparisons however indicated that correct recognitions in these three analyses were always significant majorities (BFs$_{10}$ > 3.28 × 10$^{11}$).

### 3.1.1. Semantic interference in memory accuracy – Target probes recognition

The best model for targets ($t,T$ / $t,R$ / $t,U$) included only the main effect of type of responses (BF$_{10}$ = 3.86 × 10$^{307}$), closely followed by the second preferred model adding the main effect of similarity and the similarity by type of responses interaction (BF$_{10}$ = 2.52 × 10$^{307}$). Correct recognitions indeed represented an overwhelming majority ($M$ = 86.8%, SD = 13.4 for $t,T$, see Figure 18). Targets were also rarely confused as related ($M_{t,R}$ = 7.35%, SD = 9.74) or as unrelated distractors ($M_{t,U}$ = 5.84%, SD = 9.42). Post-hoc comparison did not confirm the impact of similarity on target recognition (BF$_{10}$ = 2.11 and BF$_{10}$ = .77 for similar and dissimilar comparisons for $t,R$ and $t,U$).
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 18.** Percentage of correct recognitions for each probe items (target, related or unrelated probes, expressed respectively as *t*, *r* and *u*) in semantic and phonological interferences. (a) represents responses to targets (*t*,*T*/*t*,*R*/*t*,*U*); (b) for responses to related distractor (*r*,*T*/*r*,*R*/*r*,*U*); and (c) for responses to unrelated distractors (*u*,*T*/*u*,*R*/*u*,*U*), always for semantic interference in left panel and for phonological interference in right panel.</figcaption></figure>
### 3.1.2. Semantic interference in memory accuracy – Related distractors recognition

The preferred model for related distractors ($r, T / r, R / r, U$) also highlighted the main effects of type of responses and of semantic similarity, $BF_{10} = 2.76 \times 10^{166}$. Correct recognition were also majority ($M = 67.5\%, SD = 19.5$ for $r, R$, see Figure 18). If related distractors were almost never categorized as target ($M_{r,T} = 1.46\%, SD = 3.57$), they were more commonly confused with unrelated distractors ($M_{r,U} = 31.2\%, SD = 19.1$). Bayesian t-test comparisons between both similar and dissimilar conditions indicated that related distractors were more easily miscategorized in the dissimilar condition, but similarity presence helped correct recognition ($M = 76\%, SD = 16.1$ for similar $r, R$ and $M = 58.9\%, SD = 23$ for dissimilar $r, R$, $BF_{10} = 590.3$). Semantic dissimilarity led to more false recognition of related items as unrelated distractors ($M = 22.7\%, SD = 15.5$ for similar $r, U$ and $M = 39.7\%, SD = 22.7$ for dissimilar $r, U$, $BF_{10} = 697.5$). Semantic similarity had neither impact on the categorization of item as targets ($M = 1.46\%, SD = 3.56$ for similar $r, T$ and $M = 1.46\%, SD = 3.59$ for dissimilar $r, T$, $BF_{10} = .16$).

### 3.1.3. Semantic interference in memory accuracy – Unrelated distractors recognition

When compared to the null model, recognition of unrelated distractors analysis highlighted several models with a $BF_{10} = +\infty$. Hence, we choose the highest BF ($BF_M = 83.5$) as the best one, which only included the main effect of type of response. As in previous analysis, correct recognition were majority ($M = 92.9\%, SD = 10.5$ for $u, U$, see Figure 18). Post-hoc comparisons showed that correct recognitions in these three analyses were always significant majorities ($BF_{S10} > 3.28 \times 10^{11}$). Unrelated words were almost never confused as targets ($M_{u,T} = 0.26\%, SD = .77$) or as related distractors ($M_{u,R} = 6.83\%, SD = 10.4$). BF inclusion indicated a three-way interaction between pace, type of response and similarity for unrelated distractors recognition. However, this interaction
was not included in any of preferred model and was probably enhanced by the absence of categorization of unrelated distractors as target items (respectively similar and dissimilar conditions, $M_{u,T} = 0\%, SD = 0$ and $M_{u,T} = 0\%, SD = 1.55$).

### 3.1.4. Phonological interference in memory accuracy – Target probes recognition

The only difference point between semantic and phonological procedure concerned the nature of the interferences induced by the words associated with targets in the similar and dissimilar conditions (i.e., phonological similarity between central phonemes of targets and associated words in the phonological condition). We therefore could proceed in the same three Bayesian analysis on phonological conditions as in semantic conditions, with pace (slow vs., fast) and type of responses (target, related or unrelated distractors, still expressed as *T*, *R* and *U*, respectively) as within-subjects factors and similarity as between-subjects factor. We described these results firstly for recognition accuracy when categorizing target item (*t*,*T* / *t*,*R* / *t*,*U*), then when judging related distractors (*r*,*T* / *r*,*R* / *r*,*U*) and finally for unrelated distractors (*u*,*T* / *u*,*R* / *u*,*U*).

The only main effect of type of responses constituted the preferred model for target recognition (*t*,*T* / *t*,*R* / *t*,*U*), $BF_{10} = 6.24 \times 10^{270}$. Post-hoc comparison confirmed that correct accuracies were predominant $M_{t,T} = 82.8\%, SD = 15$) over the confusions as related distractor ($M_{t,R} = 10.5\%, SD = 12.4$, $BF_{10} = 4.66 \times 10^{87}$) or unrelated distractor ($M_{t,U} = 6.77\%, SD = 8.59$, $BF_{10} = 2.85 \times 10^{107}$). Besides correct recognitions majority, participants confused target a little bit more as related than as unrelated distractors ($BF_{10} = 20.2$). Type of response did not interact with neither similarity ($BF_{inclusion} = .12$) nor pace ($BF_{inclusion} = .08$).
### 3.1.5. Phonological interference in memory accuracy – Related distractors recognition

Preferred model for related distractors recognition (r,T / r,R / r,U) also settled for the main effect of type of responses, $BF_{10} = 2.39 \times 10^{123}$, but interestingly showed a recognition pattern quite different compared to target recognition. Most of related distractor were not recognized as such, but mostly as unrelated distractors ($M_{r,U} = 59.8\%$, $SD = 21.2$), in a significantly superior way than as target or unrelated distractor (respectively $BF_{10} = 5.96 \times 10^{80}$ and $BF_{10} = 1.21 \times 10^{9}$). Correct recognition r,R accounted for just over a third of recognitions ($M_{r,R} = 37.4\%$, $SD = 21.3$). However, related distractors were more correctly recognized as such than confused as targets ($M_{r,T} = 2.76\%$, $SD = 5.66$, $BF_{10} = 1.56 \times 10^{48}$). Again, neither similarity ($BF_{inclusion} = .05$) nor pace ($BF_{inclusion} = .07$) interacted with type of response and t-test comparisons between similar and dissimilar condition for related distractor categorization confirmed this point ($BF_{s10} > .18$).

### Phonological interference in memory accuracy – Unrelated distractors recognition

Finally, recognition of unrelated distractors rather followed the same pattern as targets recognition. Correct recognitions were majority again ($M_{u,U} = 84.9\%$, $SD = 15.6$) and were almost never confused as target ($M_{u,T} = .78\%$, $SD = 3.05$, post-hoc comparisons between the two type of response $BF_{10} = 7.67 \times 10^{133}$) or related distractors ($M_{u,R} = 14.2\%$, $SD = 15.3$, $BF_{10} = 6.05 \times 10^{73}$). The second preferred model for unrelated distractors recognition indicated only this response type main effect ($BF_{10} = 6.84 \times 10^{272}$), as the two previous analyses. The close first preferred model added similarity effect and the interaction between similarity and type of response ($BF_{10} = 1.27 \times 10^{273}$). However, Bayesian comparative t-tests indicated no significant effect of similarity ($BF_{10} = .21$ for u,T, $BF_{10} = .61$ for u,R, and $BF_{10} = .90$ for u,U).
## 3.2. Gist and verbatim memories

The SCR model (Stahl & Klauer, 2008) of the FTT allows to estimate the probability of retrieving a verbatim or a gist trace of a target given a target probe and when a related distractor was presented in recognition phase. Vt and Gt underlie responses to target probes. For example, judging the target storm in recognition phase and remembering that it was precisely a target according to its verbatim trace, or remembering having studied words related to the semantic network of the storm, so storm was perhaps a target or a related word. Finally, an item will be categorized as new (i.e., unrelated) if no verbatim or gist trace exists for that item. Conversely, Vr and Gr underlie responses to related distractors. For example, when judging the related distractor rain in recognition phase. A verbatim representation categorizes it as related distractors (i.e., the participant remembers the storm target and deduces that rain is thus a related distractor). A gist representation can lead to a categorization of rain as a target or as related distractors (ie, the participant remembers the presence of the semantic network around the rain theme, but no longer remembers precisely the target related to this theme). Again, if the item presented is not supported by any trace, there is no memory of having studied it, the item is therefore new (i.e., unrelated distractor).

Guessing parameters *a* and *b* are also available for each experimental condition. The guessing parameter *a* assesses the tendency to categorize all probes as target and guessing parameter *b* the tendency the possibility that probe is either a target or a related distractor. We conducted G² statistics to examine the effect of our factors on verbatim and gist parameters using the SCR model by Stahl and Klauer (2008) and *multiTree* v046 software (see Moshagen, 2010) to extract these SCR parameters.
We therefore analyzed these retrieval parameters within the SCR procedure to observed these parameters in our nine pattern of recognition (t,T / t,R / t,U ; r,T / r,R / r,U; u,T / u,R / u,U) for similar and dissimilar condition in slow and fast pace. All parameter estimates values and standard deviations for all conditions are displayed in Table 12. As for recognition accuracy, we present firstly SCR analysis for semantic interference and then for phonological interference.

### 3.2.1. Gist and verbatim for targets and related distractors in semantic conditions

The parameters estimate for semantic interference task fit our data well ($G^2$ = 3.06). Verbatim and gist-based representation for target probe represented the essential of performance. $V_t$ parameters were most prominent compared to $G_t$ (see Table 12). Conversely, retrieving of gist and verbatim trace of targets when presenting a related distractors $G_r$ and $V_r$ showed two drastically different patterns, because $G_r$ was far more prominent than $V_r$, even outdoing parameters estimates for $G_t$.

<table><caption>Table 12. Parameter estimates for gist ($G_t$ and $G_r$) and verbatim ($V_t$ and $V_r$) representation for targets and related items; and a and b for guessing parameter in each condition.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>G<sub>t</sub></th><th>G<sub>r</sub></th><th>V<sub>t</sub></th><th>V<sub>r</sub></th><th>a</th><th>b</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Semantic</strong></td><td rowspan="2">Similar</td><td>Slow</td><td>.59 (.07)</td><td>.75 (.17)</td><td>.88 (.01)</td><td>0 (.69)</td><td>.01 (.01)</td><td>.09 (.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Fast</td><td>.74 (.05)</td><td>.76 (.18)</td><td>.85 (.02)</td><td>0 (.74)</td><td>.02 (.01)</td><td>.06 (.01)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Dissimilar</td><td>Slow</td><td>.37 (.07)</td><td>.57 (.36)</td><td>.89 (.01)</td><td>0 (.84)</td><td>.01 (.01)</td><td>.06 (.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Fast</td><td>.41 (.07)</td><td>.24 (.12)</td><td>.84 (.02)</td><td>.44 (.09)</td><td>.14 (.06)</td><td>.08 (.01)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Phonological</strong></td><td rowspan="2">Similar</td><td>Slow</td><td>.59 (.06)</td><td>.27 (.14)</td><td>.82 (.02)</td><td>.07 (.18)</td><td>.07 (.03)</td><td>.11 (.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Fast</td><td>.56 (.06)</td><td>.32 (.12)</td><td>.83 (.02)</td><td>.02 (.17)</td><td>.07 (.03)</td><td>.14 (.02)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Dissimilar</td><td>Slow</td><td>.42 (.07)</td><td>.20 (.13)</td><td>.83 (.02)</td><td>.07 (.15)</td><td>.06 (.03)</td><td>.18 (.01)</td></tr><tr><td>Fast</td><td>.66 (.06)</td><td>.27 (.12)</td><td>.80 (.02)</td><td>.01 (.16)</td><td>.07 (.02)</td><td>.17 (.01)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Standard deviations are displayed in brackets.
Similarity increased gist-based retrieval for targets $G_t$ ($\Delta G^2 = 21.97, p > .001$) and when presenting a related distractors $G_r$ ($\Delta G^2 = 9.18, p = .01$). However, similarity had no effect on verbatim parameters ($\Delta G^2 = 3.31, p = .19$ for $V_t$ and $\Delta G^2 = 4.37, p = .11$ for $V_r$). $V_t$ parameters estimates was enhanced in slow-paced condition ($\Delta G^2 = 10.8, p = .004$). The reverse pace effect was observed for gist-based recognition of targets as fast pace enhanced $G_t$ ($\Delta G^2 = 6.19, p = .04$). Pace had no main effect on parameters $G_r$ and $V_r$ ($\Delta G^2 = 4.19, p = .12$ for both parameters).

However, although pace has no effect on $G_r$ when presenting similar words ($G^2 = 3.09, p = .08$), it decreased $G_r$ in dissimilar condition ($\Delta G^2 = 4.19, p = .04$). Conversely, $G_t$ decreased mostly in slow pace and similar conditions ($G^2 = 6.06, p = .01$) and not significantly in dissimilar condition ($\Delta G^2 = 3.19, p = .07$). Guessing parameters a and b were very low ($M_a = .04$ and $M_b = .07$), reflecting the quantitative quality of performance. Parameter a was higher for dissimilar words presented in fast pace, which resulted from the higher use of verbatim-based categorization in this condition compared to others.

To summarize, true recognition parameters $G_t$ and $V_t$ were higher compared to parameters estimating retrieving of targets when presenting a related distractor $G_r$ and $V_r$, although this difference was emphasized by the almost non-existence of $V_r$ parameters. Semantic similarity enhanced gist parameters, but not verbatim ones. $V_t$ parameters increased in slow pace, which was certainly the origin of the increase of $G_t$ parameters in fast-paced condition by a kind of “push-down, pop-up” phenomenon. Pace had no main effect on $G_r$, but when comparing similar and dissimilar conditions, we see that this absence of pace effect only concerned similar words as fast pace diminished $G_r$ only for dissimilar words. Finally, when crossing similarity and pace condition, we observed the
reverse interaction effect between pace and similarity on $G_t$ in which slow pace enhanced $G_t$ mostly in similar conditions.

