Encoding focus alters diagnostic recollection and event-related potentials (ERPs)

Leynes, P. Andrew; Mok, Brittany A.

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2017.06.011

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This positive-going ERP modulation approximately 500-800 ms after the retrieval cue is well established as an index of recollection as opposed to familiarity in recognition tests, being larger when source memory is successful than unsuccessful, as well as when participants report subjective recollection rather than familiarity (Duzel et al, 1997 ; Rugg & Curran, 2007 ; Wilding et al, 1995 ). It also is larger when more information is recollected (Leynes & Mok, 2017 ) or recollected source information has greater precision (Vilberg & Rugg, 2009 ). When recollection is selective, the left parietal effect is larger for targets than non-targets, and non-target activity may be indistinguishable from new (for meta-analysis see Rosburg & Mecklinger, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cue overlap supports preretrieval selection in episodic memory: ERP evidence

Moccia

Morcom

2021

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often want to recall events of a particular kind, but this selective remembering is not always possible. We contrasted two candidate mechanisms: the overlap between retrieval cues and stored memory traces, and the ease of recollection. In two preregistered experiments (Ns = 28), we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to quantify selection occurring before retrieval and the goal states — retrieval orientations — thought to achieve this selection. Participants viewed object pictures or heard object names, and one of these sources was designated as targets in each memory test. We manipulated cue overlap by probing memory with visual names (Experiment 1) or line drawings (Experiment 2). Results revealed that regardless of which source was targeted, the left parietal ERP effect indexing recollection was selective when test cues overlapped more with the targeted than non-targeted information, despite consistently better memory for pictures. ERPs for unstudied items also were more positive-going when cue overlap was high, suggesting that engagement of retrieval orientations reflected availability of external cues matching the targeted source. The data support the view that selection can act before recollection if there is sufficient overlap between retrieval cues and targeted versus competing memory traces.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cue overlap supports preretrieval selection in episodic memory: ERP evidence

Moccia

Morcom

2021

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, it was not possible to contrast ERP responses elicited by correct versus incorrect source attributions, which should be examined in future studies. This would clarify how valence and self-referential encoding influence source memory recognition in accurate (containing source-specifying features) versus erroneous source decisions (characterized by retrieval attempts containing other features that are not sourcespecifying; Cansino et al, 2012;Cansino & Trejo-Morales, 2008;Leynes & Mok, 2017;Mao et al, 2015). Together with fact that the sample was mainly composed by female participants (see Glaser, Mendrek, Germain, Lakis, & Lavoie, 2012 for an example of sex-related memory variations), these factors limit the generalization of the current findings.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…When considering the parietal old/new effect, typically associated with the recollection of information from the study episode including source features (Addante et al, 2012;Allan & Rugg, 1998;Cansino & Trejo-Morales, 2008;MacLeod & Donaldson, 2017;Peters & Daum, 2009;Trott et al, 1999;Wilding & Rugg, 1997;Woroch & Gonsalves, 2010), the expected advantage for words encoded selfreferentially was not observed. Because the amplitude of the parietal old/new effect is sensitive to variations in the amount of recoverable information from the study episode (Leynes et al, 2005;Leynes & Crawford, 2018;Wilding, 2000;Woroch & Gonsalves, 2010), this result suggests that the amount of information retrieved was likely similar across encoding tasks, regardless of whether it was or not source-specifying (i.e., diagnostic; see Leynes & Crawford, 2018;Leynes & Mok, 2017).…”

Section: Emotion and Self-reference Effects During Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas some studies report a deleterious (Cook, Hicks, & Marsh, 2007;Ferré, Comesaña, & Guasch, 2019, Experiment 2 and 3;MacKenzie, Powell, & Donaldson, 2015;Maddock & Frein, 2009) or a beneficial effect of emotion (Kensinger & Corkin, 2003;, others show no differences between emotional and neutral stimuli on source memory (Ferré et al, 2019, Experiment 1;Gallant, Spaniol, & Yang, 2019;Gallant & Yang, 2014;Koenig & Mecklinger, 2008;Wang & Fu, 2011). These conflicting findings may be accounted for by different factors: the way information is encoded is a relevant candidate to consider (Leynes & Crawford, 2018;Leynes & Mok, 2017). In this regard, self-referential processing has been one of the encoding strategies examined in the context of source memory by testing its influence on features, such as stimulus location and color (Yin, Ma, Xu, & Yang, 2019) and the encoding task itself (Dulas, Newsome, & Duarte, 2011;Durbin, Mitchell, & Johnson, 2017;Hou, Grilli, & Glisky, 2019;Leshikar & Duarte, 2012;Leshikar, Dulas, & Duarte, 2015;Mao, Wang, Wu, & Guo, 2017;Pereira et al, 2019;Zhang, Pan, Li, & Guo, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interactions of Emotion and Self-reference in Source Memory: An ERP Study

