The present study investigated the role of working memory capacity (WMC) in the control of recollection in young and older adults. We used electroencephalographic event-related potentials (ERPs) to examine the effects of age and of individual differences in WMC on the ability to prioritize recollection according to current goals. Targets in a recognition exclusion task were words encoded using two alternative decisions. The left parietal ERP old/new effect was used as an electrophysiological index of recollection, and the selectivity of recollection measured in terms of the difference in its magnitude according to whether recognized items were targets or non-targets. Young adults with higher WMC showed greater recollection selectivity than those with lower WMC, while older adults showed nonselective recollection which did not vary with WMC. The data suggest that aging impairs the ability to engage cognitive control effectively to prioritize what will be recollected.
A longstanding question in memory research is whether recognition is supported by more than one mnemonic process. Dual-process models distinguish recollection of episodic detail from familiarity, while single-process models explain recognition in terms of one process that varies in strength. Dual process models have drawn support from findings that recollection and familiarity elicit distinct electroencephalographic event-related potentials (ERPs): a mid-frontal ERP effect that occurs at around 300–500 ms post-stimulus onset and is often larger for familiarity than recollection contrasts, and a parietal ERP effect that occurs at around 500–800 ms and is larger for recollection than familiarity contrasts. We sought to adjudicate between dual- and single-process models by investigating whether the dissociation between these two ERP effects is reliable over studies. We extracted effect sizes from 41 experiments that had used Remember-Know, source memory, and associative memory paradigms (1,000 participants). Meta-analysis revealed a strong interaction between ERP effect and mnemonic process of the form predicted by dual-process models. Although neither ERP effect was significantly process-selective taken alone, a moderator analysis revealed a larger mid-frontal effect for familiarity than recollection contrasts in studies using the Remember-Know paradigm. Mega-analysis of raw data from six studies further showed significant process-selectivity for both mid-frontal and parietal ERPs in the predicted time windows. On balance, the findings favor dual- over single-process theories of recognition memory, but point to a need to promote sharing of raw data.
A longstanding question in memory research is whether recognition is supported by more than one mnemonic process. Dual process models distinguish recollection of episodic detail from familiarity, while single process models explain recognition in terms of a process that varies in strength. Dual process models have drawn support from findings that recollection and familiarity elicit distinct electroencephalographic event-related potentials (ERPs): a mid-frontal effect that occurs at around 300-500 ms post-stimulus onset and is often larger for familiarity than recollection contrasts, and a parietal ERP effect that occurs at around 500-800 ms and is larger for recollection than familiarity contrasts. We sought to adjudicate between dual and single process models by investigating whether the dissociation between these two ERP effects is reliable over studies. We extracted effect sizes from 41 experiments that had used Remember-Know, source memory, and associative memory paradigms (1000 participants). Meta-analysis revealed a strong interaction between ERP effect and mnemonic process of the form predicted by dual process models, although neither ERP effect was significantly process-selective taken alone. Mega-analysis of raw data from 6 studies further showed significant process-selectivity for both mid-frontal and parietal ERPs in the predicted time windows. The findings favor dual over single process theories of recognition memory but point to a need to promote sharing of raw data.
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.