### 3.2.1. Gist and verbatim for targets and related distractors in phonological conditions

All patterns of recognition ($t, T / t, R / t, U$; $r, T / r, R / r, U$; $u, T / u, R / u, U$) for similar and dissimilar condition in slow and fast pace were again observed under the perspective of verbatim- and gist-based recognition for targets $V_t$ and $G_t$ and gist and verbatim-based retrieving as target for related distractors $V_r$ and $G_r$. Guessing parameters $a$ and $b$ were also included. All parameters' estimates are displayed on lower part of Table 12. The parameters estimate for phonological interference task reached a good reliability, $G^2 = 2.27$, sufficient again to reject null model.

Parameters $G_t$ and $V_t$ represented again most of the performance. However, conversely to semantic condition where parameter $G_r$ was as much important as parameters $G_t$ and $V_t$, parameters $G_r$ was lower in phonological condition, even still greater than $V_r$. As already shown in memory accuracy performance, false recognition in phonological condition were then more in the form of classification of related distractors as unrelated ones rather than as targets. For true recognition of targets as such, verbatim-based retrieval was superior to gist-based.

When comparing main effects, results shown that phonological similarity between memoranda and associated words had no impact on neither $G_r$ ($\Delta G^2 = 3.07, p = .22$), $V_t$ ($\Delta G^2 = 3.68, p = .16$) nor $V_r$ ($\Delta G^2 = 2.26, p = .32$). Pace also did not impact any of these parameters either ($\Delta G^2 = 2.68, p = .26$; $G^2 = 3.37, p = .19$ and $\Delta G^2 = 2.38, p = .30$ for $G_r$, $V_t$ and $V_r$, respectively). However, gist retrieval of target $G_t$ was influenced by both similarity
and pace. Similar associated words and fast pace increased *G*<sub>t</sub> parameter estimates (respectively ΔG<sup>2</sup> = 6.96, *p* = .03 and ΔG<sup>2</sup> = 9.17, *p* = .01). Looking closer, we constated that the similarity effect reversed in the fast-paced condition. *G*<sub>t</sub> parameter was not affected by pace modulation, but *G*<sub>t</sub> decreased far more when dissimilar conditions were presented in fast pace (ΔG<sup>2</sup> = 9.05, *p* = .002) compared to similar condition in slow pace (ΔG<sup>2</sup> = 2.40, *p* = .73). Guessing parameters *a* were low, but parameters *b* were a bit higher compared to semantic condition (*M*<sub>*a*</sub> = .07 and *M*<sub>*b*</sub> = .15), which reflected the poorest recognition accuracy for these phonological tasks.

In summary, true recognition parameters *G*<sub>*t*</sub> and *V*<sub>*t*</sub> were far much higher than
parameters estimating retrieving of targets when presenting a related distractor *G*<sub>*r*</sub> and
*V*<sub>*r*</sub>. Phonological similarity and pace impacted only *G*<sub>*t*</sub>, on which fast pace and similar
words enhanced parameters estimates. Moreover, we saw no effect of pace on similar
words, but more *G*<sub>*t*</sub> estimates in fast compared to slow pace when inducing phonological
interference.

3.3. Semantic versus phonological interference comparisons

Three quarters of recognitions were correct. However, correct recognition rate was
higher in the overall semantic (M = 82.4%, SD = 9.31) compared to the whole phonological
condition, (M = 68.4%, SD = 8.55), BF<sub>10</sub> = 2.06 x 10<sup>22</sup>. Therefore, if recognition accuracy
for target and unrelated words was comparable through both interference conditions, it
was not the case for related distractor categorization, which led to more false recognitions
for all pace and similarity conditions in the phonological task. Recognition accuracy in
semantic task for related distractor was far better but was influenced by similarity. When
the words associated to targets memoranda were dissimilar, participants made more
false recognition like in phonological conditions. Overall, semantic similarity helped correct recognition of related distractors.

Therefore, phonological similarity interfered with the creation of solid verbatim representations of items. Studying the target *"lace"* associated with the phonologically similar words *blame, faith, base* and *rage* did not have an effect of the recognition of the common middle sound /eI/ compared to an association with the dissimilar words *steel, bomb, moon, and plot*. As a result, the related distractor *snake* is rather classified as unrelated in 60% of cases. In semantic similarity conditions, the association of similar words such as *fog, drop, cloud* and *downpour* with the target *storm* seemed to create stronger memory representation, as the related word *rain* was easily classified correctly. The trace representation for *storm* was encoded, consolidated, or retrieved when similar words were associated, in such like an implicit deeper level of processing effect.

Gist and verbatim analysis confirmed this last point showing a beneficial effect of semantic similarity on both $G_t$ and $G_r$. Phonological similarity affected $G_t$ in a more moderate way than semantic similarity did, but still. Verbatim-based retrieval parameters $V_t$ and $V_r$ were never affected by similarity neither in semantic nor in phonological conditions.

Pace increased gist-based retrieval for target $G_t$ in both semantic and phonologic condition, as parameters increased when the tasks were fast-paced. Similarity interacted with pace on $G_t$ also on both semantic and phonological conditions, but not following the same pattern. $G_t$ for phonological condition had no impact when presenting similar words but decreased in slow pace when presented semantically dissimilar words. Conversely,
pace did not affect *G*<sub>t</sub> for semantically dissimilar condition, but *G*<sub>t</sub> decreased more in slow pace for similar words. *V*<sub>r</sub> for semantic condition increased in slow pace probably because of the pace effect on *G*<sub>t</sub> for semantic condition. This was not highlighted in phonological conditions. Pace never impacted nor *G*<sub>r</sub> neither *V*<sub>r</sub> in both interference conditions.

Overall, gist-based retrieval parameters in phonological task were globally lower
than in semantic tasks. Gist representations were therefore mostly enhanced by semantic
interference. Verbatim-based retrieval for targets *V*<sub>t</sub> remained the most used retrieval
processes and their rates were comparable in both interference conditions. Recognition
in semantic condition derived from all parameters except from *V*<sub>r</sub>. Only *G*<sub>t</sub> and *V*<sub>t</sub>
parameters were important in phonological conditions, while *G*<sub>r</sub> had also an important
implication in semantic conditions, reflecting semantic similarity interference in these
conditions.

4. Discussion

The present experiment explored the emergence of short-term false in a complex
span task paradigm. The study aimed to clarify the role of attentional refreshing and LTM
knowledge effect in false memory by integrating pace modulation and semantic
interference effect. The impact of semantic interference was compared to phonological
interference in a second condition. This study pursued four main goals: (1) Exploring the
incidence of short-term false memories depending on the availability of attentional
refreshing mechanism, which should enhance false memories when hindered (Abadie &
Camos, 2019); (2) examining the contribution of verbatim and gist representations in
correct and false recognitions of targets and related distractors; (3) inspecting the
modulation of both representations depending on interference effects (i.e., semantic vs.,
phonological) and (4) pace conditions (i.e., slow vs., fast). To achieve these goals, we conducted a complex span task ended by a short-term recognition task of targets probes, related and unrelated distractors. In this task, we manipulated the availability of refreshing by varying the pace presentation of items. Moreover, semantic and phonological interferences were induced by the association of respectively semantic and phonological similar words associated with targets probes within the task. Semantic similarity is known to interfere with gist representations but not with verbatim representations, unlike phonological similarity which is rather known to degrade verbatim memory traces.

Results revealed a vast majority of correct recognitions. Recognition of related distractors in the phonological condition was the only exception in which 60% of related distractors were confused as unrelated ones. Neither pace nor phonological similarity affected recognition, but semantic similarity enhanced correct recognition of related distractors. Therefore, semantic similarity helped to create an overall picture of memoranda that helped in correct recognitions, as also demonstrated by the analyze of parameters estimates. Semantic similarity enhanced gist representations $G_t$ and $G_r$, leading respectively to either correct or false recognitions. Conversely, phonological similarity only enhanced gist parameter $G_t$ for correct recognition. Slow pace facilitated the use of verbatim-based recognition of target $V_t$ (correct recognition) in semantic condition, but because of this effect, the fast-paced presentation rather led to recourse to more gist representation for target recognition, $G_t$. This pace effect on $G_t$ was however weaker when presenting semantically dissimilar words. Fast pace had the same effect on $G_t$ in phonological conditions but disappeared when studying phonologically similar words.
4.1. False memories at short-term

As the ease of a short-term recognition task would have predicted, correct
recognitions were numerous and always majority in semantic interference conditions, no
matter if participants had to recognize targets, related or unrelated distractors.
Semantically related and unrelated distractors were rarely confused as targets. In
phonological interference conditions, correct recognitions were again majority, but only
for target and for unrelated distractor recognition. Phonologically related distractors
were indeed mostly miscategorized as unrelated. Similarity effect only increased the
correct recognition of semantically related distractors as such. This observation was also
not surprising, the associative relatedness recognition between a target (e.g., *storm*) and
a related distractor (e.g., *rain*) becoming more and more salient if other similar words are
added in the task (e.g., adding *fog*, *drop*, *cloud* and *downpour* vs., *lake*, *knitting*, *alliance*
and *parking* in dissimilar condition). Concerning recognition accuracy, semantic
similarity acted more like a help from LTM knowledge rather than like interference that
would deteriorate memory traces.

Phonological similarity had no significant impact on recognition. Thus, phonological
interference led to fragile memory traces. Moreover, phonological similarity between
targets probes and associated words (e.g., /el/ as central phoneme of each presented
word) did not influence the fact that phonologically related distractors were
preferentially categorized as unrelated in 60% of cases. The absence of detrimental
phonological similarity effect (PSE) is quite surprising as it is commonly observed in
immediate recall, but joined the previous results by Oberauer et al. (2004) and Oberauer
(2009b) who also found no PSE between target probes and distractors in recall tasks. A
first explanation for the lack of PSE is given by Oberauer (2009) through the idea that
participants used non-phonological representations of the memory words. The presence
of semantic similarity effect in both his results and ours converge on this hypothesis. A
second explanation came from the fact that participants did the whole task under
articulatory suppression by reading aloud all presented words, which is known to impair
PSE. One should ask then if it was wise to impose articulatory suppression in our task.
This choice was made in good conscience for three reasons. Firstly, as Abadie and Camos
(2019) have demonstrated, verbatim traces are strong enough to counteract gist traces
when WM maintenance is optimal, decreasing then the rate of false memories. Our
interest concerning attentional modulation, hindering articulatory rehearsal mechanism
was in line with our objectives in this study. Secondly, if participants had been able to rely
on articulatory rehearsal, the difficulty, or the number of targets within the task would
necessarily have had to be increased to avoid a total ceiling effect of correct recognition,
which would led to a WM capacities overflow. Lastly, the primary utility of phonological
conditions was to offer an angle of comparison to semantic conditions on which we focus
our interest.

Beyond semantic similarity effect, most of the correct recognition was not surprising
given the fact that immediate recognition test of only four targets was quite easy for adult
participants. Moreover, pace had no effect on recognition accuracy for both semantic and
phonologic interference conditions, which did not replicate Oberauer's (2009) results in
immediate recall task. This absence of pace effect on memory accuracy might be due to
the generally great immediate recognition performance or to the fact that recognition
does not rely on the same memory processes or structures than recall. We discuss later
the possibility to transpose our task to a recall task rather than recognition in a future
study, but if we had started with recall, we could not have applied the SCR model to our
data and would therefore have no statistical analysis of verbatim and gist parameters.

## 4.2. Verbatim and gist representations underlying true and false memories

The SCR model allowed us to estimate the proportion of verbatim and gist
representations underlying correct and false recognitions (Brainerd et al., 1999; Brainerd
et al., 2001; Reyna & Brainerd, 1998). Verbatim and gist come directly from the observed
processes of judgment of similarity versus judgment of identity based on the performance
of item recognition and their classification as item recognized as targets and items judged
as related to a target. Verbatim representations are known to prevent false memories as
these representations do not depend on familiarity but on literal memory traces.
Conversely, gist-based retrieval supports false memories because these traces are based
on the feeling of familiarity toward the item (Reyna & Kiernan, 1994, 1995), although gist
representation may also well lead to true memories. Familiarity-enhancing effects such
as deep level of processing (Lindsay & Kelley, 1996) and associative relatedness or
semantic similarity effect (Dewhurst et al., 2009; Stahl & Klauer, 2008) increase the use
of gist representations, and thus the propensity of false memories both at short and at
long-term (Rhodes & Anastasi, 2000; Roediger & McDermott, 1995; Thapar & McDermott,
2001; Toglia et al., 1999).

Our result showed a preponderant use of verbatim representations leading to true
recognitions (Vt) in both semantic and phonological interference condition. True
recognitions were also supported by gist-based retrieval (Gt) in both conditions. The main
difference between semantic and phonological condition relied on gist-based (Gr)
recognition of related distractors. In semantic condition, Gr parameter even surpassed Gt.
This result assumes that the recognition of related distractors is mostly gist-based in the semantic condition, whereas in the phonological condition, the recognition is mostly based on guessing.

### 4.3. Similarity enhances gist-based recognition

Semantic similarity was introduced in our experiment by the associative relatedness between a target word (e.g., *storm*) and his associated words that participants had to read aloud (e.g., *fog*, *drop*, *cloud* and *downpour*). For phonological similarity, the central phoneme of target and associated words were the same (e.g., *lace* associated with *blame*, *faith*, *base* and *rage*). In dissimilar condition, neither semantic nor phonological similarity were presented. Similarity had no effect on memory accuracy, with the already evocated exception of semantically related distractors recognition in which semantic similarity increased true recognitions.

