2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2013.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Semantic relations differentially impact associative recognition memory: Electrophysiological evidence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

14
61
5
4

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(84 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
14
61
5
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Following visual inspection of the averaged waveforms, the ERP data were analyzed in two time windows of 350-550 ms (early) and 550-750 ms (late) time windows, corresponding to the early mid-frontal and late parietal effects, respectively. These time windows are generally consistent with previous reports (e.g., Bader et al, 2010;Greve et al, 2007;Kriukova et al, 2013;Opitz, 2010;Wiegand, Bader, & Mecklinger, 2010), albeit falling in the later part of the range of effect latencies found in ERP recognition studies (reviewed by Mecklinger, 2000;Rugg & Curran, 2007;Wilding & Ranganath, 2011), seemingly due to increased demands posed by the retrieval of associative information, or due to the use of complex and perceptually rich stimuli, which characterize the present study in contrast to more common item recognition paradigms.…”
Section: Erp Data Segmentationsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Following visual inspection of the averaged waveforms, the ERP data were analyzed in two time windows of 350-550 ms (early) and 550-750 ms (late) time windows, corresponding to the early mid-frontal and late parietal effects, respectively. These time windows are generally consistent with previous reports (e.g., Bader et al, 2010;Greve et al, 2007;Kriukova et al, 2013;Opitz, 2010;Wiegand, Bader, & Mecklinger, 2010), albeit falling in the later part of the range of effect latencies found in ERP recognition studies (reviewed by Mecklinger, 2000;Rugg & Curran, 2007;Wilding & Ranganath, 2011), seemingly due to increased demands posed by the retrieval of associative information, or due to the use of complex and perceptually rich stimuli, which characterize the present study in contrast to more common item recognition paradigms.…”
Section: Erp Data Segmentationsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The late recollection-related LPC was also expected to index item recognition for both semantically related and unrelated pairs. However, while some previous studies report that associative recognition elicits LPC regardless of the occurrence of earlier familiarity processes (e.g., Diana et al, 2011;Greve et al, 2007;Rhodes & Donaldson, 2007Tibon et al, 2014), in other cases, modulation of this component was reduced, or even eliminated, when it followed familiarity-related activations (e.g., Bader et al, 2010;Jäger et al, 2006;Kriukova et al, 2013). The latter findings suggest that if familiarity is sufficiently mnemonically diagnostic to support recognition, recollection may be bypassed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although evidence for reduced recollection for unitized associations has been reported before in ERP Jäger, Mecklinger, & Kipp, 2006;Kriukova, Bridger, & Mecklinger, 2013) as well as fMRI studies (Ford et al, 2010), this finding has until now received only little attention.…”
Section: Reduced Recollection In the Definition Groupmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Other researchers have used a relation verification task to select their materials. In some cases, participants classified pairs of concepts as being taxonomically related, thematically related, or unrelated (Kriukova, Bridger, & Mecklinger, 2013;Maguire, Brier, & Ferree, 2010). In others, participants rated on a 7-point Likert scale the extent to which each pair is linked together in a common scenario or in a functional relationship (Jones & Golonka, 2012;Kalénine et al, 2012;Kircher, Sass, Sachs, & Krach, 2009).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%