Event-related potential explorations of dual processes in recognition memory

Curran, Tim; Tepe, Katharine Little; Piatt, Carley

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198529675.003.0018

Cited by 55 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This relationship was substantiated by a correlational analysis run across subjects, whereby a behavioral measure of familiarity sensitivity was systematically and selectively related to the magnitude of late parietal old/new ERP differences. As opposed to what might have been predicted based on the hypothesis that frontal ERPs index familiarity (Curran et al 2006), the magnitude of behavioral familiarity was not correlated with frontal ERP differences. In sum, ERPs elicited during this recognition test were found to reflect both explicit memory and conceptual priming in the form of parietal old/new effects and frontal N400 old/new effects, respectively.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…In ERP experiments, recollection has been ubiquitously linked to parietal old/new effects (Senkfor and Van Petten 1998;Friedman and Johnson 2000;Mecklinger 2000;Paller 2000;Rugg and Allan 2000;Cycowicz et al 2001). A large set of experimental reports have attributed frontal N400 old/new effects to familiarity (for recent review, see Curran et al 2006). However, an alternate interpretation supported by the present and other findings (Olichney et al 2000;Yovel and Paller 2004;Voss and Paller 2006) is that frontal N400 old/new effects instead reflect conceptual implicit memory elicited incidentally during episodic memory testing (for review, see Paller et al, in press).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…We used analyses that are standard in the contemporary neuroimaging literature to produce neural correlates of explicit memory, and we observed two ERP effects that are commonly identified: late-onset posterior-maximum positive potentials and early-onset frontal-maximum positive potentials (Friedman and Johnson 2000;Mecklinger 2000;Paller 2000;Rugg and Allan 2000;Curran et al 2006). Indices of stimulus meaningfulness allowed us to then isolate ERP correlates of conceptual priming.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Neural correlates of conceptual implicit memory and their contamination of putative neural correlates of explicit memory

Voss

Paller²

2007

Learn. Mem.

114

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During episodic recognition tests, meaningful stimuli such as words can engender both conscious retrieval (explicit memory) and facilitated access to meaning that is distinct from the awareness of remembering (conceptual implicit memory). Neuroimaging investigations of one type of memory are frequently subject to the confounding influence of the other type of memory, thus posing a serious impediment to theoretical advances in this area. We used minimalist visual shapes (squiggles) to attempt to overcome this problem. Subjective ratings of squiggle meaningfulness varied idiosyncratically, and behavioral indications of conceptual implicit memory were evident only for stimuli given higher ratings. These effects did not result from perceptual-based fluency or from explicit remembering. Distinct event-related brain potentials were associated with conceptual implicit memory and with explicit memory by virtue of contrasts based on meaningfulness ratings and memory judgments, respectively. Frontal potentials from 300 to 500 msec after the onset of repeated squiggles varied systematically with perceived meaningfulness. Explicit memory was held constant in this contrast, so these potentials were taken as neural correlates of conceptual implicit memory. Such potentials can contaminate putative neural correlates of explicit memory, in that they are frequently attributed to the expression of explicit memory known as familiarity. These findings provide the first neural dissociation of these two memory phenomena during recognition testing and underscore the necessity of taking both types of memory into account in order to obtain valid neural correlates of specific memory functions.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neural correlates of conceptual implicit memory and their contamination of putative neural correlates of explicit memory

Voss

Paller²

2007

Learn. Mem.

114

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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 learning affects previously acquired knowledge and vice versa) is a central theoretical issue in episodic memory research, but very few human neuroimaging studies have addressed this question. Here, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to test the predictions of the complementary learning systems (CLS) model regarding how list strength manipulations (strengthening some, but not all, items on a study list) affect recognition memory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Event-related potential correlates of interference effects on recognition memory

Norman

Tepe

Nyhus

et al. 2008

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ...

show abstract

Neurophysiologic evidence for increased retrieval suppression among negative ruminators

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Event-related potential explorations of dual processes in recognition memory

Cited by 55 publications

References 110 publications

Neural correlates of conceptual implicit memory and their contamination of putative neural correlates of explicit memory

Neural correlates of conceptual implicit memory and their contamination of putative neural correlates of explicit memory

Event-related potential correlates of interference effects on recognition memory

Neurophysiologic evidence for increased retrieval suppression among negative ruminators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About