Both semantic and phonological similarity increased gist recognition of targets, $G_t$. Semantic similarity reinforced gist traces at each new associated word semantically similar to the target, even if this enhancement of $G_t$ did not lead to better or worse memory accuracy. *Fog, drop, cloud and downpour* associated to *storm* consolidated the whole picture of a rainy sky rather than the verbatim surface form of the target *storm*. The presence of semantic similarity also increased gist memory for related distractors. However, if previous results could predict this increase of $G_t$ and $G_r$ for semantically similar trials, we did not predict the same enhancement of $G_t$ and $G_r$ in case of phonological similarity. This impact of phonological similarity was less striking than the effect of semantic similarity but remained still present.
Similarity had no effect on verbatim-based retrieval parameters. We expected that phonological interference would diminish the quality of verbatim representations, but results showed no such effect of phonological similarity. As previously discussed, the PSE on WM accuracy resulted from the phonological loop functioning. In our study, as phonological rehearsal was hindered by articulatory suppression and that the response mode did not require any oral production of the items, it is not surprising that PSE was reduced. However, phonological interferences are known to induce false recognition even at short term (Cam et al., 2019; McBride et al., 2019). Previous results (Budson et al., 2003; Chang & Brainerd, 2021; Holliday & Weekes, 2006; Nieznan'ski et al., 2019) also argued for an alternative FTT account where phonological interference are driven by phonological gist formed by the similar phonemes shared in a words list, although gist representation are rather supposed to relate to meaning content. Phonological gist or not, false memory effect still results from including distractors in the recall candidate set.

**4.4. Distraction of attention and interaction with interference effects**

We constated no effect of reading pace on memory accuracy, which was not consistent with our prediction that true recognition would suffer more from attentional diversion induced by fast-paced conditions. A possible explanation lies in the high performance in the recognition task. The task being obviously quite easy, participants might simply not have felt the need to do active maintenance to maximize their recognition performance. Since active maintenance is context-dependent, it is likely that a more complex concurrent task or a recall task instead of recognition would cause this pace effect to emerge, as observed in Oberauer (2009).
However, if pace effect did not affect memory accuracy, we still observed an effect of fast pace decreasing gist memory for targets $G_t$ especially in semantic condition, but also significant in phonological conditions. Pace had no effect on the parameters $G_r$ and $V_r$, but our results showed an increasing of $V_t$, in slow-paced semantic condition. This reversed pace effect was the result of the fast pace effect observed on $G_t$ in the same condition. In slow pace, participant had enough time to encode verbatim representations, but when fast pace induced less opportunities to refresh memory traces, a trade-off effect promoted gist representations. Although this report had no impact on memory accuracy which could not make the difference between true and false recognition origins, the performance did come from two distinct memory representations (i.e., gist and verbatim). This result reinforced our prediction to observe the effect of pace on recall performance in a future task.

The SCR model did not allow testing interaction effects, but only simple effects. However, looking more closely, we saw that $G_t$ decreased in slow pace especially when presented semantically similar words. In phonological similarity condition, we observed the reverse effect as pace did not affect phonologically similar words, but $G_t$ decreased in slow pace when studying dissimilar words. Pace then affected gist-based true recognition differently depending on the interference similarity. The fact that $G_t$ parameter decreased when studying semantically similar words in slow-paced condition could be explained by the hypothesis that participants used the supplementary time allowed by slow pace to maintain a more exact representation than gist to resist to semantic interference. In phonologically similar conditions, additional time in slow pace could facilitate the preference toward verbatim instead of gist representations, which is easier to do in the absence of phonological interference induced by phonological similarity.
Semantic similarity also enhanced *G*<sub>r</sub> representations leading to false recognitions, which is congruent with FTT predictions. SCR parameter estimations also highlighted that fast pace only decreased *G*<sub>r</sub> parameter for dissimilar words, which is more challenging to understand. One hypothesis which is non-exclusive to this particular parameter might be that cognitive load effect would be task-specific and compensated by LTM knowledge effects in semantic similarity conditions.

4.5. Toward a more intensive active maintenance?

Again, these results reinforced our will to replicate this study using a recall test. The major point to reflect however concerned the distinction between gist and verbatim distinction that SCR model only allowed by using recognition paradigms. Future model or extension of the SCR model could be developed in future research for recall.

We might use the Remember / Know paradigm (Gardiner, 1988; Tulving, 1985) to dissociate recollection and familiarity processes in a recall task. However, this paradigm differentiates recollection and familiarity processes according to the description given by participants as to their experience of recall (remembering studying an item (gist familiarity) vs. knowing exactly (verbatim recollection). This metacognitive process does not suit statistical analysis and the verbatim and gist retrieval dissociation as complex as subject to misinterpretation (see Gardiner & Parkin, 1990; Richardson-Klavehn et al., 1992; Richardson-Klavehn et al., 1994). Precision of the question asked to participants about their recall could be specified to balance the subjectivity of the recall (e.g., to better specify hesitations).
Cam et al. (2019) observed patterns of recall indicating that phonological
interference might depend more on rapidly decaying memory for verbatim
representations contrary to semantic interference which increase more and more with
long-lasting gist representations, although semantic interference are also observable at
short term (consistent with Abadie & Camos, 2019; Nairne & Neath, 2003; Norris, 2017).
Both kinds of interference effect can therefore be analyzed in short-term recall. Recall
performance analysis combined with the calculation of time latencies or serial position of
words during recall phases could give cues about the representations involved during the
task. Barnhardt et al. (2006) showed that the recall of non-presented critical words (i.e.,
false memories) rather appear at the end of recall. In the same idea, words retrieved from
literal surface form (i.e., verbatim traces) would be faster to recall compared to word
which need reconstruction from gist traces (Rose et al., 2014). Moreover, time latencies
are not impacted by concurrent attentional demand (Rosselet-Jordan et al., 2022, see
Chapter 5). These methods do not clearly distinguish verbatim and gist-based retrieval
but give complementary information in addition to recall performance. Finally, the
likelihood of proactive interferences could be increased by establishing semantic or
phonological similarity between items on successive lists instead of only between targets
and associated words (Bunting, 2006).

**6. Conclusion**

Most of the studies dealing with semantic or phonological interferences involved
LTM recall or recognition tasks of DRM lists. In our short-term recognition task,
participants had just studied the items. It is therefore unsurprising that they recognized
them easily and showed high performance accuracy. The SCR model distinguished still
well gist and verbatim representations leading to true and false recognitions. We
concluded that pace impacted traces maintenance and similarity enhanced gist representation for targets, which also increases the risk of appearance of false memories, particularly in the case of semantic interference.

This is in favor of the existence of two distinct memory systems. Moreover, traces associated with LTM knowledge seems not be fully hold in episodic buffer but come rather from LTM which help traces retrieval. This evidence for a distinction between WM and LTM (or at least episodic LTM) should be examined in an extension of this study with short-term recall. The issue of a recall version of this experiment stems from the impossibility of applying the SCR model differentiating verbatim and gist representations. However, interference effects are particularly interesting as verbatim representations are more sensible to phonological similarity and gist to semantical association. De facto, false memories often preserve the surface form or the semantic meaning of an item (e.g., recalling *frog* or *cloud* instead of *fog*) and the analysis of recall performance would then give interesting information. Moreover, order and time latencies of recall data can also be analyzed and other procedure such as the Remember / Know paradigm could be implicated. In case of independence of WM and episodic LTM, pace should affect the memory component (i.e., verbatim representations) and semantic and phonological interference bias component. Further studies are needed to test these hypotheses.
Au terme de l'étude présentée en Chapitre 6, nous avions constaté que seules les mémoires récupérées en accès direct étaient affectées par nos manipulations de rafraichissement attentionnel et de présence d'effets de LTM. Mais ces effets étaient-ils attribuables aux mêmes raisons ? Pour répondre à cette question, la présente étude impliquait un modèle semblable au *Trichotomous*, le modèle simplifié de reconnaissance conjointe *SCR*, celui-ci permettant de distinguer l'utilisation de représentations gist et verbatim dans les performances de reconnaissances d'items cibles et de distracteurs. Ce modèle était donc idéal pour observer l'effet des interférences provoquées par la présentation de distracteurs sémantiquement ou phonologiquement similaires aux cibles, ainsi que l'effet d'une demande attentionnelle concurrente sur les représentations en WM.

Il est établi que les interférences de types sémantiques affectent davantage les représentations de type gist du fait de leur sens sémantique proche, alors que les interférences phonologiques brouillent les représentation verbatim en brouillant leurs formes littérales. La nature des représentations que nous pouvons observer lors du rappel ou de la reconnaissance d'items est donc fortement liées à la manière dont ces items ont été encodés.

Nos résultats indiquent un large taux de reconnaissances correctes à court-terme, avec un effet de confusion sémantique dans la reconnaissance de distracteurs reliés, mais aucun effet de la similarité phonologique. Tout comme l'étude précédente, nos résultats indiquent un processus de récupération dual en WM, les deux types de représentations étant impliqués dans les performances observées. Nous constatons également que les connaissances de LTM favorisent un meilleur encodage des traces, alors qu'un coût cognitif concurrent affecte plutôt le maintien des traces. Les connaissances de LTM interviennent à l'encodage pour renforcer les traces et aident à leur récupération sans être affectées par les modulations attentionnelles en WM. Ceci met en avant l'existence de deux systèmes de mémoire distincts. Pour confirmer ceci, une étude complémentaire impliquant une tâche de rappel immédiat plutôt que de reconnaissance est en cours d'élaboration pour observer l'évolution des représentations impliquées en WM.
<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

DISCUSSION GÉNÉRALE

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>
# Partie 1. Synthèse et discussion des résultats

La vision d'une WM basée sur l'attention est une notion très partagée dans le domaine d'étude de la mémoire (voir notamment Barrouillet & Camos, 2022; Cowan, 2022; Logie et al., 2021 pour un résumé des approches théoriques; et Majerus et al., 2016 pour une approche neuroscientifique), de même que l'augmentation des performances apportée par la présence de représentations de LTM dans une tâche de WM (voir notamment Hulme et al., 1991). Cette collaboration entre mécanismes de maintien en WM et les connaissances contenues en LTM est essentielle au bon fonctionnement cognitif et de la mémorisation en générale. Développer nos connaissances à propos de cette relation est donc déterminante pour étendre notre compréhension du fonctionnement cognitif global, mais également pour mieux comprendre les processus d'apprentissage (Gathercole, 1998, 1999; Gathercole et al., 1992; Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997) ainsi que certains troubles cognitifs et certaines pathologies (Barrouillet & Camos, 2022; Majerus, 2009, 2013; Martin, 2005; Service, 2009; Thorn & Page, 2009).

Au sein de ce travail, nous apportons des éléments de réponse à cette question en étudiant les aspects qui pourraient soutenir l'interaction entre les deux systèmes de mémoires. Les points clés portent sur la séparabilité des deux mémoires en tant que systèmes distincts, les modulations dans leur collaboration en fonction des effets provoqués par l'implication de connaissances à long terme dans des tâches WM ainsi qu'en fonction de la disponibilité attentionnelle en WM. Ce dernier chapitre s'applique donc à faire la synthèse des différents résultats observés au sein des études présentées (voir Tableau 13) et discuter des conclusions et nouvelles perspectives qui en découlent.
Les limitations et opportunités de continuité de nos travaux sont discutées en fin de chapitre.
<table><caption>Tableau 13. Résumé des effets de coût cognitif (CL, indiqués en noir) et des effets de mémoire à long terme (LTM, indiqués en gris) sur diverses mesures effectuées dans les études présentées en Chapitres 5, 6 et 7.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Etude 1 : Maintien & LTM</th><th colspan="4">Etude 2 : Accès direct & Recollection</th><th colspan="2">Etude 3 : Interferences</th></tr><tr><th>Exp1</th><th>Exp2</th><th>Exp1</th><th>Exp2</th><th>Exp3</th><th>Exp4 free</th><th>Sem</th><th>Phono</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Rappel / Reconnaissance</td><td>CL</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>LTM</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Interaction sur perf.</td><td>CL x LTM</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td></tr><tr><td>Temps de rappel</td><td>CL</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>LTM</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Erreurs</td><td>CL</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Rappel en LTM</td><td>CL</td><td></td><td></td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>LTM</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accès direct D<sub>1</sub></td><td>CL</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>LTM</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Reconstruction R<sub>1</sub></td><td>CL</td><td></td><td>(✓)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>LTM</td><td></td><td></td><td>✗</td><td>[CL x LTM]</td><td>✗</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim V<sub>t</sub></td><td>CL</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td></tr><tr><td>Reconnaissance de cibles</td><td>LTM</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td></tr><tr><td>Gist G<sub>t</sub></td><td>CL</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>CL x LTM</td><td>CL x LTM</td></tr><tr><td>Verbatim V<sub>r</sub></td><td>CL</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td></tr><tr><td>Reconnaissance de dist. relié</td><td>LTM</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td></tr><tr><td>Gist G<sub>r</sub></td><td>CL</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>CL x LTM</td><td>✗</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note : Les ✓ indiquent un effet statistiquement significatif, les × un effet non-significatif. Les effets entre parenthèse indiquent un effet marginal. L'indication « CL × LTM » indiquent une interaction entre les deux facteurs. Si l'interaction est indiquée sur les deux lignes correspondant aux effets simples, alors les effets simples sont significatifs également.

Ce projet de thèse se place dans un cadre de recherche basée sur des modèles théoriques. Si notre vocabulaire et nos prédictions s'inscrivent majoritairement dans le cadre du modèle temporel de partage de ressources (TBRS), ce travail a cherché à comparer les prédictions théoriques d'autres modèles théoriques de la WM. La présentation du rafraichissement attentionnel ainsi que l'effet de coûts cognitifs (CL) concurrent sur ce mécanisme tels que décrit par le TBRS constitue une base idéale de travail pour qui s'intéresse aux liens entre rafraichissement attentionnel et effets de LTM,
en plus de la volonté affirmée du modèle à clarifier les processus soutenant les relations entre WM et LTM (voir Barrouillet & Camos, 2015). Ces réponses peuvent apporter de nouveaux éléments à d'autres modèles théoriques, ainsi qu'une vision plus précise quant aux à la manière de concevoir les liens entre les deux systèmes de mémoires.

## 1.1. La disponibilité-attentionnelle ne modère pas l'apport des connaissances à long terme

Notre première étude avait pour but d'évaluer l'apport d'un effet de LTM (i.e., l'association sémantique) sur les performances en WM en fonction de la disponibilité du mécanisme de rafraîchissement attentionnel. Les effets de ces deux facteurs (association sémantique et coût cognitif) ont été évalués sur les empans et performances de rappel ainsi que sur les erreurs commises et les temps engagés durant ces rappels. Les comparaisons des prédicitions selon notre lecture du modèle à processus emboîtés (Cowan, 2005; Cowan et al., 2021; Vergauwe & Cowan, 2015) et du modèle de mémoires primaire et secondaire (PSM, James, 1890; Rose et al., 2014; Unsworth & Engle, 2007a) ont été comparées selon ces perspectives comportementales (performances et erreurs) et chronométriques (temps de rappel).

