2008
DOI: 10.1097/wnr.0b013e3282f4cf73
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Perceptual and semantic familiarity in recognition memory: an event-related potential study

Abstract: Putative event-related potential correlates of perceptual and semantic bases of familiarity in recognition memory were examined with a categorized pictures recognition test. Our participants were presented, at study, with pictures of categorized objects and, at test, with either the very same pictures presented at study, different pictures of studied objects, pictures of new objects belonging to studied categories, or pictures of completely new-uncategorized objects. We found evidence for a parallel evaluation… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Recent research has questioned the distinction between the FN400 and the N400 potentials (Voss & Paller, 2009;Boldini, Algarabel, Ibanez, & Bajo, 2008;Meyer, Mecklinger, & Friederici, 2007;Nessler, Mecklinger, & Penney, 2005;Curran & Cleary, 2003), a well-known marker of semantic processing (Schon, Ystad, KronlandMartinet, & Besson, 2009;Orgs, Lange, Dombrowski, & Heil, 2006Federmeier & Kutas, 2001;Castle, Van Toller, & Miligan, 2000;Kutas & Federmeier, 2000;Kutas & Van Petten, 1994;Bentin, McCarthy, & Wood, 1985;Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). This proposal provides a possible explanation for the results of our study.…”
Section: Tot and (F)n400supporting
confidence: 34%
“…Recent research has questioned the distinction between the FN400 and the N400 potentials (Voss & Paller, 2009;Boldini, Algarabel, Ibanez, & Bajo, 2008;Meyer, Mecklinger, & Friederici, 2007;Nessler, Mecklinger, & Penney, 2005;Curran & Cleary, 2003), a well-known marker of semantic processing (Schon, Ystad, KronlandMartinet, & Besson, 2009;Orgs, Lange, Dombrowski, & Heil, 2006Federmeier & Kutas, 2001;Castle, Van Toller, & Miligan, 2000;Kutas & Federmeier, 2000;Kutas & Van Petten, 1994;Bentin, McCarthy, & Wood, 1985;Kutas & Hillyard, 1980). This proposal provides a possible explanation for the results of our study.…”
Section: Tot and (F)n400supporting
confidence: 34%
“…受知觉和概念变量的双重调节 (Boldini et al, 2008), 既有知觉水平加工, 也有概念水平加工 (Bruett & Leynes, 2015;Yonelinas, 2002); 它对物体内在特征 敏感, 不受背景信息影响 (Ecker et al, 2007)。熟悉 性 主 要 表 现在 300~500 ms 额 区 (FN400, Frontal Negativity)的 ERP 新旧效应 (Curran, 2000;Rugg & Curran, 2007)。而回想则是对记忆信息性质(质)的 提取 (Evans & Wilding, 2012;Yonelinas, 2002), 更 多指向概念水平加工 (Bruett & Leynes, 2015;Yonelinas, 2002), Ecker et al, 2007); 它取决于编码过程、 当前信息的特征以及记 忆 背 景 等 之 间 的 相 互 作 用 (Leynes & Crawford, 2018)。回想主要表现在 400~800 ms 左侧顶区的头 皮 ERP 新旧效应 (Curran, 2000;Rugg & Curran, 2007) F(3, 72) = 6.56, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.22。进一步简 单效应分析表明, 在额区名称新旧与颜色一致性交 互显著[F(1, 24) = 6.07, p = 0.021, η 2 p = 0.22], 颜色 一致条件下, 旧名称波幅显著大于新名称[F(1, 24) = 25.62, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.52], 表现为新旧效应; 颜色 不一致条件下, 新旧名称波幅差异边缘显著[F(1, 24) = 3.66, p = 0.062, η 2 p = 0.13], 旧名称波幅更正。 在额中区, 名称新旧与颜色一致性交互显著[F(1, 24) = 7.51, p = 0.011, η 2 p = 0.24], 颜色一致与不一致 条件下, 旧名称波幅均大于新名称[F(1, 24) = 24.03, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.50; F(1, 24) = 4.89, p = 0.037, η 2 p = 0.17]。在中央顶区和顶区, 均发现名称新旧效应 24) = 6.07, p = 0.021, η 2 p = 0.20; F(1, 24) = 7.51, p = 0.011, η 2 p = 0.24]。该结果表明, 在额区、额中区, 颜 色一致名称引发更大的 FN400 新旧效应, 被试有更…”
unclassified
“…First, subsequent studies (e.g., Wagner, Gabrieli, & Verfaellie, 1997) have shown clear dissociations between the familiarity associated with explicit recognition and familiarity associated with implicit manifestations of memory. Second, several studies imply a substantial role of perceptual and conceptual processing in explicit familiarity-based recognition (e.g., Ally & Budson, 2007;Boldini, Algarabel, Ibañez, & Bajo, 2008;Boldini, Russo, Punia, & Avons, 2007;Ecker & Zimmer, 2009;Ecker, Zimmer, & Groh-Bordin, 2007;Groh-Bordin, Zimmer, & Ecker, 2006;Grove & Wilding, in press;Schloerscheidt & Rugg, 2004;Stenberg et al, 2006;Wagner & Gabrieli, 1998). Third, a line of research demonstrates quite well that recollection is fairly sensitive to changes in the perceptual characteristics of pictorial stimuli between study and test (e.g., Ally & Budson, 2007;Gardiner, Gregg, Marshru & Thaman, 2001;Gardiner, Konstantinou, Karayianni & Gregg, 2005;Rajaram, 1996;Verfaellie, Cook & Keane, 2003;Yonelinas & Jacoby, 1995).…”
Section: On the Role Perceptual Vs Conceptual Processing In Dual-promentioning
confidence: 99%