Mild hypoxia disrupts recollection, not familiarity

Yonelinas, Andrew P.; Quamme, Joel R.; Widaman, Keith F.; Kroll, Neal E. A.; Sauvé, M. J.; Knight, Robert T.

doi:10.3758/cabn.4.3.393

Cited by 53 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the present results are consistent with other SEM studies using different recall and recognition tests in different populations. SEMs with the same dual-process assumptions have provided successful accounts of word recall and recognition by patients who have suffered cerebral hypoxia (24,33) and by elderly participants (25). Moreover, in the hypoxia studies, the 2-factor dual-process model provided a similarly superior account of the data over a single-factor model and an alternative 2-factor recall model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Impaired recollection but spared familiarity in patients with extended hippocampal system damage revealed by 3 convergent methods

Vann

Tsivilis²,

Denby³

et al. 2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

172

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To understand recognition memory, the detection of stimulus repetition, it first is necessary to resolve the debate between 2 fundamentally different models of recognition. Contemporary single-process models assume that recognition memory relies solely on the neural system required for the recall of prior events. Dual-process models assume that recognition comprises 2 independent forms of memory: one supports recall, and the other detects repeated stimuli by signaling their familiarity, the feeling of previous occurrence without the recall of any associated information. These 2 models were contrasted in patients who had undergone surgical removal of a colloid cyst, a condition associated with memory loss when accompanied by fornix and/or mammillary body atrophy. Comparisons were made between 2 groups of 9 patients that differed only with respect to the extent of mammillary body atrophy. Only the more atrophied group was impaired on tests of recall, but both groups showed normal recognition levels on a task that equates recall and recognition performance in normal participants. To explore the nature of this spared recognition, we estimated recall-based recognition and familiarity-based recognition using 3 distinct methods: self-report, receiver operating characteristics, and structural equation modeling. All 3 methods showed impaired recall-based recognition accompanied by intact familiarity in the most atrophied group, as predicted only by dual-process models. When structural equation modeling was applied to all 62 colloid cyst patients, the recall/familiarity dualprocess model best explained the patients' memory pattern. The convergent evidence that mammillary body atrophy impairs recall but spares familiarity-based recognition appears irreconcilable with single-process models.amnesia ͉ colloid cyst ͉ fornix ͉ mammillary body ͉ recognition

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Impaired recollection but spared familiarity in patients with extended hippocampal system damage revealed by 3 convergent methods

Vann

Tsivilis²,

Denby³

et al. 2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

172

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to findings from a body of behavioral studies (for a comprehensive review, see Yonelinas, 2002), there are also findings from animal and patient studies that are consistent with the view that two processes contributing to recognition memory are supported by different regions of the medial-temporal lobe (e.g., Aggleton et al, 2005;Fortin, Wright, & Eichenbaum, 2004;Holdstock et al, 2002;Yonelinas, Kroll, Quamme, et al, 2002;Aggleton & Brown, 1999;Vargha-Khadem et al, 1997), although there are also contradictory findings and interpretations ( Wixted & Squire, 2004;Yonelinas, Quamme, et al, 2004;Manns & Squire, 2000;Zola et al, 2000). There are also findings from functional magnetic resonance imaging and computational modeling studies of memory retrieval that are consistent with the claim that familiarity and recollection rely on different neural substrates (Davachi, Mitchell, & Wagner, 2003;Henson, Cansino, Herron, Robb, & Rugg, 2003;Norman & O'Reilly, 2003;Wheeler & Buckner, 2003;Eldridge, Knowlton, Furmanski, Bookheimer, & Engel, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

The Influence of Criterion Shifts on Electrophysiological Correlates of Recognition Memory

Azimian-Faridani¹,

Wilding²

2006

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract& The claim that event-related potentials (ERPs) index familiarity was assessed by acquiring ERPs during a recognition memory task in which participants were instructed to adopt different decision criteria in separate retrieval phases. In one, the instructions were to respond ''old'' only when confident that this was the correct response, and to respond ''new'' otherwise (the conservative condition). In the other, the instructions were to respond new only when confident that this was the correct response (the liberal condition). The rationale for this approach was that the level of familiarity licensing an old response would be higher in the conservative than in the liberal condition, and if ERPs index familiarity, this would be reflected in changes to the putative ERP index. This index comprises relatively more positive-going neural activity for correct judgments to old than to new items, which is evident from 300 to 500 msec poststimulus at mid-frontal scalp locations. In keeping with task instructions, participants made more old responses in the liberal than in the conservative condition. There were reliable mid-frontal ERP old/new effects in both conditions, and the ERPs evoked by correct judgments to words in the conservative condition were relatively more positive-going than those in the liberal condition. This finding is consistent with the view that the mid-frontal ERP old/new effect indexes familiarity, and in combination with other ERP findings, provides strong support for dual-process accounts of recognition memory. &

show abstract

“…Although the status of the relative recall/recognition impairment in amnesia is a matter of continuing debate (e.g., see Wixted & Squire, 2004a, 2004bYonelinas et al, 2004), studies showing a relative sparing of recognition memory in amnesia are typically interpreted with reference to the processes underlying performance on these tasks: recognition performance may be supported either by recollection or by familiarity, whereas recall performance depends largely or exclusively upon recollection. Amnesia may reflect a relatively greater deficit in recollection than in familiarity, resulting in disproportionate impairments in recall relative to recognition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing the salience of fluency cues reduces the recognition memory impairment in amnesia

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined whether the recognition memory deficit in amnesia would be attenuated under conditions that increased the salience of study-induced fluency. Studied and unstudied items were drawn either from separate pools of letters (no-overlap condition) or from the same pool of letters (overlap condition). Study-induced fluency was more salient in the no-overlap than in the overlap condition, because in the no-overlap condition, such fluency occurred at the letter level as well as at the word level. The recognition memory impairment in amnesia was smaller in the nooverlap than in the overlap condition. These findings are consistent with the idea that enhancing the salience of fluency cues promotes reliance on a fluency heuristic that ordinarily is not fully engaged in amnesia, and reduces the recognition memory impairment in amnesia. KeywordsMemory; Familiarity; Recollection Memory for a past experience can be based on recollection of specific details from the experience or on a sense of familiarity that accompanies re-exposure to information from that episode. For example, we might recognize a passerby as an acquaintance either because we recollect specific details from an earlier meeting (time, place, conversation, etc.), or because we recognize the face as familiar. Analogously, in a laboratory test of memory, we might judge that we have seen a particular word on an earlier list either because we recollect the specific associations that we had upon seeing the word before, or because the ease (fluency) with which we are able to process the word confers a sense of familiarity that we attribute to the prior encounter. These two bases for remembering have been formalized in dual-process models of memory that draw a distinction between the processes underlying recollection and familiarity (e

show abstract

Mild hypoxia disrupts recollection, not familiarity

Cited by 53 publications

References 49 publications

Impaired recollection but spared familiarity in patients with extended hippocampal system damage revealed by 3 convergent methods

Impaired recollection but spared familiarity in patients with extended hippocampal system damage revealed by 3 convergent methods

The Influence of Criterion Shifts on Electrophysiological Correlates of Recognition Memory

Increasing the salience of fluency cues reduces the recognition memory impairment in amnesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About