Selon le modèle PSM, les items sont conservés en mémoire primaire (comparable à la WM), à moins que l'attention ne soit distraite par un traitement concurrent ou que les éléments à maintenir ne soient trop nombreux. Dans ces cas où la tâche en cours dépasse la capacité de mémoire primaire, le maintien de ces items est déplacé de la mémoire primaire vers la secondaire (à long terme) et devront être récupérés à partir de ce système là pour un rappel ultérieur. En conséquence, les effets connus pour impacter la LTM devraient être particulièrement visibles lorsque le rappel repose sur une
récupération en LTM, c'est-à-dire dans ces cas où l'attention a été distraite des items à
maintenir. Conformément à cette prédiction, Rose et al. (2014) rapportent un effet de
profondeur de traitement (LOP) n'affecte le rappel dans des tâches de WM uniquement
lorsque l'attention a été distraite par une tâche concurrente. Cet effet découlant
directement de la LTM ne s'observe donc pas si les items peuvent être maintenus en
mémoire primaire (voir également Rose et al., 2015 et partie 2.1 du Chapitre 3). Cette
vision des relations entre WM et LTM défend donc une idée d'élaboration des traces lors
du traitement des items entrant en WM, élaboration pouvant s'enrichir des
représentations contenues en LTM en cas de passage desdits items dans le même système.
Une telle vision prédirait donc un effet de LTM (i.e., l'effet d'association sémantique dans
nos études) plus important en cas de fort CL dans une tâche concurrente. Les capacités de
mémoire en plein développement chez les enfants étant plus faibles que celles des adultes,
les effets de LTM devraient être encore plus fort chez les enfants que chez les adultes en
cas de fort CL concurrent.

Nos analyses de performances de rappel et de reconnaissance comparant la
présence d'effets de LTM et de variations de CL concurrent ne démontraient cependant
d'aucun effet d'interaction entre les deux facteurs (voir Chapitres 5 et 6 sur le rappel et
Chapitre 7 sur la reconnaissance). De plus, si les enfants étaient effectivement plus
affectés par l'augmentation du CL concurrent et montraient de moins bonnes
performances que les adultes, ces effets ne changeaient pas en fonction de la présence ou
non d'éléments de LTM dans la tâche (voir Chapitre 5). Ces résultats s'accordent donc bien
d'avantage à la vision du modèle à processus emboîtés (voir Cowan, 2022; Cowan et al.,
2021 pour une description récente du modèle) décrivant la WM en tant que partie
présentement activée de la LTM. Selon les prémices de ce modèle, étant donné que les
traces mnésiques sont toutes rafraichies lors d'un balayage rapide de la composante centrale qu'est la WM, les effets de LTM n'ont aucune raison de varier en fonction de la disponibilité attentionnelle. De la même façon, le niveau de développement limite les capacités générales de mémorisation, mais celles-ci n'ont pas de raison d'être impactées par les effets de LTM différemment qu'un adulte ayant pleinement terminé le développement de ses capacités. Nos résultats sont donc en accord avec les prédictions de ce modèle théorique, avec les effets principaux de CL, de LTM et d'âge, mais sans observer aucune interaction entre ces trois facteurs, ni entre les deux premiers. La LTM a bien effet bénéfique sur les performances de rappel, mais cet effet ne varie en aucun cas avec la disponibilité attentionnelle en WM. Dans leur forme actuelle, les hypothèses d'élaboration et de récupération des traces au travers du rafraichissement attentionnel ne s'accordent donc pas avec les observations selon lesquelles le rafraichissement n'est pas modéré par les effets de LTM (voir également Camos et al., 2019; Campoy et al., 2015; Loaiza & Camos, 2018; Oberauer, 2009b). Les hypothèses les plus congruentes avec ces observations supposent un rôle prépondérant des représentations de LTM au moment de l'encodage des informations en WM ou lors de leur réactivation.

Au-delà des performances de rappels immédiats, les expériences présentées en Chapitre 5 examinaient également les erreurs et les temps impliqués dans le rappel. Les analyses d'erreurs et de temps impliqués dans le rappel immédiat ont déjà été utilisées par le passé (voir Cowan, 1992; Cowan et al., 1994, 1998, 2003; Hulme et al., 1999; Towse et al., 2008) et apportent des précisions sur la récupération des éléments maintenus en mémoire. Selon une perspective PSM, le rappel d'items récupérés de la mémoire primaire (WM) devrait être plus rapide que celui de ceux récupérés en mémoire secondaire (LTM), car la récupération depuis la mémoire primaire est immédiate, à la manière de
récupération de traces verbatim en accès direct. Le modèle PSM prédirait ainsi un rappel plus lent en cas de fort CL concurrent. Selon le modèle de processus emboîtés, la chronologie du rappel d'éléments récupérés directement du focus attentionnel ne serait pas sensible à un CL concurrent. Nos résultats concordent à nouveau avec ce dernier modèle en n'indiquant aucun effet de la disponibilité du rafraichissement attentionnel sur les temps de rappel immédiat. Ces temps de récupération n'évoluent donc pas en cas de CL concurrent élevé. Les modèles théoriques dans leur forme actuelle ne nous ont pas permis de formuler de prédiction quant à l'effet de LTM sur les temps de rappel, mais nos résultats ont répliqués ceux de (Hulme et al., 1999) en montrant des temps de rappels plus rapides en présence d'effet de LTM. Comme discuté en Chapitre 5, cette rapidité renforcée par les effets de LTM peuvent être expliqués comme des effets d'amorçage en LTM. La récupération du premier mot d'une série entraîne tous les autres par effet de chaîne, les items étant fortement reliés les uns aux autres dans un même réseau sémantique. Nous n'avons pas reproduit ces analyses de temps de rappel sur notre étude présentée en Chapitre 6, laquelle impliquait l'étude et le rappel de séries de mots sémantiquement reliés ou non-reliés sur trois essais successifs. Cependant, si cette étude devait être reconduite en y analysant la chronologie du rappel, il est probable que l'effet de LTM sur ces temps de rappel serait répliqué au premier essai, et diminuerait ou disparaîtrait progressivement aux essais suivants, de la même manière que l'effet de LTM global disparaissait alors que les groupes de mots non reliés acquéraient progressivement une composante de mémoire à long-terme grâce aux présentations répétées (à la manière d'un effet d'apprentissage). De nouvelles études impliquant l'analyse de la chronologie au sein du rappel pourraient donc être conduites au vu des apports offerts par ce type de mesure.
L'analyse des erreurs commises lors du rappel est plus courante que celle des temps dans l'étude de la mémoire et apporte également un éclairage bienvenu quant à l'impact des effets de LTM sur le rappel et sur les mécanismes qui soutiennent le maintien de l'information. La réduction des omissions durant le rappel en présence d'effets de LTM suppose un renforcement des traces en mémoire de la part de cet effet. La présence d'un cadre sémantique lors du rappel permet également d'écarter tout item candidat au rappel qui ne serait pas en accord avec le gist général de ce cadre sémantique, mais n'apporte cependant aucune protection contre un effet d'interférence phonologique au moment du rappel. Le taux d'erreurs autres que des omissions était faible dans notre étude, mais suffisant pour constater que la présence de connaissances de LTM au sein de la tâche est efficace contre le déclin des traces et contre les effets d'interférences pouvant affecter les représentations en mémoire.

La LTM peut cependant favoriser le rappel au moyen d'un autre mécanisme que celui du rafraichissement attentionnel. Le Chapitre 3 récapitule les hypothèses majeures contemporaines à ce travail concernant ce débat: Élaboration, récupération, reconstruction ou réactivation des traces en mémoire. Comme discuté précédemment, nos résultats ne s'accordent pas avec l'hypothèse d'une meilleure élaboration des traces par effet de LTM. De plus, les résultats des études présentées en Chapitre 5 et 6 ne sont pas non plus favorables envers l'hypothèse de récupération. En effet, l'absence d'effet modérateur du CL sur l'effet de LTM indique également que la récupération des items ne dépend pas de l'attention. Ce processus de récupération et celui de de rafraichissement représentent ainsi deux mécanismes indépendants bien que pouvant fonctionner conjointement en WM (Voir également Loaiza & Halse, 2019).
Notre première étude établit donc l'absence de modération des effets de LTM par
le mécanisme de rafraichissement attentionnel et apporte des éléments réfutant les
hypothèses d'élaboration et de récupération des traces en mémoire telles qu'elles sont
actuellement présentées. Cette absence d'interaction entre effets de WM et de LTM sont
répliqués sur les performances de rappel dans l'étude présentée en Chapitre 6. Si la nature
du rafraichissement attentionnel n'est toujours pas complétement définie, on peut y
exclure l'hypothèse d'un rôle de canal d'information entre WM et LTM. Afin d'explorer
cette question sous un autre angle, notre deuxième étude (Chapitre 6) se penche sur
l'hypothèse selon laquelle le rafraichissement puisse être conçu comme un processus de
reconstruction des traces par les connaissances de LTM durant le rappel d'une manière
semblable au processus de redintegration de Hulme et al. (1991).

## 1.2. Prédominance de l'accès direct et absence d'effet sur la reconstruction des traces

Comme discuté précédemment, plusieurs résultats soutiennent l'hypothèse selon
laquelle les performances de rappel dans les tâches d'empan complexes en WM s'appuient
au moins en partie sur la récupération de traces depuis la LTM (Loaiza et al., 2011;
McCabe, 2008; Unsworth & Engle, 2007a; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010). Ces résultats
suggèrent que les éléments encodés en WM peuvent accéder aux représentations
contenues en LTM épisodique durant le temps disponible au terme de chaque traitement
de la tâche concurrente. Ainsi, une tâche concurrente à CL plus faible accorde un contexte
plus favorable à une meilleure récupération des éléments en LTM, alors qu'un fort CL
concurrent accorde certes plus d'occasions de récupération, mais est associées à une plus
faible probabilité de réussite (Jarrold et al., 2010; Loaiza et al., 2011). En parallèle,
l'hypothèse de la reconstruction des traces au moyen des traces de LTM prédit également
un effet facilitateur de la LTM sur la reconstruction des traces résiduelles en WM au moyen des indices fournis par les connaissances de LTM (Clarkson et al., 2016; Guitard et al., 2018; Hulme et al., 1997; Poirier et al., 2011; Schweickert, 1993; ou voir Chapitre 3, partie 2.3). La différence principale entre ces deux hypothèses réside dans l'augmentation ou la diminution des performances en WM quand un effet de LTM est impliqué dans une tâche à fort CL. Selon l'hypothèse de récupération, en cas de fort CL en WM, les performances associées à la présence d'un effet LTM augmentent pour les éléments qui ont bien été récupérés. Selon l'hypothèse de la reconstruction, en cas de fort CL en WM, les effets de LTM devraient s'en voir diminués et le besoin de reconstruction augmenter.

Notre étude présentée en Chapitre 6 observait la nature des processus impliqués dans le rappel en WM. Les facteurs de CL concurrent et d'effets de LTM tels que précédemment utilisés dans la seconde expérience du Chapitre 5 ont été repris dans cette nouvelle étude. Les performances de rappel obtenues au terme de cette étude répliquaient les observations décrites en partie 1.1 du présent chapitre. La procédure de présentation des essais en trois cycles successifs d'étude et de rappel ($S_1T_1$, $S_2T_2$, $S_3T_3$) ont permis l'application du modèle *MPT Trichotomous*, établissant ainsi une estimation de la présence relative des paramètres d'accès direct ($D_1$ et $D_2$), de reconstruction ($R_1$ et $R_2$) et d'application d'un jugement de familiarité ($J_1$, $J_2$ et $J_3$) dans le rappel des essais au premier cycle $S_1T_1$ et lors du rappel aux essais successifs $S_2T_2$ et $S_3T_3$. Nos résultats indiquent la présence des deux processus connus d'accès direct et de reconstruction dans le rappel en WM, avec une large prédominance du premier processus sur le second. L'accès direct aux traces diminuait en cas de fort CL, ce qui est en accord avec le fait que la disponibilité attentionnelle constitue un facteur important tant dans le maintien que dans l'accès aux traces, ainsi qu'avec le fait que ces traces peuvent être récupérées directement en WM. De
plus, la présence d'un effet de LTM au sein de la tâche augmentait également la probabilité d'accès direct aux traces *D*₁ sans affecter le processus de reconstruction *R*₁ et *R*₂. Si ces premiers résultats sont en accord avec le modèle TBRS (Barrouillet & Camos, 2015), il le sont moins avec l'hypothèse selon laquelle le rafraichissement s'apparente à un processus de récupération (covert retrieval, voir Loaiza & McCabe, 2013). En effet, malgré une prédominance marquée du processus d'accès direct, celui de reconstruction reste présent en WM même lorsque le CL de la tâche secondaire est plus faible. Si en cas de faible CL tous les éléments étaient maintenus en WM, on n'observerait alors uniquement un processus de recollection, sans effet important de la LTM sur cette recollection. Cependant, il est à noter que nos essais comportaient six items à maintenir, dépassant ainsi la capacité connue de la WM. Pour valider cette conclusion, il serait approprié de répliquer cette étude en proposant une procédure d'empans en incrémentation de quatre à huit items plutôt que des listes fixes de six items. Ceci permettrait de comparer les résultats d'une tâche au nombre d'items en adéquation avec les capacités de la WM et ceux d'une tâche qui les dépassent clairement. Parallèlement, une condition en empan simple à faible nombre d'items à comparer avec notre tâche d'empan complexe permettrait également l'observation d'un maintien d'items purement en WM, en accord avec le modèle théorie PSM.

