Separating the FN400 and N400 potentials across recognition memory experiments

Abstract

There is a growing debate as to whether frontally distributed FN400 potentials reflect familiarity-based recognition or are functionally identical to centro-parietal N400 reflecting semantic processing. We conducted two experiments in which event-related potentials (ERPs) associated with semantic priming and recognition were recorded, either when priming was embedded within a recognition test (Experiment 1), or when these two phases were separated (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, we observed 300–500 ms differences between primed and unprimed old words as well as differences between old and new primed words, but these two effects did not differ topographically and both showed midline central maxima. In Experiment 2, the N400 for priming was recorded exclusively during encoding and again showed a midline central distribution. The ERP component of recognition was only found for unrelated words (not primed previously during encoding), and also showed a midline central maximum, but, in addition, was present in the left frontal area of the scalp. Conversely, the priming effect was absent in the left frontal cluster. This pattern of results indicate that FN400 and N400 potentials share similar neural generators; but when priming and recognition are not confounded, these potentials do not entirely overlap in terms of topographical distribution and presumably reflect functionally distinct processes.

An ERP study of recognition memory for concrete and abstract pictures in school-aged children

“…It has been proposed that the FN400 repetition effect reflects semantic/conceptual priming effects that cannot be distinguished from the language-related N400 component, raising questions about the interpretation that this ERP component reflects ‘familiarity’ (Voss et al, 2010a; Voss et al, 2011; Strozak et al, 2016). In our study, however, the effect of abstract designs on the FN400 component was comparable in amplitude to that elicited by concrete, meaningful pictures, although topographic differences indicate at least partly different neural sources.…”

FN400 and LPC memory effects for concrete and abstract words

“…Our strategy for ERP analysis was similar to that of previous study in which FN400 and N400 components were recorded (Stróżak, Abedzadeh, & Curran, 2016). We analyzed ERP data from twelve electrode clusters: LF (left frontal), MF (midline frontal), RF (right frontal), LC (left central), MC (midline central), RC (right central), LP (left parietal), MP (midline parietal), RP (right parietal), LO (left occipital), MO (midline occipital), and RO (right occipital).…”

Recallable but not Recognizable: The Influence of Semantic Priming in Recall Paradigms

“…These time windows and electrode sites were selected a priori based on other studies of familiarity and recollection that identify time windows of 300-500 ms and 600-800 ms, respectively for each (Addante, Ranganath, Olichney, et al, 2012;Leynes, Landau, Walker, & Addante, 2005;Rugg & Curran, 2007). Implicit memory effects were assessed by creating a posterior electrode cluster of parietal and occipital electrodes during the 300-500 ms time window, consistent with the characterization of implicit memory effects in prior studies (Addante, 2015;Bader & Mecklinger, 2017;Bridger et al, 2012;Li, Mao et al, 2017;Li, Taylor, et al, 2017;Mecklinger et al, 2012;Strozak, Abedzadeh, & Curran, 2016;Voss et al, 2012;Voss & Paller, 2007, 2017Yu & Rugg, 2010). Direct contrasts were assessed using corrected t-tests to assess differences between memory conditions.…”