The Electrophysiological Signature of Remember–Know Is Confounded with Memory Strength and Cannot Be Interpreted as Evidence for Dual-process Theory of Recognition

Abstract

The quantity and nature of the processes underlying recognition memory remains an open question. A majority of behavioral, neuropsychological, and brain studies have suggested that recognition memory is supported by two dissociable processes: recollection and familiarity. It has been conversely argued, however, that recollection and familiarity map onto a single continuum of mnemonic strength and hence that recognition memory is mediated by a single process. Previous electrophysiological studies found marked dissociations between recollection and familiarity, which have been widely held as corroborating the dual-process account. However, it remains unknown whether a strength interpretation can likewise apply for these findings. Here we describe an ERP study, using a modified remember-know (RK) procedure, which allowed us to control for mnemonic strength. We find that ERPs of high and low mnemonic strength mimicked the electrophysiological distinction between R and K responses, in a lateral positive component (LPC), 500-1000 msec poststimulus onset. Critically, when contrasting strength with RK experience, by comparing weak R to strong K responses, the electrophysiological signal mapped onto strength, not onto subjective RK experience. Invoking the LPC as support for dual-process accounts may, therefore, be amiss.

Age differences in the neural correlates of the specificity of recollection: An event-related potential study

“…'strength-like' memory signal, rather than by two qualitatively distinct signals. This single-process perspective motivated a recent ERP study by Brezis et al (2017). In this study, ERPs were obtained during a memory test in which participants first assigned a confidence rating to an old/new judgment, and subsequently made an R/K/guess judgment for items judged as old.…”

“…There are however reasons to question this interpretation. Notably, due to limited trial numbers, ERPs elicited by correct rejections were not available as a 'baseline' condition in the study of Brezis et al (2017). Thus it is unclear whether either critical class of test items -i.e., items that were 'weakly' remembered or 'strongly' familiar -actually elicited a reliable left parietal effect.…”

Rhythmic Temporal Structure at Encoding Enhances Recognition Memory

“…A number of studies have associated the FN400 old/new effect with the process of familiarity (Curran, 2000;Curran & Cleary, 2003;Curran & Doyle, 2011;Duarte et al, 2004;Düzel et al, 1997;Ecker et al, 2007;Groh-Bordin et al, 2006;Rugg & Curran, 2007;Smith, 1993, but see Olichney et al, 2000Tsivilis et al, 2001) and the LPC with recollection (Allan, Wilding, & Rugg, 1998;Curran, 1999Curran, , 2000Curran & Cleary, 2003;Griffin et al, 2013;Duarte et al, 2004;Rugg & Curran 2007;Woodruff et al, 2006, but see Finnigan et al, 2002. Alternatively, these two memory specific components may reflect differences in the strength of the encoded representation (e.g., Brezis et al, 2017). For example, deeper processing (e.g., conceptual rather than perceptual) has been associated with increased LPC old/new effect, whilst the FN400 has shown to be unaffected by depth of processing .…”

Episodic memory is emotionally laden memory, requiring amygdala involvement

“…State-trace analysis evaluates the number of latent variables that are required to explain performance across multiple dependent variables. State-trace analysis in recognition memory consistently refutes dual-process theory, as it has not revealed evidence for more than one latent variable in remember-know responses (Dunn 2008), item recognition and source memory across development (Hayes et al 2017), and event-related potentials (Brezis et al 2017;Freeman et al 2010).…”