36The question of how memory traces interfere with one another is one of the most fundamental and controversial topics in memory research. There is widespread agreement among memory theorists that interference is a major determinant of forgetting, but there is disagreement regarding the mechanisms of interference (see Anderson, 2003, andMensink &Raaijmakers, 1988, for contrasting perspectives on this issue) and the circumstances in which interference effects will be obtained.This theoretical controversy has been fed by conflicting empirical results. For example, Ratcliff, Clark, and Shiffrin (1990) examined how list strength manipulations affect recognition memory: Is there a cost associated with memory strengthening, whereby strengthening memory for some list items impairs recognition of other (nonstrengthened) list items? Ratcliff et al. found that increasing list strength had no effect on the recognition of nonstrengthened items (i.e., participants' ability to discriminate between nonstrengthened items and lures was unimpaired). This finding has been replicated several times (see Norman, 2002, for a review). However, more recently, Norman (2002) showed that it is possible to observe a list strength effect (LSE) for recognition sensitivity in certain circumstances (e.g., when participants have to discriminate between studied words and switchedplurality distractors; Curran, 2000).Computational models provide one possible approach toward reconciling these empirical conflicts. One such model is the complementary learning systems (CLS) neural network model of recognition memory, developed by Norman and O'Reilly (2003). This model presents a dual-process account of the LSE, whereby list strength manipulations should adversely affect recognition discrimination based on recollection of specific details (e.g., word plurality), but not discrimination based on nonspecific feelings of familiarity (for a related model, see Diana & Reder, 2005). The CLS model predicts a null LSE for familiarity-based discrimination because increasing list strength reduces the familiarity of both (nonstrengthened) studied items and lures; as such, the difference between studied item and lure familiarity does not change. There is an LSE for recollection-based discrimination because increasing list strength reduces studied item recollection and lure recollection is at floor (so the difference between studied item and lure recollection decreases).The goal of the present study was to use event-related potentials (ERPs) to obtain converging evidence for the CLS model's predictions regarding interference effects on familiarity and recollection. In prior work, Curran (2000) and others have isolated two ERP effects-the FN400 old-new effect and the parietal old-new effect-that appear to index familiarity and recollection, respectively (for reviews, see Curran, Tepe, & Piatt, 2006;Mecklinger, 2000;Rugg & Curran, 2007;Wilding & Sharpe, 2003; for an alternative account of the FN400, see Paller, Voss, & Boehm, 2007 The question of interference (how new ...
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.