The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.100
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recognition memory for one-trial-unitized word pairs: Evidence from event-related potentials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

25
133
7
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(168 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
25
133
7
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Whether this is due to an effect on particular encoding mechanisms (e.g., of self-referential encoding), or to generalised arousal or attentional effects is unclear at the present time. Alternative explanations in terms of memory mechanisms may be viable, however-for example, in terms of the "familiarity" process invoked within dualprocess models of recognition (e.g., Yonelinas, 2002) or in terms of the fast unitisation of voice/object information (e.g., Bader, Mecklinger, Hoppstadter, & Meyer, 2010). Our present findings do not allow us to distinguish between these various accounts, and this is a line of research that we are actively pursuing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Whether this is due to an effect on particular encoding mechanisms (e.g., of self-referential encoding), or to generalised arousal or attentional effects is unclear at the present time. Alternative explanations in terms of memory mechanisms may be viable, however-for example, in terms of the "familiarity" process invoked within dualprocess models of recognition (e.g., Yonelinas, 2002) or in terms of the fast unitisation of voice/object information (e.g., Bader, Mecklinger, Hoppstadter, & Meyer, 2010). Our present findings do not allow us to distinguish between these various accounts, and this is a line of research that we are actively pursuing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…As indicated by the results from two ERP studies from our laboratory, investigating the retrieval of such type of novel compounds (Bader, Mecklinger, Hoppstädter, & Meyer, 2010;Wiegand, Bader, & Mecklinger, 2010), familiarity for novel conceptual units and single items is associated with different ERP signatures. Thus, the aim of the current study was two-fold.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For example, Yonelinas et al (1999) demonstrated greater familiarity for recognition of upright compared with inverted faces under the logic that upright faces can be treated as a unitized whole, whereas inverted faces must be processed as individual components (Searcy & Bartlett, 1996). Unitization effects have also been demonstrated in studies using ERPs to index familiarity and recollection, for example, with word pairs related by preexisting associations (e.g., traffic-jam; Rhodes & Donaldson, 2007 and unrelated word pairs joined through invented definitions (e.g., smoke-apple: a fruit maturing above flames; Bader et al, 2010). Consistent with this, the benefit of unitization has also been shown in amnesic patients who exhibit severely impaired recollection with relatively preserved familiarity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of particular interest here is the claim that familiarity may be able to contribute to associative recognition under conditions where multiple items have been processed in a "unitized" manner (e.g., Diana, den Boom, Yonelinas, & Ranganath, 2011;Bader, Mecklinger, Hoppstädter, & Meyer, 2010;Rhodes & Donaldson, 2007Quamme, Yonelinas, & Norman, 2007;Yonelinas, Kroll, Dobbins, & Soltani, 1999). Unitization occurs when previously separate items are encoded as a single coherent component (cf.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%