Ensuite, l'impact bénéfique des connaissances à long-terme sur la recollection d'items indique une favorisation de l'encodage des items reliés. De plus, nous n'avons pas observé d'effet du CL sur les essais à composante LTM, probablement du fait de l'encodage ou de la réactivation simplifiée des items (i.e., par un effet de *chuncking*). De son côté, le processus de reconstruction n'a pas été affecté par la présence de connaissances de LTM, ce qui s'accorde avec la vision d'une réactivation ou d'un encodage d'items facilités par la
LTM. Une troisième et une quatrième expérience ont été menées afin d'éprouver la prédominance de l'accès direct sur notre tâche de WM en induisant toujours plus les participants vers une stratégie de reconstruction. Dans ces expériences, les effets précédemment constatés de CL et d'effet de LTM sur les paramètres de rappel ont été répliqués, mais l'effet de LTM affectait également le processus d'accès direct durant les essais successifs D₂, démontrant ainsi d'un nouvel encodage des items. Dans ce contexte, un effet marginal de la LTM a pu être observé sur la reconstruction du premier essai R₁. Nous avons donc cherché à supprimer tout indice contextuel offert par la procédure de la tâche suivante afin d'éprouver nos résultats mais n'avons obtenu aucun effet significatif sur les processus de reconstruction, répliquant simplement les effets déjà constatés sur l'accès direct. La prédominance de l'accès direct en WM ne dépend donc pas de la disponibilité attentionnelle en WM et est favorisée par les effets de LTM. Une fois qu'une trace est formée en LTM après un premier essai de rappel, ce dernier effet disparaît dans les essais successifs ; à moins d'induire un nouvel encodage en différant chronologiquement les nouvelles présentations des essais ou en bousculant l'ordre de présentation des items dans les essais successifs au premier.

La prédominance écrasante du processus de recollection en WM corrobore de précédentes conclusions selon lesquelles il est difficile d'assimiler le mécanisme de rafraichissement attentionnel en WM à un processus de reconstruction ou de redintegration (voir également Camos et al., 2019). Ceci suggère que la WM implique davantage un processus de réactivation des items afin de garantir au maximum leur accès direct. L'encodage d'items à composantes de LTM (i.e., en association sémantique, plus fréquents, etc.) favorise une réactivation optimale de ces traces, ainsi que le démontrent les effets de LTM constatés sur les performances de rappel au sein de nos expériences,
ainsi que la disparition de cet effet au fil des essais successifs, soit au moment même où les groupes de mots originellement sans lien avec la LTM bénéficiaient des traces formées en LTM après le premier essai de rappel.

### 1.3. Représentations gist et verbatim en mémoire de travail

Alors que nous pensions observer un effet du CL sur l'accès direct et un effet de LTM sur la reconstruction en WM, les résultats présentés en Chapitre 6 montrent au contraire que seul l'accès direct aux traces en WM est affecté par les deux facteurs, sans qu'aucun n'impacte la reconstruction. Cependant, cet impact ne découle pas nécessairement des mêmes sources. Au vu de ces résultats, nous avons souhaité tester l'hypothèse selon laquelle l'effet de LTM favorise l'encodage des traces et le CL affecte négativement leur maintien en WM. L'étude réalisée en Chapitre 7 cherchait à dissocier ces deux effets en manipulant la nature des items présentés de manière à moduler l'encodage des informations, tout en maintenant notre variation du CL de la tâche concurrente afin d'observer le maintien en WM.

L'encodage, le maintien et la récupération de traces mémorielles, qu'elle soit effectuée par un processus d'accès direct ou de reconstruction, comprennent systématiquement deux types de représentations (voir FTT; Brainerd & Reyna, 2002; Reyna, 2012a; Reyna & Brainerd, 1995). Les représentations verbatim représentent la forme littérale et de surface de l'information et les représentations gist le sens général de l'information. Dans le cadre d'un examen de connaissances, les réponses apprises par cœur sont ainsi basées sur les représentations verbatim. Les représentations gist permettent la mémorisation globale, les jugements et les prises de décisions (Reyna & Kiernan, 1994).
La nature des représentations est liée au contexte dans lequel elles ont été
encodées. Notre étude ajoutait donc dans sa tâche d'empan complexe des items
distracteurs qui interféreraient avec les items à mémoriser. Dans les précédentes études,
nous avons fait attention à ce qu'aucune interférence ne soit présente afin de ne pas
biaiser nos observations, mais cette fois-ci nous avons cherché à induire et contrôler cet
effet d'interférence. L'ajout de matériel plus ou moins interférant permet de moduler la
nature représentationnelle des items à mémoriser. L'interférence sémantique est connue
pour affecter les représentations gist et l'interférence phonologique affecte directement
les représentations verbatim. Notre variable d'effet de LTM commune à toutes nos études
changeait donc quelque peu, passant de soutien à la WM à un effet d'interférence, bien
que celui-ci puisse toujours rester bénéfique aux performances. En effet, dans une étude
similaire, Oberauer (2009) observait un apport bénéfique de la présence de similarité
sémantique entre mots cibles et mots distracteurs dans le rappel de mots cibles. La
présence de mots sémantiquement reliés à un mot cible peut donc favoriser son encodage,
son maintien et/ou son rappel du fait de leurs caractéristiques communes de sens. Ainsi,
la représentation gist de l'item *plume* est renforcée par la présence de *cage*, *œuf*, *oiseau* et
*bec* (voir Figure 17 pour des exemples en anglais). Cependant, il est également observé
que le gist commun entre ces mots perturbe le processus de jugement de familiarité pour
les distracteurs interférant (voir Sadeh et al., 2014 pour une revue). Ces distracteurs ou
de nouveaux mots sémantiquement reliés à ce gist commun peuvent alors être
faussement rappelés ou reconnus en tant que cibles (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002, 2005;
Brainerd et al., 2001; Reyna, 2008, 2012a; Reyna & Brainerd, 1995, 1998; Reyna et al.,
2016), même en WM au terme d'une tâche de reconnaissance immédiate (Abadie &
Camos, 2019).
A l'inverse, la présence d'un effet de similarité sémantique entre les items (PSE, voir Chapitre 1, partie 1.1) a été généralement observée comme détériorant le rappel de ces items (Baddeley, 1966, 2007; Camos et al., 2013; Camos et al., 2011; Larsen et al., 2000; Macnamara et al., 2011; mais voir Copeland & Radvansky; Tehan et al., 2001 qui constatent un effet de facilitation par la similarité phonologique). Dans son étude impliquant également une interférence d'ordre phonologique, Oberauer (2009) concluait que l'effet PSE induit surtout une confusion entre les traces mémorielles au moment de l'encodage. La représentation verbatim de l'item plume est négativement affectée (i.e, devient plus floue) par la présentation de *rune, chute, nuque et cure*. Cette conclusion s'accorde également à de précédentes études relevant une diminution des performances en cas de présentation d'items aux caractéristiques de surface trop proches (e.g., la couleur, la position sérielle, le nombre de lettre, etc., voir Lange & Oberauer, 2005; Oberauer, 2005; Oberauer et al., 2004). Cependant, qu'elles soient bénéfiques ou non aux performances, notre intérêt premier concernant ces effets d'interférence repose sur l'impact qu'elles ont respectivement sur les représentations qu'elles affectent : Gist pour l'interférence sémantique, verbatim pour la phonologique.

Cette étude avait donc pour but d'observer l'évolution des représentations gist et verbatim en fonction des effets d'interférence présentés, ainsi qu'en fonction du CL imposé dans la tâche d'empan complexe. Les paramètres pour les représentations gist et verbatim ont été évalués en fonction de l'identification des cibles présentées dans la tâche et des distracteurs qui leur sont reliés grâce à l'application du modèle de reconnaissance conjointe de Brainerd et al. (1999) tel que simplifié par Stahl et Klauer (2008, SCR). Les performances de nos participants à cette tâche de reconnaissance étaient très élevées, à l'exception des mots phonologiquement similaires à des cibles qui étaient
majoritairement confondus avec des mots nouveaux et non-reliés, alors que la similarité sémantique favorisait les reconnaissances correctes de ces distracteurs reliés. Ceci va dans le sens des effets attendus des deux conditions d'interférence. Notre intérêt principal concernait l'implication des représentations gist et verbatim $G_t$ et $V_t$ pour la reconnaissance des cibles et $G_r$ et $V_r$ pour la reconnaissance des distracteurs reliés.

Tel que prédit, la présence de similarité sémantique au sein de la tâche conduisait à une augmentation des représentations gist $G_t$ et $G_r$. Cependant, nous avons également constaté que la similarité phonologique n'augmentait le recours au gist pour la reconnaissance de cibles $G_t$. Un CL plus faible favorisait le recours aux représentations verbatim pour l'identification de cibles, et en conséquence diminuait le recours au gist en condition de CL plus important. Cet effet d'un fort CL sur les représentations gist se voyait diminué en présence de similarité sémantique, qui renforce par essence ce type de représentation. En présence de similarité phonologique, cet effet du CL n'était pas visible.

La présence de similarité sémantique ou phonologique entre items cibles et distracteurs n'a montré aucune incidence sur l'utilisation des représentations verbatim dans notre étude. Si cet effet sur les verbatim n'était attendu en présence de similarité sémantique, la similarité phonologique est connue pour diminuer la qualité de ce type de représentations (bien qu'également absente dans les résultats d'Oberauer (2009), dont nous avons répliqué une partie de la procédure, à l'exception de la phase de rappel d'items que nous avons remplacé par une phase de reconnaissance). L'absence de PSE dans nos données peut s'expliquer par deux facteurs principaux. Premièrement, et selon l'hypothèse d'Oberauer (2009), il est possible que les participants aient usé de représentations non-phonologiques maintenir pour les items cibles, contrecarrant ainsi
le PSE, mais pas celui de la similarité sémantique (tels qu'observés dans son étude et dans la nôtre). Ensuite, les participants effectuaient l'entièreté de la tâche sous suppression articulatoire (voir Chapitre 1, partie 2.3.1), dont la diminution, voir l'annulation, des effets phonologiques est une des conséquences notables (Baddeley & Logie, 1999; Camos et al., 2009). Répliquer notre étude sans articulation concurrente est donc envisageable, mais ne se prêtait pas à une tâche de reconnaissance. En effet, l'entière disponibilité des mécanismes de maintien en WM (i.e., le rafraichissement attentionnel et la répétition articulatoire) permet la formation optimale de représentations verbatim, ce qui diminue fortement l'apparition de faux souvenirs au terme d'une tâche de WM (Abadie & Camos, 2019). Nous avons donc choisi de manipuler la disponibilité du rafraichissement attentionnel au travers de variation du CL et d'endiguer la répétition articulatoire par une articulation concurrente afin que notre tâche soit en mesure de faire émerger des fausses reconnaissances en quantité suffisante pour une analyse statistique fiable.

Une tâche de rappel plutôt que de reconnaissance augmenterait suffisamment la difficulté globale de la tâche pour tout de même distinguer vrais et faux souvenirs malgré l'accès libre au mécanisme de répétition articulatoire. Dans le même ordre d'idée, si l'effet du CL était observable sur les paramètres gist et verbatim, nos résultats ne révèlent aucun effet du CL sur les performances de reconnaissances globales, contrairement à ce qu'Oberauer (2009) observait sur sa tâche de rappel. Cette absence d'effet découle donc probablement du remplacement de la tâche de rappel par une tâche de reconnaissance, trop simple pour que les participants s'engagent totalement dans un processus de maintien actif. Cependant, il est à noter qu'un CL important affectait négativement la formation de traces gist pour les vraies reconnaissances ($G_t$), alors qu'un CL plus faible permettait l'émergence de plus de représentations verbatim ($V_t$) dans les conditions de
similarité sémantique. En somme, une meilleure disponibilité attentionnelle favorisait la
formation de représentations verbatim, alors qu'en cas de traitement concurrent plus
important, les traces gist, plus globales, étaient privilégiées. Le paramètre G<sub>t</sub> pour les
reconnaissances en condition sémantiquement similaires diminuait d'ailleurs
particulièrement en situation de faible CL concurrent.

Il est possible qu'en condition croisée de similarité sémantique et de faible CL, les
participants aient pu utiliser cette disponibilité attentionnelle pour contrer l'interférence
sémantique en formant des représentations plus exactes et moins basées sur le sens (i.e,
des représentations verbatim). Le même effet est observé en condition de non-similarité
phonologique, ce qui suppose également que cette disponibilité attentionnelle ait pu
diriger les participants vers des représentations verbatim, mais pas en situation de
similarité phonologique où l'interférence fragilise trop ce type de représentation.

Partie 2. Limitations et continuités des études présentées

Dans cette dernière partie, nous nous attachons à émettre un regard critique sur
les études présentées précédemment, ainsi que sur plusieurs points importants du champ
théorique global entourant nos questionnements. Ce faisant, nous apportons également
nos nouveaux objectifs dans la continuité de ce travail.

## 2.1. Divergences à propos de la présence ou non d'interaction entre rafraichissement attentionnel en WM et effets de LTM

En contradiction avec nos résultats et ceux de précédentes études (Camos et al.,
2019; Campoy et al., 2015; Loaiza & Camos, 2018), certaines études ont mis en avant une
modération en WM d'effets de LTM par le rafraichissement attentionnel (voir notamment
Abadie & Camos, 2018; Rose et al., 2014). Des explications à ces résultats contradictoires peuvent se trouver dans l'hypothèse selon laquelle les connaissances à long-terme favoriseraient un meilleur encodage en LTM (Karpicke & Roediger, 2008; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), ou dans celle où les connaissances à long-terme aideraient à la reconstruction (ou redintegration) des traces dégradées (Hulme et al., 1997). Ces hypothèses ont notamment été respectivement explorées en Chapitres 7 et 6. Dans un rappel différé, nous avons observé en Chapitre 6 que la présence d'un effet de LTM aboutissait également à de meilleures performances de rappel immédiat, mais toujours sans observer de modération de cet effet par la disponibilité attentionnelle (ni d'effet principal de ce dernier facteur contrairement à de précédentes études à court terme, voir Camos & Portrat, 2015; et à long-terme, voir Jarjat et al., 2018; Jarjat et al., 2020). La considération de ces résultats ne peut cependant être faite qu'en tenant compte des trois cycles successifs d'étude et de rappels immédiats de même groupe d'items, ce qui peut est très probablement la cause de l'absence d'effet de CL sur les performances différées. Les présentations successives compensent progressivement l'impact délétère d'un fort CL concurrent, même à court-terme. Le bénéfice de l'effet de LTM dans les performances de rappel différé peut être également attribué à une facilité supérieure d'encodage pour les items à composantes de LTM (i.e., reliés sémantiquement, plus fréquents, mieux connus, etc.), et bien sûr à la plus grande résistance au déclin des traces gist basé sur le sens sémantique, lesquelles étaient favorisées par la présence de l'effet de LTM (Brainerd et al., 2011).

