Three experiments investigated response times (RTs) for remember and know responses in recognition memory. RTs to remember responses were faster than RTs to know responses, regardless of whether the remember-know decision was preceded by an old/new decision (two-step procedure) or was made without a preceding old/new decision (one-step procedure). The finding of faster RTs for R responses was also found when remember-know decisions were made retrospectively. These findings are inconsistent with dual-process models of recognition memory, which predict that recollection is slower and more effortful than familiarity. Word frequency did not influence RTs, but remember responses were faster for words than for nonwords. We argue that the difference in RTs to remember and know responses reflects the time taken to make old/new decisions on the basis of the type of information activated at test.
We report the acquisition and recall of novel facts by Jon, a young adult with early onset developmental amnesia whose episodic memory is gravely impaired due to selective bilateral hippocampal damage. Jon succeeded in learning some novel facts but compared with a control group his intertrial retention was impaired during acquisition and, except for the most frequently repeated facts, he was also less accurate in correctly sourcing these facts to the experiment. The results further support the hypothesis that despite a severely compromised episodic memory and hippocampal system, there is nevertheless the capacity to accrue semantic knowledge available to recall. KeywordsDevelopmental amnesia; Episodic memory; Semantic memory; Hippocampus; Learning There is a great deal of controversy about the role of the hippocampus and its surrounding cortices in relation both to the distinction between episodic and semantic memory and, within episodic memory tests, to recognition compared with recall. There is evidence that, unlike recall, both semantic memory and recognition are relatively preserved in patients with selective hippocampal damage (e.g., Aggleton, Vann, Denby, Dix, Mayes, Roberts & Yonelinas; Baddeley, ). But there is also evidence that both semantic memory and recognition are impaired in such patients (e.g., Manns, Hopkins, Reed, Kitchener, & Squire, 2003;Wixted & Squire, 2004). The evidence is also mixed when considering other patients with more extensive brain damage that includes damage to the hippocampus. For example, Verfaellie, Koseff, and Alexander (2000) described two adult patients, one of whom had extensive medial temporal lobe damage and largely failed to acquire new semantic knowledge, whereas the other, who had more selective damage to the hippocampus, did acquire new semantic knowledge, though not without impairment. And, in another patient with hippocampal damage sustained in adulthood, Holdstock, Mayes, Isaac, Gong, and Roberts (2002) NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript they suggest is hippocampal-dependent, nor the slow acquisition of semantic knowledge, which they suggest is not hippocampal-dependent, was completely normal.The present study investigated the acquisition of semantic knowledge in another patient, Jon (Vargha-Khadem et al., 1997). The presumed cause of Jon's neuropathology is hypoxiaischemia. He was born prematurely at 26 weeks and suffered from severe apnea, requiring incubation as well as positive pressure ventilation. In early adulthood, MRI scans revealed that there was a 50% bilateral reduction in his hippocampus but no apparent damage to the surrounding parahippocampal cortices or to other parts of the brain.Jon's performance is impaired on formal tests of episodic memory, particularly in recall tests, but unimpaired in formal tests of previously acquired semantic memory knowledge (VarghaKhadem et al., 1997). In recognition memory, his performance has been mostly unimpaired but not always (see Baddeley et al., 2001;Gardiner, Br...
Two experiments investigated whether expertise effects in recognition memory could be found for different academic subjects. The roles of subjective experience and repetition on such effects were also explored. Experiment 1 showed that overall recognition memory was greater for familiar than for unfamiliar academic words (the expertise effect). Additionally, this effect was attributable to the subjective experience of remembering rather than knowing. Experiment 2 showed that repetition of stimulus items at study eliminated these expertise effects. Previous research has generally failed to find expertise effects in overall recognition memory. The present findings show that expertise effects do occur in overall recognition memory and are associated with the richer memorial experience of remembering rather than knowing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.