2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00113-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ERP 'old/new' effects: memory strength and decisional factor(s)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

19
132
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(151 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
19
132
0
Order By: Relevance
“…the inability to sufficiently differentiate the representations of different events owing to the relatively low learning rate, only a weak familiarity signal should be elicited by items repeated within the same context. This proposed increase in recollection is corroborated by a recent study asking the participants to memorize words that were presented either once (weak words) or three times (strong words) during a study phase (Finnigan, Humphreys, Dennis, & Geffen, 2002).…”
supporting
confidence: 57%
“…the inability to sufficiently differentiate the representations of different events owing to the relatively low learning rate, only a weak familiarity signal should be elicited by items repeated within the same context. This proposed increase in recollection is corroborated by a recent study asking the participants to memorize words that were presented either once (weak words) or three times (strong words) during a study phase (Finnigan, Humphreys, Dennis, & Geffen, 2002).…”
supporting
confidence: 57%
“…This peak represents the early automatic stage of word-processing, that is, the processing of welllearned stimuli such as letter strings (Hillyard et al, 1998). Consistent with previous ERP studies (e.g., Finnigan et al, 2002;Rugg et al, 1998), the 300-500 ms window was utilized to represent the N400 and the 500-to 800-ms window to represent the LPC.…”
Section: Data Analysesmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Hence, the increasing ERP positivity in response to an increasing number of repetitions may reflect a graded process: the stronger the memory trace, the more positive is the ERP in the 500-to 800-ms time window. Finnigan et al (2002) manipulated memory strength by having their participants memorize words that were presented either once (weak words) or three times (strong words) during a study phase. At test, ERPs to correct old decisions after the presentation of strong words were more positive-going than ERPs to correct old decisions after the presentation of weak words.…”
Section: Erp Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…hits in signal-detection terms, not misses, and usually not false alarms (but see Düzel, Yonelinas, Mangun, Heinze, & Tulving, 1997). There have, however, been dissenting opinions concerning the two-process account (Finnigan, Humphreys, Dennis, & GeVen, 2002;Yovel & Paller, 2004), which have questioned the dissociations of parietal and early frontal eVects or their associations with recollection and familiarity.…”
Section: Old-new Evectsmentioning
confidence: 99%