Au-delà des considérations d'une facilitation des processus d'encodage et/ou de reconstruction, influée ou non par la disponibilité du rafraichissement attentionnel, il est permis de penser que le rafraichissement puisse ne pas être le seul mécanisme sous-
jacent aux performances de rappel. La comparaison des effets de nos variables sur des
performances de rappels immédiats et différés pourrait apporter certains indices,
notamment quant aux hypothèses soulevées ci-dessus. En effet, le maintien actif de traces
en WM crée des représentations en LTM, qui peuvent alors être accédées plus facilement
de manière différée. Si ces traces peuvent être intégrées à un réseau de connaissances
préexistant en LTM, elles s'en voient consolidées. Le rappel différé de ces traces devrait
donc impliquer un processus de reconstruction facilité en cas de meilleures conditions
d'encodage ou de l'augmentation des opportunités de réactivation des items en WM par
un CL plus faible et d'associations possibles en LTM (voir Barrouillet & Camos, 2015 pour
une vision complète).

## 2.2. Le rafraichissement attentionnel : Trop rapide pour être capté dans des données comportementales ?

Une remarque récurrente et légitime lors nos différentes présentations des
résultats de notre première étude quant à l'absence de modulation des effets de LTM par
la disponibilité attentionnelle réside dans l'hypothèse suivante : « *L'action du
rafraichissement attentionnel est peut-être si rapide ou si implicite que vos paradigmes
n'arrivent simplement pas à capter une interaction qui pourrait bien exister* ». Bien qu'ayant
répliqué cette absence d'interaction sur toutes nos expériences et que de précédentes
études corroborent nos résultats (Camos et al., 2019; Campoy et al., 2015; Loaiza & Camos,
2018), nous reconnaissons bien sûr un tel risque.

Dans un projet parallèle à cette thèse, nous nous sommes penchées sur la mesure
de l'impact des effets de LTM directement sur la vitesse du rafraichissement attentionnel
par électro-encéphalographie. Cette étude avait pour but d'examiner la vitesse du
rafraichissement attentionnel en WM en termes d'ondes cérébrales et en fonction des conditions expérimentales présentées. A nouveau, la similarité sémantique présente ou non au sein des items à maintenir permettaient de manipuler la présence d'effet de LTM et le CL d'une tâche secondaire visuelle (par jugement de localisations spatiales) modérait la disponibilité attentionnelle. Cette étude est toujours en cours et compte actuellement une douzaine de participants. Dans une précédente étude n'impliquant que la variation du CL, Vergauwe et al. (2016) étaient parvenus à différencier les ondes cérébrales correspondant aux activités de maintien et de traitement et observent clairement les moments lors desquels les items étaient rafraichis. Il serait donc possible de différencier ces activités en variant également la présence d'un effet de LTM. Si les ondes cérébrales suivent les mêmes patterns en présence et en absence d'effet de LTM, alors ces effets de LTM ne seraient pas liés aux processus de maintien, mais plutôt à ceux d'encodage. A l'inverse, si en présence de LTM les traces sont plus rapidement rafraichies, cela correspondrait davantage à l'hypothèse de réactivation des traces au moyen du rafraichissement attentionnel.

## 2.3. Processus d'accès direct et de reconstruction en rappel libre en WM

L'application de modèles multinomiaux tels que le modèle *Trichotomous* et le *SCR* présente bien des avantages, mais également certains biais qu'il faut prendre en compte. Brainerd et Reyna (1993) soulignent notamment la vulnérabilité des traces verbatim aux effets d'interférences. De fait, l'accès direct à ce type de représentations se complexifie au fur et à mesure que le test progresse, tel que nous avons pu le constater en brouillant les indices contextuels soutenant le rappel lors de nos deux dernières expériences du Chapitre 6. Un phénomène de souvenirs illusoire, soit l'accès direct ou la reconnaissance assurée d'items n'ayant jamais été présentés, peut alors être observé sans que les modèles
ne puissent les identifier comme tels (voir Payne et al., 1996). Les participants ne s'engageraient donc dans un processus de reconstruction qu'au moment où l'accès direct commence à échouer. Si nous n'avons pas observé d'effets de ré-encodage autres que ceux que nous avions délibérément cherché à provoquer au travers des changement d'ordre de présentation des items et des chronologies de présentations des essais, nous souhaitons tout de même réitérer la dernière expérience présentée en Chapitre 6 et impliquant l'analyse du modèle *Trichotomous*. Bousculer l'ordre sériel des mots d'un essai à l'autre serait hautement instructif du fait de la variation des observations faites entre une analyse de rappel sériel d'une analyse de rappel libre. En effet, le modèle *Trichotomous* ne distingue pas non plus un non-rappel d'une interversion sérielle d'items. Des biais peuvent donc apparaître, tels que nous l'avons observé dans notre quatrième expérience. Reconduire cette même expérience en rappel libre et avec une consigne de rappel libre validerait ses résultats. L'analyse des erreurs commises lors des différents rappel, l'extension vers d'autres tâches que celle d'empan complexe, l'implication d'autres populations (etc.) complémenteraient également ces premiers résultats dans l'utilisation du modèle *Trichotomous* dans une tâche de WM.

## 2.4. Observer les représentations gist et verbatim également en tâche de rappel à court-terme

Les prémices de la *FTT* (Brainerd & Reyna, 2002)à propos des représentations impliquées dans les processus de mémoire à long-terme ne sont plus à prouver, ayant été validé au fil de nombreuses études. Cependant, le transfert de ces prémices vers la WM ouvre un champ de recherche immense et fascinant (voir Abadie & Camos, 2019; et Rousselle et al., 2021 pour une étude sur les fausses mémoires en WM chez les enfants).
Les résultats de notre dernière étude (Chapitre 7) indiquent un effet des similarités sémantique et phonologique sur les représentations verbatim et une compensation au *CL* concurrent par les représentations gist. Au vu de ces résultats, la transposition de notre expérience en une tâche de rappel nous intéresse d'autant plus afin d'aller plus loin dans nos observations et clarifier l'apparition des effets de *CL* et de *PSE* sur les données comportementales (i.e., des performances de rappel plutôt que de reconnaissance). Cependant, le modèle *SCR* permettant la distinction entre représentations gist et verbatim ne s'applique pas sur une tâche de rappel. D'autres paradigmes permettent l'observation de ces représentations qui forment notre principal intérêt dans cette étude, tel que le paradigme *Remember / Know* (Gardiner, 1988; Tulving, 1985b, voir Chapitre 3, partie 3.1). Ce type de paradigme implique cependant une expérience subjective de la part des participants quant à la fiabilité de leurs propres souvenirs (voir Gardiner & Parkin, 1990; Richardson-Klavehn et al., 1992; Richardson-Klavehn et al., 1994), c'est pourquoi nous envisageons d'autres modèles de type *MPT* ou une extension du modèle *SCR* qui pourraient répondre à nos objectifs. Une possibilité intermédiaire serait de préciser les demandes du paradigme *Remember / Know* en s'inspirant du modèle *SCR* ; c'est-à-dire en demandant aux participants de préciser pour chaque item rappel s'il s'agissait d'un item cible, d'un item pour lequel ils hésitent entre le statut de cible ou de distracteur relié, d'un distracteur relié ou s'ils donnent une réponse au hasard. Si cette clarification n'enlève pas le problème de la subjectivité, elle permettrait tout de même de la compenser grâce à une estimation contrastée d'une vraie mémoire et d'une hésitante.

Un complément à cela pourrait résider dans l'analyse de la position sérielle donnée
lors d'un rappel libre. En effet, les faux souvenirs apparaissent le plus souvent en fin de
rappel, car ils découlent d'un processus de reconstruction et d'un jugement de familiarité
faussé (Barnhardt et al., 2006). La seconde expérience de l'étude présentée en Chapitre 1 impliquait le rappel de mots sémantiquement reliés et non-reliés et deux conditions contrastées de CL au sein d'un paradigme d'empan complexe, soit un paradigme semblable à celui qui pourrait être utilisé dans une réplication de notre étude impliquant des effets d'interférence.

Rose et al. (2014) ont également proposé l'analyse des temps engagés lors de la phase de rappel des mots comme indicateur des représentations activées. Les représentations gist seraient effectivement rappelées après les représentations verbatim, en plus de ne pas être affectés par une manipulation du CL (voir Brainerd, Bialer, Chang, et al., 2021 pour une dizaine d'expériences démontrant que les temps de rappel dépendent notamment de la qualité d'accès aux représentations verbatim).

Notre but serait donc de poursuivre les mêmes objectifs que ceux présentés en Chapitre 7 sur un paradigme de rappel immédiat plutôt que de reconnaissance. Au vu de nos derniers résultats et du contexte théorique connu, nous pensons observer un effet du CL sur les représentations verbatim et un effet de l'interférence sémantique sur les représentations gist. L'interférence phonologique devrait plutôt affecter les représentations verbatim. Tel qu'évoqué précédemment, le paradigme doit être repensé afin de pouvoir observer suffisamment des faux souvenirs et en différencier la source d'apparition. Une solution complémentaire pourrait résider dans l'augmentation des effets d'interférences sémantiques et/ou phonologiques par la présence de la même similarité non pas seulement intra-essai, mais également au sein d'essais suivant (Bunting, 2006).
## 2.5. Un rôle de la répétition articulatoire ?

Le rafraichissement attentionnel et la répétition articulatoire ont été dissociés comme étant les deux mécanismes impliqués dans la maintenance d'informations verbales en WM (Barrouillet & Camos, 2022; Camos, 2015, 2017; Camos & Barrouillet, 2014; Camos et al., 2009; Camos et al., 2013; Camos et al., 2011; Camos et al., 2019; Hudjetz & Oberauer, 2007; Mora & Camos, 2013, 2015; Rose et al., 2015; Vergauwe, Camos, et al., 2014, voir également Chapitre 1, partie 2.3). Si nous nous sommes concentrées sur l'absence d'interaction entre disponibilité du rafraichissement attentionnel et effet de LTM, il est à noter que la disponibilité de la répétition articulatoire, bien que très bénéfique aux performances, ne modère pas plus les effets de LTM sur la WM que le rafraichissement (voir Camos et al., 2019, Expérience 2). De plus, la suppression articulatoire dans une tâche d'empan complexe de WM n'affecte pas les performances de rappel différé, ce qui suggère que si la répétition articulatoire est un mécanisme important de la WM, elle ne l'est pas pour la LTM (Camos & Portrat, 2015; Loaiza & McCabe, 2013, mais voir Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Tel qu'évoqué précédemment, les rappels immédiats et différés ne dépendent pas des mêmes mécanismes de maintien ou de processus de rappel (i.e., accès direct et reconstruction) appliqués à l'identique, mais bien de systèmes de mémoire distincts (WM et LTM) aux fonctionnement et représentations propres.

## 2.6. Considérer les différences interindividuelles

A moins de travailler avec une population spécifiquement choisie pour ses caractéristiques (âge ou pathologie, voir Barrouillet & Camos, 2022 pour une revue à propos de la WM chez des populations atypiques), les études menées dans le domaine de la psychologie cognitive sont le plus souvent réalisées grâce à la collaboration de la
population de jeunes étudiants et, surtout d'étudiantes représentantes d'une moyenne courante de 80% des participations. Si la différence de genre ne constitue généralement pas un biais affectant les performances en WM, cette population étudiante présente en revanche une probabilité élevée de fortes capacités en WM. Nos paradigmes de recherche sont donc présentés à des personnes dont la WM est entraînée quotidiennement en comparaison avec d'autres occupations de vie. Il est donc fortement probable que les participants adultes impliqués dans nos études présentent cette caractéristique de capacité d'empan accrue. La non-considération des différences interindividuelles dans les capacités de WM est un reproche justifié à de nombreuses généralisations de résultats, les nôtres n'échappant pas à la règle car cette comparaison n'intégrait pas nos objectifs premiers au sein de ce travail. Cependant, il est intéressant de se pencher sur la question en observant les performances des enfants ayant participé à notre première étude (voir Chapitre 5). Les enfants de 8 à 12 ans n'ayant pas encore achevé le développement de leurs compétences cognitive globales, incluant celles de WM, leur capacité d'empan moyen est nécessairement plus faible celle d'un étudiant universitaire. Dans nos deux expériences, nos résultats démontrent une absence d'interaction entre CL et effet de LTM pour les deux populations. Ceci implique que les connaissances de LTM sont accessibles quelles que soient les capacités d'empan d'un individu en WM.

Une analyse supplémentaire a été réalisée par Pierre Barrouillet dans le cadre de la première expérience de l'étude présentée en Chapitre 6 (i.e., l'impact du CL sur les processus impliqués dans le rappel, sans implication d'effets de LTM). Les participants à cette première expérience ont été divisés en deux groupes sur la base de leurs performances au premier essai de rappel, excluant ainsi les effets de répétition causés par les essais successifs. L'accès direct sous-tendait respectivement 90 % et 87 % des rappels
des étudiants à fort empan dans les conditions de CL faible et élevée, ces taux ont chuté à 78 % et 73 % chez les étudiants à plus faible empan. En revanche, il n'y avait pas de différence significative entre les deux groupes concernant le nombre d'éléments rappelés grâce aux processus de reconstruction. Les individus à capacités d'empan plus faibles s'appuyaient plus régulièrement sur le processus de reconstruction pour récupérer les items qu'ils peinaient à conserver en accès direct dans leur tampon épisodique. Les valeurs inférieures des paramètres d'accès direct ($D_1$ et $D_2$) témoignaient des difficultés à maintenir les traces dans un état actif rencontrées par les participants à plus faible empan. Cependant, si le recours à la reconstruction était plus élevé chez ces étudiants, leurs capacités à la mener à bon terme ne différaient pas de celles des étudiants à plus fort empan. Une fois de plus, ces observations sont en contradiction avec le modèle PSM (Unsworth & Engle, 2007b; Unsworth & Spillers, 2010; Unsworth et al., 2010) selon lequel la capacité à récupérer des informations de la mémoire secondaire est, avec la capacité à conserver des informations dans la mémoire primaire, un composant important de la capacité WM. Nos résultats suggèrent que le maintien actif des informations dans un état directement accessible détermine bien plus les performances de la WM que le processus de reconstruction des traces.

