Brain Potentials Reflect Behavioral Differences in True and False Recognition

Abstract

Abstract& People often falsely recognize nonstudied lures that are semantically similar to previously studied words. Behavioral research suggests that such false recognition is based on high semantic overlap between studied items and lures that yield a feeling of familiarity, whereas true recognition is more often associated with the recollection of details. Despite this behavioral evidence for differences between true and false recognition, research measuring brain activity (PET, fMRI, ERP) has not clearly differentiated corresponding differences in brain activity. A median split was used to separate subjects into Good and Poor performers based on their discrimination of studied targets from similar lures. Only Good performers showed late (1000±1500 msec), right frontal event-related brain potentials (ERPs) that were more positive for targets and lures compared with new items. The right frontal differences are interpreted as reflecting postretrieval evaluation processes that were more likely to be engaged by Good than Poor performers. Both Good and Poor performers showed a parietal ERP old/new effect (400±800 msec), but only Poor performers showed a parietal old/lure difference. These results are consistent with the view that the parietal and frontal ERP old/new effects reflect dissociable processes related to recollection. &

The worth of pictures: Using high density event-related potentials to understand the memorial power of pictures and the dynamics of recognition memory

“…However, items that are more familiar for a variety of reasons show earlier and/ or stronger activity than less familiar items, including in our study perceptual matching, consistent with Schloerscheidt and Rugg (2004). In addition to prior study, greater familiarity may be related to greater confidence (Woodruff et al, 2006), greater gist memory (Curran et al, 2001;Duzel et al, 1997;Goldmann et al, 2003), and greater fluency (Wolk et al, 2004(Wolk et al, , 2005. (It should also be noted that some researchers view this 300 to 500 ms modulation of activity as related to conceptual priming, rather than familiarity (Voss & Paller, 2006).…”

Differentiating location- and distance-based processes in memory for time: An ERP study

“…Indeed, some ERP research has suggested that late frontal ERP old/new effects are related to recollection (e.g., Allan et al, 1998;Curran et al, 2001). Relating frontal activity to both source memory (as was noted above) and recollection is consistent with Jacoby's (1991) process dissociation procedure that assumes source memory to be diagnostic of recollection (Buchner, Erdfelder, Steffens, & Martensen, 1997;Mulligan & Hirshman, 1997;Steffens, Buchner, Martensen, & Erdfelder, 2000;Yu & Bellezza, 2000).…”

“…Other recent studies specifically have tested memory for when in the past an event occurred and found similar frontal ERP effects (Tendolkar & Rugg, 1998;Trott, R. Friedman, Ritter, Fabiani, & Snodgrass, 1999). Late frontal ERP old/new effects are thought to be related to postretrieval evaluation processes (Allan et al, 1998;Curran, Schacter, Johnson, & Spinks, 2001;Johnson et al, 1996;Ranganath & Paller, 2000;Wilding, 1999;Wilding & Rugg, 1997a, 1997b, and these processes may be important for location-based memory for when an event occurred.…”

Normative study of theme identifiability: Instructions with and without explanation of the false memory effect

“…Third, lists with three critical words contributed to satisfy a compelling methodological need in event-related potential (ERP) DRM research. Commonly, these studies seek to examine the similarities and differences between true and false memories (e.g., Curran, Schacter, Johnson, & Spinks, 2001). Whereas the ERPs for true memories are obtained from averaging trials for studied-item hits, the ERPs for false memories are obtained from averaging critical-word false alarm trials.…”

“…Furthermore, the disparity between the S/N ratios found in true and false memory ERP waveforms make comparisons difficult to interpret (Luck, 2005). Alternative solutions to this problem have been proposed (Curran et al, 2001;Wiese & Daum, 2006), but they have failed to maintain the DRM associative structure in the lists (see Beato & Díez, 2011, for a discussion of this alternative). Thus, three-critical-word DRM lists, the materials employed in this study, seem to constitute adequate materials to study (1)how error-editing processes are involved in false memories, (2)how error-inflating processes have an impact on false memory, and (3)false-memory ERP waveforms.…”