A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments.

Wixted, John T.; Mickes, Laura

doi:10.1037/a0020874

Cited by 341 publications

(355 citation statements)

References 111 publications

(186 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

327

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants were instructed to use the entire scale. For words declared old (ratings of [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], participants also judged whether the word was recollected, was familiar, or was a guess, following a Remember-KnowGuess procedure (9,26). The modified instructions emphasized that participants should use the R response only if they could actually describe specific details about the experience of studying the word.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired capacity for familiarity after hippocampal damage

Song¹,

Wixted

Hopkins

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition memory is thought to consist of two components: recollection and familiarity. Whereas it is widely agreed that the hippocampus supports recollection (remembering the episode in which an item was learned), there is uncertainty about whether it also supports familiarity (simply knowing that an item was encountered but without remembering the learning episode). We tested a counterintuitive prediction that follows from the idea that the hippocampus selectively supports recollection. Patients with hippocampal lesions should have strong experiences of familiarity as often as controls do; however, unlike controls, these experiences should not be accompanied by recollection. Accordingly, with methods that allow participants to report whether they remember an item as encountered previously or whether they simply know it is familiar, patients should express strong familiarity (in the absence of recollection) more often than controls. We indexed strong familiarity and recollection for previously studied words by obtaining confidence ratings together with Remember-Know judgments. The result was that patients provided fewer high-confidence Know responses than controls rather than more. Furthermore, the number of Know responses made by patients was substantially less than was predicted if recollection were impaired. This was true regardless of whether the prediction was based on the assumption that recollection and familiarity are independent or dependent processes. These results suggest that hippocampal lesions impair both recollection and familiarity. Unlike many previous studies of these constructs, the prediction (and the result) is independent of any particular theoretical model, and it holds even if Remember-Know judgments are not process-pure indicators of recollection and familiarity.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impaired capacity for familiarity after hippocampal damage

Song¹,

Wixted

Hopkins

et al. 2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, one explanation for the negative correlation between the differences in the activity in these regions and the genetic score is that these frontal activity patterns reflect increased effort or conflict between different options in the case of poorer recognition performance and less effort/conflict in the case of good memory. The negative correlation between the L1CAM interactions genetic score and the differences in activity in the left superior and inferior frontal gyri also may indicate that the reported regions code specifically for familiarity rather than recollection of pictures, as suggested by dual-process models (62,63). However, because of the ceiling effect in our picture recognition data (with less than 4% of previously seen pictures rated as new and more than 80% as recollected), the percentages of correctly recollected pictures were strongly inversely correlated with percentages of previously seen pictures rated as familiar (ρ Spearman = −0.96).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Computational dissection of human episodic memory reveals mental process-specific genetic profiles

Luksys

Fastenrath

Coynel

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Episodic memory performance is the result of distinct mental processes, such as learning, memory maintenance, and emotional modulation of memory strength. Such processes can be effectively dissociated using computational models. Here we performed gene set enrichment analyses of model parameters estimated from the episodic memory performance of 1,765 healthy young adults. We report robust and replicated associations of the amine compound SLC (solute-carrier) transporters gene set with the learning rate, of the collagen formation and transmembrane receptor protein tyrosine kinase activity gene sets with the modulation of memory strength by negative emotional arousal, and of the L1 cell adhesion molecule (L1CAM) interactions gene set with the repetition-based memory improvement. Furthermore, in a large functional MRI sample of 795 subjects we found that the association between L1CAM interactions and memory maintenance revealed large clusters of differences in brain activity in frontal cortical areas. Our findings provide converging evidence that distinct genetic profiles underlie specific mental processes of human episodic memory. They also provide empirical support to previous theoretical and neurobiological studies linking specific neuromodulators to the learning rate and linking neural cell adhesion molecules to memory maintenance. Furthermore, our study suggests additional memory-related genetic pathways, which may contribute to a better understanding of the neurobiology of human memory.learning and memory | computational model | gene set enrichment analysis | functional neuroimaging | frontal lobe H uman memory is a highly heritable and complex trait that is the outcome of numerous neurocognitive processes (1, 2). Although many genetic variations associated with human memory performance have been identified (3-9), most were based on general memory scores, such as the number of recalled items. Such scores may serve as good correlates of overall memory ability, but they offer little insight into the genetic underpinnings of specific memory-related mental processes, such as encoding, memory maintenance, modulation by emotional arousal, or guessing strategies. Importantly, neurobiological and molecular profiles of such processes are known to be partly distinct (10-12). Because some of the mental processes involved in memory are not readily amenable to direct observation, computational modeling can be used to make inferences about them (13,14). Modelbased analyses provided insights into neurocomputational mechanisms of reward-based learning and decision making (15-17), related model parameters such as the learning rate to genetic polymorphisms (18,19), and provided a computational explanation for the inverted-U-shaped relation between stress intensity and behavioral performance (20). As a relatively recent development, the model-based analysis approach has largely been missing from studies of human episodic memory and genome-wide association studies (GWAS).GWAS already had identified a number of associations betwee...

