Toward a redefinition of implicit memory: Process dissociations following elaborative processing and self-generation.

Toth, Jeffrey P.; Reingold, Eyal M.; Jacoby, Larry L.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.290

Cited by 190 publications

(390 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

343

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, left parietal voltages (500-800 msec) were more positive for deeply studied words than for shallowly studied words (replicating Paller et al, 1995). Assuming that depth of processing influences recollection more than does familiarity (e.g., Toth, Reingold, & Jacoby, 1994), suggested that the left parietal old/new effect indexes recollection, whereas the FN400 old/new effect may be related to familiarity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely hypothesized that separate recollection and familiarity processes contribute to recognition memory, The present research measured event-related brain potentials (ERPs) from 128 head locations to identify patterns of brain activity related to recollection and familiarity, In two experiments, subjects performed a recognition memory task requiring discrimination between previously studied words, similar words that changed plurality between study and test, and new words (following Hintzman & Curran, 1994), The FN400 ERP component (300-500 msec) varied with the familiarity of words (new> studied = similar), The parietal component (400-800 msec) was associated with the recollection of plurality (studied> similar = new). Differences in the timing and spatial topography of the FN400 and parietal effects support the view that familiarity and recollection arise from distinct neurocognitive processes.Dual-process theories of memory posit that recognitionjudgments can be based on two different types of information: familiarity and recollection (Brainerd, Reyna, & Kneer, 1995;Hintzman & Curran, 1994;Jacoby, 1991;Mandler, 1980;Yonelinas, 1994). Familiarity is generally thought to reflect an assessment of the global similarity between studied and tested items (e.g., Clark & Gronlund, 1996;Gillund & Shiffrin, 1984; Hintzrnan, 1988;Humphreys, Bain, & Pike, 1989;Murdock, 1982). Recollection entails the retrieval of specific information about studied items, such as physical attributes (Chalfonte & Johnson, 1996;Hintzman & Caulton, 1997;Hintzman & Curran, 1994), associative/contextual information (Clark, 1992;Clark, Hori, & Callan, 1993;Gronlund & Ratcliff, 1989;Humphreys, 1978;Mandler, 1980;Yonelinas, 1997), or other source-specifying information (Hintzman, Caulton, & Levitin, 1998;Jacoby, 1991;M. K. Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993).Recognition memory research has addressed two major questions regarding dual-process theories. First, does recognition memory truly depend on more than one process? In some cases, single-process theories can' account for results that are commonly interpreted as requiring two processes (w. Donaldson, 1996;Hirshman & Master, 1997;McClelland & Chappell, 1998;Ratcliff, Van Zandt, & McKoon, 1995;Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997 each process? Separating the distinct contributions ofrecollection and familiarity to recognition performance is difficult. Jacoby (1991) developed the process dissociation procedure for this purpose. Others have attempted to differentiate separate phenomenological states by asking subjects to introspectively differentiate "remembering" from "knowing" (reviewed by Gardiner & Java, 1993;Rajaram & Roediger, 1997). Others have used responsesignal, speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) procedures to separate fast familiarity from slower recollection processes (e.g., Hintzman & Caulton, 1997;Hintzman et al., 1998;Hintzman & Curran, 1994;McElree, Dolan, & Jacoby, 1999). The utility of these approaches has been debated elsewhere: process dissociation Graf, 1995;Graf & Komatsu, 1994;Jacob...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If priming processes contribute to performance on nominally explicit tasks (Jacoby et al, 1993;Toth, Reingold & Jacoby, 1994), then priming deficits could explain impaired performance on both the implicit and the explicit tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Modal Priming and Explicit Memory in Patients with Verbal Production Deficits

Curran

Schacter

Galluccio

1999

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit memory is often thought to reflect an influence of past experience on perceptual processes, yet priming effects are found when the perceptual format of stimuli changes between study and test episodes. Such cross-modal priming effects have been hypothesized to depend upon stimulus recoding processes whereby a stimulus presented in one modality is converted to other perceptual formats. The present research examined recoding accounts of cross-modal priming by testing patients with verbal production deficits that presumably impair the conversion of visual words into auditory/phonological forms. The patients showed normal priming in a visual stem completion task following visual study (Experiment 1), but showed impairments following auditory study in both implicit (Experiment 2) and explicit (Experiment 3) stem completion. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that verbal production processes contribute to the recoding of visual stimuli and support cross-modal priming. The results also indicate that shared processes contribute to both explicit memory and cross-modal implicit memory. © 1999 Academic Press Implicit memory occurs when behavior is affected by previous experience without intentional, conscious recollection of that experience (Roediger & McDermott, 1993;Schacter, 1987). Perceptual or data-driven implicit memory tasks are those in which memory is cued by a stimulus that is physically related to the target stimulus. For example, in word-stem completion, participants might study the word TRUCK then their memory would be cued indirectly by asking them to complete three-letter stems including TRU . Per-

show abstract

“…Green, Easton, and LaShell (2001) found different amounts of cross-modal priming for nonverbal materials (e.g., seeing or hearing a baby cry) in the visual and auditory modalities: Visual processing at study produced equal priming on visual and auditory implicit tests, but auditory processSince Jacoby (1983), there has been a substantial body of research in which the generate/read paradigm has been explored with various implicit tasks (for a review, see Roediger & McDermott, 1993; see also Mulligan, 2002). Jacoby's results have been replicated several times with a variety of perceptual priming tasks (e.g., Blaxton, 1989;Masson & MacLeod, 1992;Srinivas & Roediger, 1990;Toth, Reingold, & Jacoby, 1994). Other generation manipulations, in which items are likewise generated from semantic cues, typically produce a similar, reversed generation effect on perceptual implicit tests (and often produce a positive generation effect on conceptual implicit tests; see, e.g., Blaxton, 1989;Cangoz, 2005;Smith & Branscrombe, 1988;Weldon, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%