2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Feature binding in perceptual priming and in episodic object recognition: evidence from event-related brain potentials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

11
32
0
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
11
32
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Given that slight nonsemantic manipulations have been found to affect only the parietal but not the early mid-frontal old-new effect (Curran, 2000;Curran & Cleary, 2003), a semantic-matching account of familiarity seems straightforward at first. Our results indicate, however, that perceptual manipulations can indeed affect familiarity and the FN400 effect, depending on the characteristics of the task-for example, the stimulus material used (Groh-Bordin et al, 2005; see also Curran & Dien, 2003;Curran, Tanaka, & Weiskopf, 2002;Friedman et al, 2005). We thus agree with the recent notion of Curran, Tepe, and Piatt (2006) that familiarity can be sensitive to both perceptual and conceptual dimensions of similarity.…”
Section: Intrinsic Feature Manipulationsupporting
confidence: 78%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Given that slight nonsemantic manipulations have been found to affect only the parietal but not the early mid-frontal old-new effect (Curran, 2000;Curran & Cleary, 2003), a semantic-matching account of familiarity seems straightforward at first. Our results indicate, however, that perceptual manipulations can indeed affect familiarity and the FN400 effect, depending on the characteristics of the task-for example, the stimulus material used (Groh-Bordin et al, 2005; see also Curran & Dien, 2003;Curran, Tanaka, & Weiskopf, 2002;Friedman et al, 2005). We thus agree with the recent notion of Curran, Tepe, and Piatt (2006) that familiarity can be sensitive to both perceptual and conceptual dimensions of similarity.…”
Section: Intrinsic Feature Manipulationsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…However, if the mismatch is substantial and memory access relies on a considerable degree of perceptual processing, familiarity is not purely semantic, but also perceptually specific. Also, note that the effect of a purely perceptual manipulation speaks against the view of the FN400 effect as an index of conceptual priming, as has been proposed by Paller (Voss & Paller, 2006;Yovel & Paller, 2004; see also Curran et al, 2002;Groh-Bordin et al, 2006;Groh-Bordin et al, 2005).…”
Section: Intrinsic Feature Manipulationmentioning
confidence: 78%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Conceptual fluency may have occurred during memory testing because the concepts activated by the materials were repeated. In addition, manipulations such as perceptual change and depth of encoding likely exert the same influence on familiarity and conceptual priming (Groh-Bordin et al, 2005;Paller and Kutas, 1992;Rugg et al, 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%