Pereira

Sampaio

Pinheiro

2021

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way emotional information is encoded (e.g., deciding whether it is self-related or not) has been found to affect source memory. However, few studies have addressed how the emotional quality and self-referential properties of a stimulus interactively modulate brain responses during stimulus encoding and source memory recognition. In the current study, 22 participants completed five study-test cycles with negative, neutral, and positive words encoded in self-referential versus non-self-referential conditions, while event-related potentials of the electroencephalogram were recorded. An advantage of self-referential processing in source memory performance, reflected in increased recognition accuracy, was shown for neutral and positive words. At the electrophysiological level, self-referential words elicited increased amplitudes in later processing stages during encoding (700-1,200 ms) and were associated with the emergence of old/new effects in the 300-500 ms latency window linked to familiarity effects. In the 500-800 ms latency window, old/new effects emerged for all valence conditions except for negative words studied in the non-self-referential condition. Negative self-referential words also elicited a greater mobilization of post-retrieval monitoring processes, reflected in an enhanced mean amplitude in the 800-1,200 ms latency window. Together, the current findings suggest that valence and self-reference interactively modulate source memory. Specifically, negative self-related information is more likely to interfere with the recollection of source memory features.

show abstract

“…To address this concern, source tasks can be refined by adding a confidence or RK judgment to assess non-criterial as well as source recollection (Yonelinas & Jacoby, 1996). This approach was adopted in 11 of the 20 included studies, although these studies either analyzed ERPs according to RK responses and source memory responses separately, or collapsed data across high and low confidence levels, for example to obtain sufficient trials for ERP analysis (Addante et al, 2012;Cruse, 2010;Cruse & Wilding, 2009Leynes & Crawford, 2018;Leynes & Mok, 2017;Mao et al, 2015;Mollison & Curran, 2012;Woroch & Gonsalves, 2010). Similar limitations apply to the associative memory paradigm, although there were not enough such studies in the present meta-analysis to formally examine differences from the other two paradigms (2 experiments contributed all 4 ERP effect sizes; Bader et al, 2010).…”

Section: (See Supplementary Fig 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of ERP correlates of recollection and familiarity

Morcom¹,

Kwon²,

Rugg³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A longstanding question in memory research is whether recognition is supported by more than one mnemonic process. Dual process models distinguish recollection of episodic detail from familiarity, while single process models explain recognition in terms of a process that varies in strength. Dual process models have drawn support from findings that recollection and familiarity elicit distinct electroencephalographic event-related potentials (ERPs): a mid-frontal effect that occurs at around 300-500 ms post-stimulus onset and is often larger for familiarity than recollection contrasts, and a parietal ERP effect that occurs at around 500-800 ms and is larger for recollection than familiarity contrasts. We sought to adjudicate between dual and single process models by investigating whether the dissociation between these two ERP effects is reliable over studies. We extracted effect sizes from 41 experiments that had used Remember-Know, source memory, and associative memory paradigms (1000 participants). Meta-analysis revealed a strong interaction between ERP effect and mnemonic process of the form predicted by dual process models, although neither ERP effect was significantly process-selective taken alone. Mega-analysis of raw data from 6 studies further showed significant process-selectivity for both mid-frontal and parietal ERPs in the predicted time windows. The findings favor dual over single process theories of recognition memory but point to a need to promote sharing of raw data.

show abstract

Encoding focus alters diagnostic recollection and event-related potentials (ERPs)

Cited by 15 publications

References 47 publications

Cue overlap supports preretrieval selection in episodic memory: ERP evidence

Cue overlap supports preretrieval selection in episodic memory: ERP evidence

Interactions of Emotion and Self-reference in Source Memory: An ERP Study

Meta-analysis of ERP correlates of recollection and familiarity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About