show abstract

“…According to these models, the distinction between recollection and familiarity is that they capture varying degrees of a single continuum of memory strength instead of reflecting qualitatively different memory processes (Squire, Wixted, & Clark, 2007;Wais, Squire, & Wixted, 2010;Wixted, 2007). Moreover, another recent model has proposed that recollection and familiarity are computationally distinct, but the two memory signals are combined to form a unitary "aggregated" memory strength upon which any memory judgments are based (Mickes, Wais, & Wixted, 2009;Wixted & Mickes, 2010). The key difference between this model and standard dualprocess models is that it assumes that, like familiarity, recollection is a continuous rather than a discontinuous (threshold) process.…”

Section: Theories Of Recollection and Familiaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These procedures permit direct comparisons of the retrieval-related activity elicited by different classes of recollected items. Therefore, it is possible to investigate whether hippocampal activity is modulated by the retrieval of contextual information (irrespective of the amount of contextual information; Yonelinas, 2002), co-varies with the amount of contextual information recollected (Vilberg & Rugg, 2007;see also, Mickes et al, 2009;Wixted & Mickes, 2010), or is sensitive to the item memory strength (Squire et al, 2007;Wais et al, 2010;Wixted, 2007) within a single experiment.…”

Section: Experimental Procedures For Fmri Studies Of Recollection Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recollection of Episodic Memory and the Hippocampus: Evidence From Fmri

Suzuki

2012

PSYCHOLOGIA -An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognition memory is thought to be supported by two processes: the recollection of contextual information and an acontextual sense of familiarity from a previously experienced episode. There has been considerable interest in whether the hippocampus selectively supports recollection or whether the hippocampus contributes to both recollection and familiarity when memories are strong. Here, I briefly review results from event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies investigating the relationship between retrieval-related hippocampal activity and the recollection of contextual (source) information. On the basis of these findings, I argue that retrieval-related activity in the hippocampus is not modulated by differences in the undifferentiated memory strength elicited by test items. Instead, hippocampal activity is more likely to be sensitive to recollection success or to the amount of contextual information that is recollected in response to a test item.Key words: context memory, item memory, familiarity, memory strength, medial temporal lobeEpisodic memory is a neurocognitive system that enables individuals to consciously remember specific events and recall what happened where and when (Tulving, 1985a). It enables us to re-experience our past, live in the present, and imagine the future. As we all have experienced, memories of some events are more vivid and carry more detailed information than memories of other events. The difference between these memories is easily explained through the example of seeing a person at a party whom we have met previously. Sometimes we can easily remember contextual information about the person, such as his or her name or when and where we first met the person (i.e., recollection). On other occasions, however, despite recognizing the person as familiar, we are unable to recollect any contextual information about the person (i.e., familiarity). Such experiences suggest that recognition memory can be based on recollection and/or familiarity. Recollection involves the retrieval of specific details or information about a previously experienced episode, such as when or where an event occurred, whereas familiarity refers to an acontextual sense of awareness that an event has been experienced before in the

show abstract

A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments.

Cited by 341 publications

References 111 publications

Impaired capacity for familiarity after hippocampal damage

Impaired capacity for familiarity after hippocampal damage

Computational dissection of human episodic memory reveals mental process-specific genetic profiles

Recollection of Episodic Memory and the Hippocampus: Evidence From Fmri

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About