From fluency to recognition decisions: A broader view of familiarity-based remembering

Mecklinger, Axel; Bader, Regine

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107527

Cited by 45 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FN400 old/new effect, which is used to index the familiarity process, is similar in timing and morphology to N400, a correlate related to conceptual priming ( Voss and Paller, 2009 ; Voss et al, 2010 , 2012 ; Kutas and Federmeier, 2011 ; Pergola et al, 2014 ). However, previous studies have shown that these two ERP components can be distinguished based on their topography: FN400 has a frontal maximum in the 300–500 ms time window, while N400 has a centro-parietal maximum in the 300–500 ms time window ( Bridger et al, 2012 ; Bader and Mecklinger, 2017 ; Küper and Zimmer, 2018 ; Mecklinger and Bader, 2020 ). The present study found that in the 300–500 ms time window, the difference in amplitude between the old and new items was significantly greater in the frontal region than in the parietal region, which is consistent with the distribution characteristics of FN400, indicating that the old/new effect of 300–500 ms in this study reflects the familiarity process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In light of the dual-process theory, recognition retrieval can be divided into two different processes: familiarity and recollection. FN400 in the frontal area reflects familiarity, while LPC in the parietal area reflects recollection ( Curran, 2000 , 2004 ; Rugg and Curran, 2007 ; Schaefer et al, 2011 ; Ozubko and Yonelinas, 2012 ; Pergola and Suchan, 2013 ; Kamp et al, 2016 ; Bader and Mecklinger, 2017 ; Küper and Zimmer, 2018 ; Mecklinger and Bader, 2020 ). The FN400 old/new effect, which is used to index the familiarity process, is similar in timing and morphology to N400, a correlate related to conceptual priming ( Voss and Paller, 2009 ; Voss et al, 2010 , 2012 ; Kutas and Federmeier, 2011 ; Pergola et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By employing the event-related potential (ERP) technique, researchers put forward representative neural correlates to indicate recollection and familiarity, respectively ( Curran, 2000 , 2004 ; Küper and Zimmer, 2018 ; Horne et al, 2020 ). It has been widely accepted that the FN400 (negative ERPs peaked at 300–500 ms post-stimulus onset) old-new effect at the frontal area reflected the familiarity process, that is, the old item elicited more positive ERP component than did the new item, whereas the late positive complex (LPC; positive ERPs peaked at 500–700 ms post-stimulus onset) old-new effect at the parietal area indexed the recollection, that is, the old item elicited larger LPC than did the new item ( Curran, 2000 , 2004 ; Rugg and Curran, 2007 ; Friedman et al, 2010 ; Stróżak et al, 2016b ; Bader and Mecklinger, 2017 ; Li et al, 2017 ; Küper and Zimmer, 2018 ; Mecklinger and Bader, 2020 ). Although FN400 is considered to be similar in timing and morphology to N400, a perception/conceptual priming-related correlate ( Voss and Paller, 2009 ; Meyer et al, 2010 ; Voss et al, 2010 , 2012 ; Kutas and Federmeier, 2011 ; Dew and Cabeza, 2013 ; Hou et al, 2013 ; Pergola et al, 2014 ; Wang et al, 2015 ), most of the previous studies have shown many times that FN400 indicates the familiarity process in recognition memory ( Wang et al, 2012 ; Kamp et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, it is widely believed that there is a functional dissociation between conceptual priming and familiarity, and they each depend on at least partial distinct neural regions ( Johnson et al, 2013 ; Pergola and Suchan, 2013 ; King et al, 2018 ; Bastin et al, 2019 ; Barker and Warburton, 2020 ). Recent studies have suggested that these two components can be dissociated based on the distribution of topography ( Bridger et al, 2012 ; Stróżak et al, 2016a ; Bader and Mecklinger, 2017 ; Mecklinger and Bader, 2020 ). Therefore, in the present study, the two old/new effects of FN400 and LPC were adopted as the electrophysiological indicator of familiarity and recollection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Part-List Cues Hinder Familiarity but Not Recollection in Item Recognition: Behavioral and Event-Related Potential Evidence

