A meta-analysis of event-related potential correlates of recognition memory

Abstract

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.

Shared neural codes of recognition memory

“…The fact that face-specific components, such as the N250, have also been described for familiar objects trained for expertise, as well as for personally familiar and newly learned objects 47 – 49 further complicates the picture. Due to the considerable differences in the timing and topographical distribution across studies using different stimulus types and experimental paradigms 8 , 19 , the relationship between these effects remains unclear.…”

“…These effects have been studied extensively in the context of familiarity and recollection 2 – 4 , and have been observed across a range of sensory domains and stimulus types 5 , 6 . While the similarity and distinctiveness of these electrophysiological signals, and the underlying processes that they reflect, have received attention 7 , 8 , there have been few attempts to determine whether these findings can be generalized across experiments.…”

“…The interpretation and synthesis of existing findings on the neural basis of recognition memory are limited by the considerable differences in timing and topographical distribution across studies. This means that signals related to memory processes that do not conform to the canonical configurations described above may be overlooked 8 , 19 . Additionally, the averaged waveforms elicited by the presentation of stimuli are likely to reflect a multitude of temporally overlapping but separate cognitive processes 20 , making it difficult to disentangle the underlying neural mechanisms 21 .…”