Observing memory encoding while it unfolds: Functional interpretation and current debates regarding ERP subsequent memory effects

Mecklinger, Axel; Kamp, Siri-Maria

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105347

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 150 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Existing research has indicated various ERPs results for natural semantic memory retrieval such as 200 ms (Irak, et al, 2020), 300 ms (Paynter et al, 2009), and 400 ms (Undorf et al, 2020). This study specified that the ERPs of semantic memory retrieval in creative processes was around 300 ms (Mecklinger & Kamp, 2023). In addition, from the ERPs results of this study, it can be found that the evoking time of episodic memory retrieval in creative processes was 2320 ms.…”

Section: Event Related Potential Resultsmentioning

confidence: 49%

An EEG study to understand semantic and episodic memory retrieval in creative processes

Yin,

Childs

2024

Proc. Des. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to identify and compare the EEG activities associated with semantic and episodic memory retrieval during creative processes. Episodic and semantic memory induction studies were conducted and EEG was used to collect data. The results showed that (i) Episodic and semantic memory retrieval are related to the frontal lobe area; (ii) Semantic memory retrieval is evoked more swiftly compared with episodic memory retrieval (ii) Prior to episodic memory retrieval, semantic memory retrieval is evoked first.

show abstract

Section: Event Related Potential Resultsmentioning

confidence: 49%

An EEG study to understand semantic and episodic memory retrieval in creative processes

Yin,

Childs

2024

Proc. Des. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a similar vein, German and Chinese participants might have differed in the perceived distinctiveness or visual saliency of the foreground object. Distinctiveness and saliency are known to affect memory-related processes (e.g., Fine and Minnery, 2009 ; Santangelo, 2015 ; Santangelo et al, 2015 ; Weigl et al, 2020 ; see also Mecklinger and Kamp, 2023 , for a review). Since such cultural differences in saliency should have led to differences in memory, it seems highly unlikely that our findings are the result of differentially perceived distinctiveness or saliency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not so different after all? An event-related potential study on item and source memory for object-scene pairs in German and Chinese young adults

Weigl,

Shao,

Wang

et al. 2023

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, several cross-cultural studies reported that Westerners focus more on central aspects of a scene (e.g., an object) relative to peripheral aspects (e.g., the background), whereas Easterners more evenly allocate attention to central and peripheral aspects. In memory tasks, Easterners exhibit worse recognition for the central object when peripheral aspects are changed, whereas Westerners are less affected by peripheral changes. However, most of these studies rely on hit rates without correcting for response bias, whereas studies accounting for response bias failed to replicate cultural differences in memory tasks. In this event-related potential (ERP) study, we investigated item and source memory for semantically unrelated object-scene pairs in German and Chinese young adults using memory measures corrected for response bias (i.e., the discrimination index Pr). Both groups completed study-test cycles with either item memory tests or source memory tests. In item memory blocks, participants completed an old/new recognition test for the central object. Source memory blocks entailed an associative recognition test for the association between object and background. Item and source memory were better for intact than for recombined pairs. However, as verified with frequentist and Bayesian analyzes, this context effect was not modulated by culture. The ERP results revealed an old/new effect for the item memory task in both groups which was again not modulated by culture. Our findings suggest that cultural differences in young adults do not manifest in intentional memory tasks probing memory for object-scene pairs without semantic relations when using bias-corrected memory measures.

show abstract

“…To address this question, we used the memory test results to investigate subsequent memory effects (SMEs), for which the ERPs are sorted according to whether the answers are later remembered or forgotten. In general, subsequently remembered items should show a more positive ERP amplitude during encoding than those that have been forgotten (for review see Mecklinger & Kamp, 2023; Cohen et al, 2015). Accordingly, we predicted more positive amplitudes for remembered answers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Curiosity satisfaction increases event-related potentials sensitive to reward

Rueterbories,

Mecklinger,

Eschmann

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful learning depends on various factors such as depth of processing, motivation, or curiosity about information. A strong drive to learn something or the expectation of receiving a reward can be crucial to enhance learning. However, the influence of curiosity on the processing of information-related feedback and its similarity with reward processing is not well understood. This study examined whether states of curiosity influence specific event-related-potentials (ERPs) associated with reward processing and whether these ERPs are related with later memory benefits. In an initial screening phase, participants indicated their curiosity and confidence about answers to various trivia questions. In a subsequent study phase, we targeted different time windows related to feedback processing during the presentation of trivia answers containing the Reward-Positivity (RewP; 250 - 350 ms), the P3 (250 - 500 ms), and the Late-Positive-Potential (LPP; 600 - 1000 ms). In a delayed surprise memory test, we found that participants recalled more high-than low-curiosity answers. The RewP, P3 and LPP showed greater positive mean amplitudes for high compared to low curiosity, reflecting increased feedback processing. In addition, we found that the RewP and the P3 showed more positive mean amplitudes for later recalled compared to later forgotten answers, but curiosity did not modulate this encoding-related finding. These findings support the view that curiosity can act as an amplifier of reward-related feedback processing and opens the investigation of further curiosity-related ERP studies.

show abstract

Observing memory encoding while it unfolds: Functional interpretation and current debates regarding ERP subsequent memory effects

Cited by 10 publications

References 150 publications

An EEG study to understand semantic and episodic memory retrieval in creative processes

An EEG study to understand semantic and episodic memory retrieval in creative processes

Not so different after all? An event-related potential study on item and source memory for object-scene pairs in German and Chinese young adults

Curiosity satisfaction increases event-related potentials sensitive to reward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About