2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Perceptual difficulty in source memory encoding and retrieval: Prefrontal versus parietal electrical brain activity

Abstract: It is well established that source memory retrieval -remembering relationships between a core item and some additional attribute of an event -engages prefrontal cortex (PFC) more than simple item memory. In event-related potentials (ERPs), this is manifest in a late-onset difference over PFC between studied items which mandate retrieval of a second attribute, and unstudied items which can be immediately rejected. Although some sorts of attribute conjunctions are easier to remember than others, the role of sour… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
6
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 102 publications
(138 reference statements)
2
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar late prefrontal positive components have been observed in source memory tests that require participants to judge conjunctions of stimulus attributes as studied or unstudied, for instance whether a test word occurred in a previously studied list and whether it was spoken by the same voice (Kuo & Van Petten, 2006, 2008; Senkfor & Van Petten, 1998; Trott, Friedman, & Ritter, 1997; Van Petten, Senkfor, & Newberg, 2000; Wilding & Doyle, 1996). These episodic memory tasks share some formal properties of the categorization rule used here: 1) single stimulus attributes do not signal the correct response, which must be based on attribute conjunctions, and 2) single attributes are associated with multiple responses (i.e., studied words may require a response of “old same voice” or “old different voice”, just as the presence of a horse-like body shape here may require a “mog” or a “nib” response, depending on the other stimulus features).…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…Similar late prefrontal positive components have been observed in source memory tests that require participants to judge conjunctions of stimulus attributes as studied or unstudied, for instance whether a test word occurred in a previously studied list and whether it was spoken by the same voice (Kuo & Van Petten, 2006, 2008; Senkfor & Van Petten, 1998; Trott, Friedman, & Ritter, 1997; Van Petten, Senkfor, & Newberg, 2000; Wilding & Doyle, 1996). These episodic memory tasks share some formal properties of the categorization rule used here: 1) single stimulus attributes do not signal the correct response, which must be based on attribute conjunctions, and 2) single attributes are associated with multiple responses (i.e., studied words may require a response of “old same voice” or “old different voice”, just as the presence of a horse-like body shape here may require a “mog” or a “nib” response, depending on the other stimulus features).…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…These results are similar to the data published by Kuo et al (2008). The combined application of cathodal-anodal tDCS and d -CYC within independent experimental sessions, were examined in conjunction with mechanisms of homeostatic plasticity during a motor learning task.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…By these means, the verum drugs were able to induce a stable plasma level (Deleu et al, 2002) and produce prominent effects in the CNS (Nitsche et al, 2004a, 2006; Kuo et al, 2008). To avoid interference of plasticity induction by cumulative drug effects, each experimental session was separated by at least 1 week.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within the cortex, tDCS modulates synaptic strength and likely stimulates neurons in the cortex, pyramidal neurons, and interneurons (Stagg and Nitsche, 2011). Several neuromodulators such as GABA (Stagg et al, 2009), Na + and Ca 2+ channel blockers (Nitsche et al, 2004), l -DOPA (Kuo et al, 2008), and the D 2 receptor agonists (Nitsche et al, 2006; Monte-Silva et al, 2009) also have an effect on increasing and/or decreasing the effects of tDCS stimulation (for more see Stagg and Nitsche, 2011). Some progress in linking DNA genotypes with cognitive performance is underway.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%