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants’ memory performance is normally poorer when a subset of previously learned items is provided as retrieval cues than none of the retrieval cues is provided. This phenomenon is called the part-list cuing effect, which has been discovered in numerous behavioral studies. However, there is currently no relevant behavioral or event-related potential (ERP) research to investigate whether the forgetting effect caused by part-list cues is more sensitive to recollection or to familiarity. By combining the part-list cuing paradigm with the Remember/Know procedure, we investigated this issue in the present ERP study. Behavioral data showed part-list cuing induced detrimental effect in two aspects: significantly lowered familiarity of the target items and decreased memory discrimination score ( P r score) for “Know” but not for “Remember” items in the part-list cue condition than in the no-part-list cue condition. ERP data revealed that the FN400 old/new effects, which are associated with familiarity, were absent when providing part-list cues, whereas the late positive complex (LPC) old/new effects, which are associated with recollection, were observed comparably in both part-list cue and no-part-list cue conditions. Converging behavioral and ERP results suggested that part-list cues hindered familiarity-based retrieval but not recollection-based retrieval of item recognition. Theoretical implications of the findings for the part-list cuing effect are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Part-List Cues Hinder Familiarity but Not Recollection in Item Recognition: Behavioral and Event-Related Potential Evidence

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Addante, Ranganath, & Yonelinas, 2012; Curran, 2000; Friedman, 2013; P. A. Leynes, Bruett, Krizan, & Veloso, 2017; Mecklinger & Bader, 2020; Mecklinger, 2006, 2010; Muller et al, 2020; M. D. Rugg & Curran, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recollection is more than retrieving context or source memory: evidence from ERPs of Recognition and Source Memory combinations

Addante

Muller

Sirianni

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to investigate a relatively unstudied memory condition for paradoxical combinations of item + source memory confidence responses, which challenged the conventional views of the memory processes supporting item and source memory judgments. We studied instances in which people provided accurate source memory judgments (conventionally ascribed as representing recollection) after having first produced low-confidence item recognition hits for the same items (conventionally thought to reflect familiarity-based processing). This paradoxical combination does not fit traditional accounts of being recollection (because it had low-confidence recognition) nor accounts of familiarity (since it had accurate source memory), and event-related potentials (ERPs) were used to adjudicate which processes support these kinds of memories. ERP results were unlike the conventional ERP effects of memory, lacking both an FN400 and the parietal old-new effect (LPC), and instead exhibited a significant negative-going ERP effect occurring later in time (800-1200ms) in central-parietal sites. Behavioral measures of response times revealed a crossover interaction: low confident recognition hits were slower during recognition but faster during source memory when compared to the opposite pattern seen for instances of high confident hits. Results provide a comprehensive characterization of the individual variability of the FN400 and LPC effects of memory, while adding the behavioral and physiological characterization of a late negative-going ERP effect for accurate source memory without recollection. Conclusions indicated that episodic context could be retrieved independently from recollection, while suggesting a role for a process of context familiarity that is independent from item-familiarity.

show abstract

Computational models can distinguish the contribution from different mechanisms to familiarity recognition

Read,

Delhaye,

Sougné

2023

Hippocampus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Familiarity is the strange feeling of knowing that something has already been seen in our past. Over the past decades, several attempts have been made to model familiarity using artificial neural networks. Recently, two learning algorithms successfully reproduced the functioning of the perirhinal cortex, a key structure involved during familiarity: Hebbian and anti‐Hebbian learning. However, performance of these learning rules is very different from one to another thus raising the question of their complementarity. In this work, we designed two distinct computational models that combined Deep Learning and a Hebbian learning rule to reproduce familiarity on natural images, the Hebbian model and the anti‐Hebbian model, respectively. We compared the performance of both models during different simulations to highlight the inner functioning of both learning rules. We showed that the anti‐Hebbian model fits human behavioral data whereas the Hebbian model fails to fit the data under large training set sizes. Besides, we observed that only our Hebbian model is highly sensitive to homogeneity between images. Taken together, we interpreted these results considering the distinction between absolute and relative familiarity. With our framework, we proposed a novel way to distinguish the contribution of these familiarity mechanisms to the overall feeling of familiarity. By viewing them as complementary, our two models allow us to make new testable predictions that could be of interest to shed light on the familiarity phenomenon.

show abstract

From fluency to recognition decisions: A broader view of familiarity-based remembering

Cited by 45 publications

References 122 publications

Part-List Cues Hinder Familiarity but Not Recollection in Item Recognition: Behavioral and Event-Related Potential Evidence

Part-List Cues Hinder Familiarity but Not Recollection in Item Recognition: Behavioral and Event-Related Potential Evidence

Recollection is more than retrieving context or source memory: evidence from ERPs of Recognition and Source Memory combinations

Computational models can distinguish the contribution from different mechanisms to familiarity recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About