Concernant notre dernière étude présentée en Chapitre 7, il a déjà été démontré que les différences interindividuelles dans les capacités de WM influent sur l'apparition des faux souvenirs. Une plus faible capacité d'empan mnésique diminue la résistance contre les effets d'interférences en WM (Unsworth & Brewer, 2010a, 2010b) et affecte négativement la capacité de récupération des représentations verbatim (Abadie et al., 2013). Ces deux critères favorisent alors l'apparition de faux souvenirs et ont donc leur importance dans les observations quant à la relation entre WM et faux souvenirs.
Conclusion

Les facteurs impactant les capacités de WM et de recours aux connaissances de LTM
forment un sujet de premier plan dans le champ de recherche de la mémoire. Si ce travail
de thèse s'est principalement concentré sur les implications théoriques des effets
observés, nos résultats peuvent cependant être bénéfiques dans ce qu'ils impliquent pour
le fonctionnement cognitif global. La mesure de WM est notamment le meilleur prédicteur
connu de la réussite de la majorité des activités cognitives, surpassant les prédictions
apportées par la mesure du quotient intellectuel et les capacités de vitesse de traitement
(Barrouillet et al., 2008; Conway et al., 2007). Les capacités en WM et la possibilité
d'impliquer ses connaissances à long-terme exercent donc une influence de premier ordre
sur le fonctionnement cognitif, et de fait, sur les performances scolaires. L'implication de
connaissances de LTM dans l'enseignement est une pratique qui se doit donc d'être
encouragée au vu de ses apports bénéfiques. Relier de nouveaux apprentissages avec les
anciens ou à l'inverse, transférer des connaissances déjà acquises sur l'apprentissage de
nouvelles permettent un traitement plus approfondi et plus connecté au contenu de la
LTM, ce qui favorise les performances et les apprentissages.

Les hypothèses quant à la nature du mécanisme de rafraichissement attentionnel et de
son lien avec la LTM s'accordent globalement sur le fait que WM et LTM ont un impact
mutuel l'une sur l'autre, mais divergent quant au rôle du mécanisme attentionnel dans
cette relation. Toute représentation créée en WM laisse également une trace en LTM ; et
l'apprentissage ou la répétition de cette représentation consolide d'autant plus la
formation de telles traces. Cet impact de la WM sur la LTM est à la base de tout processus
d'apprentissage (e.g., Barrouillet, Camos, et al., 2004).
Dans l'autre sens, il a été démontré que l'implication de connaissances de LTM libère des ressources attentionnelles en WM (e.g., Kowialiewski et al., 2020). Le contenu de la WM se décuple donc spontanément en LTM et la WM s'appuie efficacement sur les connaissances contenues en LTM ainsi que les nouvelles représentations qui y ont été transférées récemment. Nos résultats répliquent de précédentes observations selon lesquelles les représentations contenues en LTM peuvent être récupérées en WM pour une implication immédiate dans la tâche en cours sans modération par la disponibilité attentionnelle. Cette absence de modulation nous apporte des informations quant à la nature même du rafraichissement attentionnel et permet également des ajustements de modèles théoriques de la WM.

La gouvernance des deux processus indépendants d'accès direct et de reconstruction sur le rappel en WM favorise la vision d'un système dual de mémoires. Le fait d'observer dans notre étude une prédominance nette du processus d'accès direct en WM en opposition avec la prédominance inverse de la reconstruction en LTM s'accorde davantage avec les modèles théoriques présentant deux systèmes de mémoires séparées qu'avec les modèles emboîtés. Le maintien actif des informations dans un état d'accès direct prime largement sur l'application d'un processus de reconstruction de ces mêmes informations. La capacité à récupérer des représentations en LTM pour soutenir une tâche de WM ne forme donc pas une composante essentielle à la capacité de WM.

Nos résultats s'accordent avec la vision selon laquelle la WM consiste à maintenir des représentations principalement verbatim et plus susceptibles de permettre un accès direct lors du rappel. Les représentations sont traitées individuellement au sein de la boucle exécutive en WM, ce qui améliore leur niveau d'activation. Parallèlement, les effets
de LTM influent les performances de rappel immédiat du fait d'une facilité accrue
d'encodage, sans que la disponibilité attentionnelle n'influent sur cet apport. L'implication
des effets de LTM sur les performances en WM n'est pas attribuable aux mécanismes de
maintien verbaux actuellement identifiés en WM. En cas de mauvaises conditions
d'encodage, les traces liées à des connaissances de LTM ont de meilleurs moyens pour
être rafraichies ou réactivées plus efficacement et compenser une situation défavorable.
<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>
Références

Abadie, M., & Camos, V. (2018). Attentional refreshing moderates the word frequency effect in immediate and delayed recall tasks: Refreshing moderates the word frequency effect. *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1424*(1), 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13847

Abadie, M., & Camos, V. (2019). False memory at short and long term. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148*(8), 1312-1334. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000526

Abadie, M., Gavard, E., & Guillaume, F. (2021). Verbatim and gist memory in aging. *Psychology and Aging, 36*(8), 891-901. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000635

Abadie, M., Waroquier, L., & Terrier, P. (2013). Gist memory in the unconscious-thought effect. *Psychological Science, 24*(7), 1253-1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612470958

Abadie, M., Waroquier, L., & Terrier, P. (2016). Information presentation format moderates the unconscious-thought effect: The role of recollection. *Memory, 24*(8), 1123-1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1070179

Abadie, M., Waroquier, L., & Terrier, P. (2017). The role of gist and verbatim memory in complex decision making: Explaining the unconscious-thought effect. *Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory and Cognition, 43*, 694-705. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000336

Acheson, D. J., & Macdonald, M. C. (2009). Verbal working memory and language production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. *Psychological Bulletin, 135*(1), 50-68. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014411

Acheson, D. J., Postle, B. R., & Macdonald, M. C. (2010). The interaction of concreteness and phonological similarity in verbal working memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36*(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017679.

Allen, R. J., Hitch, G. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2009). Cross-modal binding and working memory. *Visual Cognition, 17*(1-2), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280802281386

Altmann, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. *Psychological Research, 66*(4), 287-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0102-9

Altmann, E. M., & Gray, S. (2002). Forgetting to remember : the functional relationship of devay and interference. *Psychological Science, 13*(1), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00405

Anderson, J. A., Silverstein, J. W., Jones, S. A., & Jones, R. S. (1977). Distinctive features, categorical perception, and probability learning: Some applications of a neural model. *Psychological Review, 84*(5), 413-451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.5.413

Anderson, J. R. (1993). *Rules of the mind*. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.

Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Lebière, C. (1996). Working Memory: Activation limitations on retrieval. *Cognitive Psychology, 30*(3), 221-256. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1996.0007

Anderson, N. D., Jennings, J. M., Cabeza, R., Ebert, P. L., Grady, C. L., & Graham, S. J. (2008). Recollection- and familiarity-based memory in healthy aging and amnestic mild cognitive impairment. *Neuropsychology, 22*(2), 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.22.2.177

Atkins, A. S., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2008). False working memories? Semantic distortion in a mere 4 seconds. *Memory & Cognition, 36*(1), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.1.74
Atkins, A. S., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2011). Neural mechanisms of semantic interference and false recognition in short-term memory. *NeuroImage*, *56*(3), 1726-1734.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.048

Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1973). Factors influencing speed and accuracy in word recognition. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), *Attention and performance IV* (pp. 583-612). New York: Academic Press.

Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes". In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), *The psychology of learning and motivation*. New York: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (1966). Short-term memory for word sequences as a function of acoustic, semantic and formal similarity. *The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*, *18*(4), 362-365.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746608400055

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). *Working memory*. Clarendon Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer : a new component of working memory? *Trends in Cognitive Science*, *4*(11), 417-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2

Baddeley, A. D. (2007). *Working memory, thought, and action*. Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. *Annual Review of Psychology*, *63*, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), *Recent advances in learning and motivation* (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). Academic Press.

Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G., & Allen, R. (2021). A multicomponent Model of Working Memory. In R. Logie, V. Camos, & N. Cowan (Eds.), *Working Memory*. Oxford University Press.

Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2018). From short-term store to multicomponent working memory: The role of the modal model. *Memory & Cognition*, *47*(4), 575-588.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0878-5

Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V., & Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop. *The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*, *36A*(2), 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748408402157

Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working Memory: The Multiple-Component Model. In A. M. P. Shah (Ed.), *Models of Working Memory*. Cambridge University Press.

Baddeley, A. D., Thomson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. *Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior*, *14*(6), 575-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80045-4

Barnhardt, T. M., Choi, H., Gerkens, D. R., & Smith, S. M. (2006). Output position and word relatedness effects in a DRM paradigm: Support for a dual retrieval process theory of free recall and false memories. *Journal of Memory and Language*, *55*(2), 213-231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.04.003

Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults' working memory spans. *Journal of Experimental Psychology : General*, *133*(1), 83-100.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.83

Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory and Cognition*, *33*(3), 570-585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.570
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2012). As time goes by: Temporal constraints in working memory. *Current Directions in Psychological Science*, 21(6), 413-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412459513

Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2014). On the proper reading of the TBRS model: reply to Oberauer and Lewandowsky (2014). *Frontiers in Psychology*, 5(1331), 1-3.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01331

Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2015). *Working memory: Loss and reconstruction*.

Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2021). The Time-Based Resource-Sharing Model of Working Memory. In R. Logie, V. Camos, & N. Cowan (Eds.), *Working Memory*. Oxford University Press.

Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2022). *La mémoire de travail : Théories, développement et pathologies*. Mardaga. ISBN 9782804720926.

Barrouillet, P., Camos, V., Morlaix, S., & Suchaut, B. (2008). Progressions scolaires, mémoire de travail et origine sociale : quels liens à l'école élémentaire ? *Revue française de pédagogie*, 162, 5-14.
https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.719

Barrouillet, P., Camos, V., Perruchet, P., & Seron, X. (2004). ADAPT: A developmental, asemantic, and procedural model for transcoding from verbal to arabic numerals. *Psychological Review*, 111(2), 368-394.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.368

Barrouillet, P., Gavens, N., Vergauwe, E., Gaillard, V., & Camos, V. (2009). Working memory span development : A Time-Based Resource-Sharing model account. *Developmental Psychology*, 45(2), 477-490.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014615

Barrouillet, P., Plancher, G., Guida, A., & Camos, V. (2013). Forgetting at short term: When do event-based interference and temporal factors have an effect? *Acta Psychologia*, 142(2), 155-167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.12.003

Barrouillet, P., Portrat, S., & Camos, V. (2011). On the law relating processing to storage in working memory. *Psychological Review*, 118(2), 175-192.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022324

Bartsh, L. M., & Shepherdson, P. (2021). Freeing capacity in working memory (WM) through the use of long-term memory (LTM) representations. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001024

Bartsh, L. M., Singmann, H., & Oberauer, K. (2018). The effects of refreshing and elaboration on working memory performance, and their contributions to long-term memory formation. *Memory & Cognition*, 46(5), 769-808. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0805-9

Begley, S., & Brant, M. (1994). You must remember this. *Newsweek*, 124(3), 68-70.

Benjamin, A. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (2001). Parallel effects of aging and time pressure on memory for source: Evidence from the spacing effect. *Memory & Cognition*, 29(5), 691-697.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200471

Bertrand, R., & Camos, V. (2015). The role of attention in preschoolers' working memory. *Cognitive Development*, 33, 14-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.10.002

Besner, D., & Davelaar, E. (1982). Basic processes in reading: Two phonological codes. *Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 36(4), 701-711. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080665

Bonin, P., Méot, A., Ferrand, L., & Bugaïska, A. (2013). Normes d'associations verbales pour 520 mots concrets et étude de leurs relations avec d'autres variables psycholinguistiques [Verbal association norms for 520 concrete words and relationships with other psycholinguistic variables]. *L'année psychologique*, 113(1), 63-92. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503313001048
Bourassa, D. C., & Besner, D. (1994). Beyond the articulatory loop: A semantic contribution to serial order recall of subspan lists. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1*(1), 122-125. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200768

Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., & Alvarez, G. A. (2009). Compression in visual working memory: Using statistical regularities to form more efficient memory representations. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138*(4), 487-502. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016797

Brainerd, C. J., Aydin, C., & Reyna, V. F. (2012). Development of dual-retrieval processes in recall: Learning, forgetting, and reminiscence. *Journal of Memory and Language, 66*(4), 763-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.12.002

Brainerd, C. J., Bialer, D. M., & Chang, M. (2021). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory: Meta-analysis of conjoint recognition. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Advance online publication*. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001040

Brainerd, C. J., Bialer, D. M., Chang, M., & Upadhyay, P. (2021). A fundamental asymmetry in human memory: Old ≠ not-new and new ≠ not-old. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Advance online publication*. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001101

Brainerd, C. J., Gomes, C. F. A., & Moran, R. (2014). The two recollections. *Psychological Review, 121*(4), 563-599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037668

Brainerd, C. J., Payne, D. G., Wright, R., & Reyna, V. F. (2003). Phantom recall. *Journal of Memory and Language, 48*(3), 445-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00501-6

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1993). Memory independence and memory interference in cognitive development. *Psychological Review, 100*(1), 42-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.42

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2002). Fuzzy-Trace Theory and False Memory. *Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11*(5), 164-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00192

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2004). Fuzzy-trace theory and memory development. *Developmental Review, 24*(4), 396-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.005

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). *The science of false memory*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2010). Recollective and nonrecollective recall. *Journal of Memory and Language, 63*(3), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.05.002

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2015). Fuzzy-trace theory and lifespan cognitive development. *Developmental Review, 38*, 89-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.006

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Ceci, S. J. (2008). Developmental reversals in false memory: A review of data and theory. *Psychological Bulletin, 134*(3), 343-382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.343

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Forrest, T. J. (2002). Are young children susceptible to the false-memory illusion? *Child Development, 73*(5), 1363-1377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00477

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Howe, M. L. (2009). Trichotomous processes in early memory development, aging and neurocognitive impairment: A unified theory. *Psychological Review, 116*(4), 783-832. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016963

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Mojardin, A. H. (1999). Conjoint recognition. *Psychological Review, 106*(1), 160-179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.160
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., Wright, R., & Mojardin, A. H. (2003). Recollection rejection: False-memory editing in children and adults. *Psychological Review, 110*(4), 762-784. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.4.762

Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, V. F., & Zember, E. (2011). Theoritical and forensic implications of developmental studies of the DRM illusion. *Memory & Cognition, 39*(3), 365-380. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0043-2

Brainerd, C. J., Wright, R., Reyna, V. F., & Mojardin, A. H. (2001). Conjoint recognition and phantom recollection. *Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27*(2), 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.307

Brainerd, C. J., Wright, R., Reyna, V. F., & Payne, D. G. (2002). Dual-retrieval processes in free and associative recall. *Journal of Memory and Language, 46*(1), 120-152. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2796

Braun, K. A., Ellis, R., & Loftus, E. F. (2002). Make my memory: how advertising can change our memories of the past. *Psychology & Marketing, 19*(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1000

Brown, G. D. A., & Hulme, C. (1995). Modeling item length effects in memory span: No rehearsal needed? *Journal of Memory and Language, 34*(5), 594-621. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1995.1027

Brown, G. D. A., Nealth, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. *Psychological Review, 114*(3), 359-576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.539

Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. *The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10*(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215808416249

Budson, A. E., Sullivan, A. L., Daffner, K. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2003). Semantic versus phonological false recognition in aging and Alzheimer's disease. *Brain & Cognition, 51*(3), 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00030-7

Bunting, M. (2006). Proactive interference and item similarity in working memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32*(2), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.183

Cam, Y., McBride, D. M., Coane, J. H., Chang, K., Antone, N., & Zeng, Y. (2019). *Does articulatory suppression of phonological coding affect short-and long-term false memory?* Poster presented at the 2019 Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, QC, Canada: Montreal.

