The contingent negative variation during a memory retrieval task

Roth, Walton T.; Kopell, Bert S.; Tinklenberg, Jared R.; Darley, Charles F.; Sikora, R; Vesecky, T.B

doi:10.1016/0013-4694(75)90226-6

Cited by 60 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several investigators have studied short-term memory processes using memory-scanning tasks originally described by Sternberg (1966Sternberg ( , 1969Sternberg ( , 1975 and correlated the electrophysiological data in normals with reaction time (Marsh 1975;Roth et al 1975;Gomer et al 1976;Adam and Collins 1978;Ford et al 1979;Pfefferbaum et al 1980;Gaillard and Lawson 1984;Kramer et al 1986;Starr and Barrett 1987). In this task individuals are asked to remember a short list of items, the memorized set, followed by a probe item.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain potentials in a memory-scanning task. I. Modality and task effects on potentials to the probes

Pratt

Michalewski

Barrett

et al. 1989

Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryEvent-related potentials were measured in normal young subjects during a memory-scanning paradigm modified from one proposed by Sternberg. The stimuli used were verbal (digits) and non-verbal (musical notes) with the verbal stimuli and notes presented acoustically and the verbal stimuli also presented visually. In this paradigm each set of stimuli was presented for memorization, and then, after a 2 sec interval, a probe item appeared and was identified by the subject as belonging or not belonging to the memorized set. Memorized set sizes of 1, 3 and 5 items were studied. The potentials are described in terms of scalp distribution, latency and amplitude, and are compared with behavioral descriptors of performance (accuracy and reaction time). These potentials are also compared with those evoked by an auditory target-detection task ('odd-ball' paradigm) in the same subject at the same session.The potentials evoked by the probe stimuli consisted of a positive (P50-90), negative (N100-150), positive (P185-225) sequence in the first 250 msec, followed by a later, long-lasting (approximately 700 msec) positive component (labeled P3). This positivity consisted of an earlier component (latency of approximately 350-400 msec) with a frontal distribution, followed by a larger and later parietal component. The amplitude of the frontal component and the latency of the parietal component varied with the number of items in the memorized set differently from behavioral reaction times. Stimulus modality also affected both the amplitude and latency of the sustained parietal positive potential. Memory processes associated with the P3 complex in the 'odd-ball' task and the long-lasting positivity in the memory-scanning task are discussed.Key words: Event-related potentials; Memory scanning; Stimulus modality; Task effect The P300 (or P3) component of event-related potentials, evoked by the detection of a rare target stimulus (the so-called 'odd-ball' paradigm), is considered endogenous, reflecting cognitive processes such as stimulus evaluation and, in particular, aspects of memory function involved in 'mem-

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain potentials in a memory-scanning task. I. Modality and task effects on potentials to the probes

Pratt

Michalewski

Barrett

et al. 1989

Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Delse, Marsh, and Thompson (1972) found that smaller CNVs are associated with more difficult discriminations in a tone discrimination task. Similarly, Roth, Kopell, Tinklenberg, Darley, Sikora, and Vesecky (1975) found a smaller CNV during a more difficult short term memory task. Considering these previous reports in conjunction with the present findings, it can be assumed that in early stages of learning the subjects are required to form "association bonds" between the fi rst and the second items, and are also required to discriminate the correct response items from the discrimination items.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Changes in contingent negative variation (CNV) as a function of paired associate learning

et al. 1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to investigate the effect of paired associate learning upon contingent negative variation (CNV). A total of 14 subjects were given paired associate learning items in a discriminative reaction time paradigm. The results obtained showed that as the frequency of correct responding increased the amplitude of CNV significantly increased and CNV resolution time and reaction time significantly decreased. The co-variation of CNV measures and improvement in learning suggests that both reflect similar psychophysiological processes.

show abstract

“…They found that CNV amplitudes were markedly decreased and RTs were increased when the duration of the foreperiod was irregular relative to a regular foreperiod. It is likely, therefore, that the negative potential appearing for several hundred milliseconds before the probe in a memory scanning task represents, to a large extent, an expectancy for the impending temporal appearance of the probe, as originally suggested by Roth et al (1975). The scalp distribution of the pre-stimulus slow potential in the memory task when the probe occurred at a fixed interval was central-parietal maximal, which is also consistent with the distribution of the CNV reported in other studies (Ruchkin et al, 1986(Ruchkin et al, , 1987(Ruchkin et al, , 1988Brunia et al, 1988;Frost et al, 1988).…”

Section: Slow Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Roth et al (1975) described a frontal slow negative shift appearing in the period before the probe that paradoxically decreased as the memory load (set size) increased. They considered that this negative shift was related to an expectancy for the appearance of the probe, a contingent negative variation (CNV), rather than to specific memory processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%