Expectations alter recognition and event-related potentials (ERPs)

Leynes, P. Andrew; Batterman, Alexander I.; Abrimian, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.011

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we also found that this FN400 is driven by higher response criteria. This is in line with findings from other studies on recognition memory (Azimian-Faridani & Wilding, 2006;Hill & Windmann, 2014) and the false memory effect (Andrew Leynes et al, 2019). The modulation of the FN400 amplitude by decision criteria suggests that executive processes contribute also to it.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…These have also been suggested to play an important role in the false memory effect (Benjamin, 2001;Roediger III et al, 2001) and depend on processing in the fronto-parietal cortices (Gallo, 2010;Kurkela & Dennis, 2016;Windmann, 2002;Ye et al, 2016). For example, Azimian-Faridani and Wilding (2006) explicitly manipulated criterion setting in a false-memory paradigm and reported more positive FN400 amplitudes in the conservative than in the liberal criterion condition (see also Andrew Leynes et al, 2019;Hill & Windmann, 2014). This brief summary of the (F)N400 literature demonstrates the difficulties in mapping cognitive processes to composite measures of brain activity such as EEG data (Irish & Vatansever, 2020;Renoult et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to say ‘no’ to a false memory: Leaky and noisy evidence accumulation during associative read-out

Sokolovič,

Hofmann

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The associative-read-out model (AROM) is an interactive activation model (IAM) of semantic and episodic memory, which has already predicted behavioral and neural data during recognition memory. The core AROM is a deterministic model containing the original IAM and a semantic layer, where long-term associations between words are defined by word co-occurrence statistics. Episodic traces on the other hand are reflected by the resting level activations of semantic word units. However, the AROM lacks an explicit decision layer. Here, we extend AROM with a layer encompassing linear leaky competing accumulators, where evidence accumulation is driven by the activation from the episodic-semantic layer. We fit the resulting AROM+ with individual episodic memory traces and decision parameters and show that it can account for accuracies and response times in a recognition memory task. Further it mechanistically shows that false and veridical memories are driven by the combination of the semantic and episodic memory signals. When exploring decision-related vs. mnemonic explanations of the N400, we find that the amplitude of the N400 is driven by episodic-semantic activation at frontal, central and posterior locations. This amplitude modulation is strongest over frontal electrodes supporting the view that the frontal FN400 is also driven by memory signals. In addition, the amplitude of the FN400 was influenced by the response criteria. In sum, the AROM+ provides a convenient tool for disentangling episodic, semantic, and executive processes in recognition memory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to say ‘no’ to a false memory: Leaky and noisy evidence accumulation during associative read-out

Sokolovič,

Hofmann

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…R/K judgments identified with fMRI are associated with neural activations in two distinct regions of the frontal cortex. These findings indicate temporal, spatial, and functional differences associated with R/K judgments, which together support dissociated cognitive processes (Hill and Windmann, 2014;Hoppstädter et al, 2015;Andrew Leynes et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Electrophysiological analysis of signal detection outcomes emphasizes the role of decisional factors in recognition memory

Schneider,

Coll,

Schnider

et al. 2024

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEvent-related potential (ERP) studies have identified two time windows associated with recognition memory and interpreted them as reflecting two processes: familiarity and recollection. However, using relatively simple stimuli and achieving high recognition rates, most studies focused on hits and correct rejections. This leaves out some information (misses and false alarms) that according to Signal Detection Theory (SDT) is necessary to understand signal processing.MethodsWe used a difficult visual recognition task with colored pictures of different categories to obtain enough of the four possible SDT outcomes and analyzed them with modern ERP methods.ResultsNon-parametric analysis of these outcomes identified a single time window (470 to 670 ms) which reflected activity within fronto-central and posterior-left clusters of electrodes, indicating differential processing. The posterior-left cluster significantly distinguished all STD outcomes. The fronto-central cluster only distinguished ERPs according to the subject’s response: yes vs. no. Additionally, only electrophysiological activity within the posterior-left cluster correlated with the discrimination index (d’).DiscussionWe show that when all SDT outcomes are examined, ERPs of recognition memory reflect a single-time window that may reveal a bottom-up factor discriminating the history of items (i.e. memory strength), as well as a top-down factor indicating participants’ decision.

show abstract

“…FN400 is typically reported during episodic memory (Bader & Mecklinger, 2017; Rugg & Curran, 2007), conditional reasoning (Blanchette & El‐Deredy, 2014), and categorization (Bruett & Leynes, 2015; Leynes, Bruett, Krizan & Veloso, 2017; Yang & Long, 2020). Based on the Discrepancy‐Attribution Hypothesis (Whittlesea & Williams, 2001a; Whittlesea & Williams, 2001b) and Selective Construction and Preservation of Experience framework (Leboe‐McGowan & Whittlesea, 2013), Leynes and colleagues (Leynes et al ., 2017; Leynes, Batterman & Abrimian, 2019) suggested that FN400 is a “familiarity experience” or “familiarity perception” arising from assessing processing fluency relative to expectations. Mecklinger and Bader (2020) further suggested that FN400 is related to familiarity in the experimental context.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The default‐interventionist model underlies premise typicality weakening the premise diversity effect during category‐based induction: Event‐related potentials evidence

Yang

Shu

et al. 2022

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Expectations alter recognition and event-related potentials (ERPs)

Cited by 13 publications

References 42 publications

How to say ‘no’ to a false memory: Leaky and noisy evidence accumulation during associative read-out

How to say ‘no’ to a false memory: Leaky and noisy evidence accumulation during associative read-out

Electrophysiological analysis of signal detection outcomes emphasizes the role of decisional factors in recognition memory

The default‐interventionist model underlies premise typicality weakening the premise diversity effect during category‐based induction: Event‐related potentials evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About