Camos, V. (2015). Storing verbal information in working memory. *Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24*(6), 440-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415606630

Camos, V. (2017). Domain-Specific Versus Domain-General Maintenance in Working Memory: Reconciliation Within the Time-Based Resource Sharing Model. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), *Psychology of Learning and Motivation* (Vol. 67, pp. 135-171). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2017.03.005

Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2011). Developmental Change in Working Memory Strategies : From Passive Maintenance to Active Refreshing. *Developmental Psychology, 47*(3), 898-904. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023193

Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2012). Le développement de la mémoire de travail : Perspectives dans le cadre du modèle de partage temporel des ressources. *Psychologie française, 59*(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2012.12.003

Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2014). Attentional and non-attentional systems in the maintenance of verbal information in working memory : The executive and phonological loops. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8*, Article 900. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.0080
Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2018). *Working Memory in Development*. Essays in Cognitive Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315660851

Camos, V., Johnson, M. K., Loaiza, V. M., Portrat, S., Souza, A., & Vergauwe, E. (2018). What is attentional refreshing in working memory? *Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences* **1424**, 19-32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13616

Camos, V., Lagner, P., & Barrouillet, P. (2009). Two maintenance mechanisms of verbal information in working memory. *Journal of Memory and Language*, *61*(3), 457-469.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.002

Camos, V., Mora, G., & Barrouillet, P. (2013). Phonological similarity effect in complex span task. *The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*, *66*(10), 1927-1950.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.768275

Camos, V., Mora, G., & Oberauer, K. (2011). Adaptive choice between articulatory rehearsal and attentional refreshing in verbal working memory. *Memory and Cognition*, *39*(2), 231-244.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.640625

Camos, V., Mora, G., Oftinger, A.-L., Mariz-Elsig, S., Schneider, P., & Vergauwe, E. (2019). Does semantic long-term memory impact refreshing in verbal working memory? *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition*, *45*(9), 1664-1682. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000657

Camos, V., & Portrat, S. (2015). The impact of cognitive load on delayed recall. *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*, *22*(4), 1029-1034. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0772-5

Campoy, G., Castellà, J., Provencio, V., Hitch, G., & Baddeley, A. (2015). Automatic semantic encoding in verbal short-term memory: Evidence from the concreteness effect. *The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*, *68*(4), 759-778. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.966248

Case, R. (1985). A developmentally based approach to the problem of instructional design In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), *Thinking and Learning Skills* (Vol. 2: Research and Open Questions). Routledge.

Case, R., Kurland, D. M., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology*, *33*(3), 386-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(82)90054-6

Chandler, C. C. (1989). Specific retroactive interference in modified recognition tests: Evidence for an unknown cause of interference. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, *15*(2), 256-265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.256

Chang, M., & Brainerd, C. J. (2021). Semantic and phonological false memory: A review of theory and data. *Journal of Memory and Language*, *119*, 104210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104210

Chen, Z., & Cowan, N. (2005). Chunk limits and length limits in immediate recall: A reconciliation. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition*, *31*(6), 1235-1249.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1235

Chen, Z., & Cowan, N. (2009). How verbal memory loads consume attention. *Memory & Cognition*, *37*(6), 829-836. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.829

Clarkson, L., Roodenrys, S., Miller, D. G., & Hulme, C. (2016). The phonological neighbourhood effect on short-term memory for order. *Memory*, *25*(3), 391-402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1179330

Coane, J. H., McBride, D. M., Raulerson III, B. A., & Jordan, J. S. (2007). False memory in a short-term memory task. *Experimental Psychology*, *54*(1), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.1.62
Cocchini, G., Logie, R. H., Della Sala, S., MacPherson, S. E., & Baddeley, A. (2002). Concurrent performance of two memory tasks: Evidence for domain-specific working memory systems. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30*(7), 1086-1095.

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. *Psychological Review, 82*(6), 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407

Conway, A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (2007). *Variation in working memory*. Bristol Neuroscience.

Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. *Psychological Review, 107*(2), 261-288. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.107.2.261

Copeland, D. E., & Radvansky, G. A. (2001). Phonological similarity effect in working memory. *Memory and Cognition, 29*(5), 774-776. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200480

Corkin, S. (1984). Lasting consequences of bilateral medial temporal lobectomy: Clinical course and experimental findings in HM. *Seminars in Neurology, 4*(2), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1041556

Couture, M., & Tremblay, S. (2006). Exploring the characteristics of the visuospatial Hebb repetition effect. *Memory & Cognition, 34*(8), 1720-1729. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195933

Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual contraints withihin the human information-processing system. *Psychological Bulletin, 104*(2), 163-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.2.341

Cowan, N. (1992). Verbal memory span and the timing of spoken recall. *Journal of Memory and Language, 31*(5), 668-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90034-U

Cowan, N. (1995). *Attention and memory: An integrated framework*. Oxford University Press.

Cowan, N. (1999a). An embedded-process model of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), *Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control* (pp. 62-101). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174909.006

Cowan, N. (1999b). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In *Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control* (Vol. 20, pp. 506).

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and brain sciences, 24*(1), 87-185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922

Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity limits in a theoretical context. In *Human learning and memory: Advances in theory and application* (pp. 155-175). The 4th Tsukuba international conference on memory.

Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? *Progress in Brain Research, 169*, 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9

Cowan, N. (2011). The focus of attention as observed in visual working memory tasks: Making sense of competing claims. *Neuropsychologia, 49*(6), 1401-1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.035

Cowan, N. (2016). *Working memory capacity*. Routledge [Original edition 2005. New Foreword to the Classic Edition].
Cowan, N. (2019). Short-term memory based on activated long-term memory: A review in response to
Norris (2017). *Psychological Bulletin*, **145**(8), 822-847. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000199

Cowan, N. (2022). Working memory development: A 50-year assessment of research and underlying theories. *Cognition*, **224**, 105075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105075

Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Saults, J. S., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conwan, A. R. A. (2005). On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes. *Cognitive Psychology*, **51**(1), 42-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.12.001

Cowan, N., Keller, T., Hulme, C., Roodenrys, S., McDougall, S., & Rack, J. (1994). Verbal memory span in children: Speech timing clues to the mechanisms underlying age and word length effects. *Journal of Memory and Language*, **33**(2), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1012

Cowan, N., Morey, C. C., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (2021). An Embedded-Processes approach to Working Memory. In R. Logie, V. Camos, & N. Cowan (Eds.), *Working Memory*. Oxford University Press.

Cowan, N., Nugent, L. D., Elliott, E. M., & Saults, J. S. (2000). Persistence of memory for ignored lists of digits: areas of developmental consistency and change. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology*, **76**(2), 151-172. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2546

Cowan, N., Rouder, J. N., Blume, C. L., & Saults, J. S. (2012). Models of verbal working memory capacity : What does it take to make them work ? *Psychological Review*, **119**(3), 480-499. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027791

Cowan, N., Saults, J. S., & Blume, C. L. (2014). Central and peripheral components of working memory storage. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, **143**(5), 1806-1836. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036814

Cowan, N., Towse, J. N., Hamilton, Z., Saults, J. S., Elliott, E. M., Lacey, J. F., Moreno, M. V., & Hitch, G. J. (2003). Children's working-memory processes: A response-timing analysis. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, **132**(1), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.113

Cowan, N., Wood, N. L., Wood, P. K., Keller, T. A., Nugent, L. D., & Keller, C. V. (1998). Two separate verbal processing rates contributing to short-term memory span. *Journal of Experimental Psychology : General*, **127**(2), 141-160. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.141

Craik, F. I. M., & Levy, B. A. (1976). *The concept of primary memory*. Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. *Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior*, **11**(6), 671-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, **104**(3), 268-294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268

Craik, F. I. M., & Watkins, M. J. (1973). The role of rehearsal in short-term memory. *Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior*, **12**(6), 599-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80039-8

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. *Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior*, **19**(4), 450-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

De La Haye, F. (2003). Normes d'associations verbales chez des enfants de 9, 10 et 11 ans et des adultes [Verbal association norms in 9, 10 and 11 year old children and adults]. *L'année psychologique*, **103**(1), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2003.29627
Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. *Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58*(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046671

Dégeilh, F., Viard, A., Dayan, J., Guénolé, F., Egler, P.-J., Baleyte, J.-M., Eustache, F., & Guillery-Girard, B. (2013). Altérations mnésiques dans l'état de stress post-traumatique : résultats comportementaux et neuro-imagerie. *Revue de neuropsychologie, 5*(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.3917/rne.051.0045

DeLosh, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). The role of order information in free recall: Application to the word-frequency effect. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22*(5), 1136-1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1136

Dewhurst, S. A., Bould, E., Knott, L. M., & Thorley, C. (2009). The roles of encoding and retrieval processes in associative and categorical memory illusions. *Journal of Memory and Language, 60*(1), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.09.002

Doherty, J. M., Belletier, C., Rhodes, S., Jaroslawska, A. J., Barrouillet, P., Camos, V., Cowan, N., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Logie, R. H. (2019). Dual-task costs in working memory: An adversarial collaboration. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45*(9), 1529-1551. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000668

Duff, S., & Logie, R. H. (2001). Processing and storage in working memory: Cognitive capacity or multiple components? *The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A*(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980042000011

Dunn, J. C. (2004). Remember-know: a matter of confidence. *Psychological Review, 111*(2), 524-542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.524

Duscherer, K., Khan, A., & Mounoud, P. (2009). Recueil d'associations verbales chez des enfants de 5 à 11 ans pour 76 verbes d'action en langue française. *Swiss Journal of Psychology, 68*(2), 113-117. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.68.2.113

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (H. Ruyer & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). In *Uber das Gedächtnis*. New York: Teacher College, Columbus University. (Über das gedächtnis: Untersucher zur Experimentellen Psychologie)

Engle, R., Nation, J. K., & Cantor, J. (1990). Is" working memory capacity" just another name for word knowledge? *Journal of Educational Psychology, 82*(4), 799-804.

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. *Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11*(19), 19-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160

Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), *Models of Working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control* (pp. 102-134). Cambridge University Press.

Erdfelder, E., Auer, T.-S., Hilbig, B. E., Assfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2015). Multinomial Processing Tree Models. *Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 217*(3), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108

Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2020). *Cognitive Psychology: A student's handbook*. Psychology press.

Fitamen, C. (2018). *Développement de la mémoire de travail et aide au maintien du but : Investigation du rôle joué par l'indication du but dans le fonctionnement de la mémoire de travail verbale chez les enfants de 4 à 9 ans Université de Fribourg*. Fribourg, CH.

Fitamen, C., Blaye, A., & Camos, V. (2019a). How goal cue and motor activity modulate working memory performance in preschoolers. *PsyArXiv*. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sr8hd
Fitamen, C., Blaye, A., & Camos, V. (2019b). Preschoolers' working memory benefits from transparent goal cue if children act on it. *Scientific Reports*, 9, 15342. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51869-4

Fitamen, C., Blaye, A., & Camos, V. (2019c). The roal of global cueing in kindergarteners' working memory. *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology*, 187, 104666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104666

Flegal, K. E., Atkins, A. S., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2010). False memories seconds later: The rapid and compelling onset of illusory recognition. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition*, 36(5), 1331-1338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019903

Frankish, C. R. (2014). *Memory for alternating lists: Evidence for, rather than against, chaining models of serial order* Paper presented at the International Conference on Working Memory, Cambridge, UK, 9-11 July,

French, R. M., & Cleeremans, A. (2002). *Implicit learning and consciousness: An empirical, philosophical and computational consensus in the making*. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203989401

Gaillard, V., Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2011). Developmental differences in working memory: Where do they come from? *Journal of Experimental Child Psychology*, 110(3), 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.05.004

Gallo, D. A. (2006). *Associative illusions of memory: False memory research in DRM and related tasks*. New York: Psychology Press.

Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Functional aspects of recollective experience. *Memory & Cognition*, 16(4), 309-313. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197041

Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1991). Forgetting in recognition memory with and without recollective experience. *Memory & Cognition*, 19(6), 617-623. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197157

Gardiner, J. M., & Parkin, A. J. (1990). Attention and recollective experience in recognition memory. *Memory & Cognition*, 18(6), 579-583. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197100

Gathercole, S. E. (1995). The assessment of phonological memory skills in preschool children. *British Journal of Educational Psychology*, 65(2), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01139.x

Gathercole, S. E. (1998). The development of memory. *The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines*, 39(1), 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00301

Gathercole, S. E. (1999). Cognitive approaches to the development of short-term memory. *Trends in Cognitive Science*, 3(11), 410-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01388-1

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Phonological working memory: A critical building block for reading development and vocabulary acquisition? *European Journal of Psychology of Education*, 8(3), 259-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174081

Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2014). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. *Developmental Psychology*, 40(2), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177

Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Hall, M., & Peaker, S. M. (2001). Dissociable lexical and phonological influences on serial recognition and serial recall. *The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology*, 54(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980042000002